home

Tuesday Open Thread

I've got a busy work day today. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Oscar Pistorius Takes the Stand | Freedom of Speech: Freedom of Protest >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 325 (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 09:09:28 AM EST
    She lacks confidence and any financial security. (link)

    v. 324
    v. 323
    v. 322
    v. 321

    Only 40 more comics to go to reach my 365 goal. After that...a very long break. My OCD tends to, you know, wear my fat ass out.

    Mrs. Dadler is out of town for a conference until Friday, so Mr. Dadler will be a scatter-brained moron. Forgive me in advance.

    I re-wrote vol. 325 (none / 0) (#140)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 10:40:52 AM EST
    Turned out, after a few hours, I thought the original was bullsh*t. Click on it and try the new one. Peace out, y'all.

    Parent
    For kdog (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:04:35 AM EST
    Here's a story where police have definitely gone too far.

    I will admit that the suspect is pretty cute.

    Egad (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:31:49 AM EST
    I am struggling to conjure a way to respond pointedly to this utter absurdity.

    Religious fundamentalism gone insane?

    And yet our own corporate fundamentalism does just as much damage, and arguably much more in its own disgusting way.

    To quote Louis Armstrong twice:

    "What a wonderful world."

    "If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know."

    Parent

    Yes... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 02:06:33 PM EST
    easy to poke fun at Pakistani justice here...but sh*t it's easy to poke fun at "justice" anywhere.

    To paraphrase Casey Stengel..."can anybody on this planet play this justice system game?"

    Parent

    It it very very easy (none / 0) (#187)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 05:21:39 PM EST
    Self hatred?? (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 07:53:59 AM EST
    And yet our own corporate fundamentalism does just as much damage, and arguably much more in its own disgusting way.


    Parent
    I am a corporation? (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 03:00:47 PM EST
    I don't know (none / 0) (#186)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 05:20:39 PM EST
    That baby looked pretty guilty to me.

    Parent
    But I'm honoring you, Dude... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by desertswine on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 09:10:44 PM EST
    Life imitates art. cartoon from 2002.

    Remember that big art "find" (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by scribe on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:42:52 AM EST
    in the Munich apartment of the son of Hitler's art dealer/launderer?  Well, the German prosecutors and governments (Land and Bund) on the one hand, and the son, on the other, made a deal.

    The governments will put out images of the art, preserve/conserve it, and work through the ownership issues and pay for the work to be done.  The son will help establishing provenances and ownerships and gets a walk.

    Images will be forthcoming, but there are some in this linked article from Munich Radio.

    jb - here's something you might (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 09:25:44 AM EST
    want to consider, via Bill Moyers:

    Let us first note that explaining why a phenomenon exists is not the same as demonstrating that it doesn't exist. It's not a "supposed pay gap" just because women pay an economic price for having kids.

    [snip]

    So our economy punishes women for the biological reality that they bear children. The AEI guys are apparently fine with that -- and want you to believe that it somehow renders the pay gap a "myth" -- but it's important to understand that it doesn't need to be this way. The US is one of only three countries -- along with Liberia and Papua New Guinea -- that doesn't require employers to offer maternity (or paternity) leave. When American women have a baby, their jobs often aren't waiting for them to return; in most other developed countries, they are. This is a big reason why only four high-income countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have larger gender pay gaps than the US.

    Perry and Biggs go on to argue that women are paid less because they choose to pursue degrees that result in lower earnings and work in fields that pay less than those dominated by men.

    There are two problems with that. First, as Bryce Covert pointed out in The Nation, men performing what have traditionally been seen as "women's jobs" make more than women do, just as women make less than men for doing traditional "men's work."

    [snip]

    There's also a chicken-and-egg issue here: do jobs seen as "women's work" pay less because they're inherently less valuable to society, or do they pay less because they're dominated by women?

    The gender pay gap is very real, and there are complex reasons for its stubborn persistence. But even accounting for all the differences in childrearing, career choices and education doesn't explain away the entire difference in earnings. While it's no longer socially acceptable, old-fashioned, Mad Men-style sexism is still around, and it still hits women in the wallet. Perry and Biggs use a paper -- one often cited by conservatives -- by two of their AEI colleagues to dismiss this reality, writing that when all other factors are accounted for, "labor market discrimination is unlikely to account for more than 5% [of the gap] but may not be present at all."

    The 77 cents-figure may be wrong, but the gap is real - and that, in my opinion, is what the president should have focused on.  Instead, by using a bad number, he opened himself up for all the crap that's followed, and he's managed to make something that is a real issue into one that people now regard as a political stunt.

    For Jbindc (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 08:16:26 AM EST
    You keep backing up my claims. The deep south voting early plays into the fact that a tea party candidate is more likely to be nominated.

    And there's really only two candidates that are going to play in the south and that's Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. None of the other ones are going to have much of a chance down here. So that kind of blows your theory about the tea party splitting their votes among many candidates.

    Have you ever thought that maybe the moderates have given up on having a candidate this time and maybe are just going to let the party nominate a tea party candidate? Let the candidate go down in flames? There's a civil war going on and maybe they can win by losing.

    Jeb Bush may be a stronger (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:45:54 AM EST
    contender for the Republican presidential nomination than it might appear at first bounce.   As governor of Florida he was not a moderate. He was as right wing as the "best" of them when considered within the period of his gubernatorial tenure (1999-2007).

     And, I am confident that he will show adaptability to update to the latest reactionary standards and demonstrate agility in not being out-mauevered in rightwingery.  Like the Bush presidents, Jeb is dangerous.  Unlike the others, he is smart.  His recent remarks on immigration were likely to have been politically calibrated--and may be sort of forgiven given his family considerations,  or at least, put in a box and swallowed hard by the tea party stalwarts. Especially, if it seems at the time, that he runs well against Mrs. Clinton.  

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 11:00:09 AM EST
    I wouldn't put it past the GOP to think that he would be a good candidate but how on earth does he tell the voters that he's not like his brother or his father? Both of them left office with ratings in the low 30's. He would seem to be another nail in the coffin of the GOP. If George W. couldn't finish off the GOP for good then Jeb probably will.

    Parent
    In many ways, J Bush (none / 0) (#50)
    by christinep on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 12:13:08 PM EST
    has the potential to out-maneuver the rest of the group.  IMO, he is the smartest, most adept, and the one who offers the possibility of enlarging the shrinking Repub national demographic.  But ... two major drawbacks confront him (1) The real wedge that the re-emergence of the Bush insider bunch represents for the party's already fracturing base.  That is just a hunch stemming from some casual conversations in past months with local (Denver metro area) Repubs wherein I teased about "who IS going to run from the Rs anyway?" followed by my remark that Bush seemed the strongest for a general election match ... the response in each of several cases was a loud, abrupt "No" with some words about Rove or the old crowd or the power shift, etc. AND (2) The growing sense that timing may not favor his entry in view of what would be an absence from elective office for a dozen years (an absence from the center of the party that has changed markedly during that time) coupled with the still unsettling memory that many in the country associate with the previous Bush.  A note also about the order of the primaries:  While it was mentioned elsewhere that JBush could be expected to do well in certain more northerly & populous states, isn't it equally accurate to point out that in the decidedly more conservative southern states which hold earlier primaries, those candidates viewed as more conservative than JBush would not only win but would build a larger share of delegates in the southern states that the Repubs reward with more delegates than the northern states?

    Parent
    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 12:23:56 PM EST
    ...isn't it equally accurate to point out that in the decidedly more conservative southern states which hold earlier primaries, those candidates viewed as more conservative than JBush would not only win but would build a larger share of delegates in the southern states that the Repubs reward with more delegates than the northern states?
     

    Because those states are early, all the Tea Partiers will still be in the race, thereby splitting their votes.  Assuming a field of let's say, JBush, Cruz, Walker, Ryan, Huckabee, and Paul.  Tea Party candidates may get 80% of the vote in the Alabama primary, but for ease, assume those votes are spread evenly among those candidates, that gives them each 14% of the vote, and still leaves 20% up for JBush.

    The better scenario for a Tea Partier to be successful would be to have all those Deep South states at the end, when some of the candidates had dropped out, thereby reducing their chances of split.

    But if the candidates go into March 15th with a 3 or 4 way tie among the Tea Partiers and a leader like a JBush, do you see a California or New York or New Jersey bumping a Tea Partier past a more mainstream candidate - someone who would stand a chance in the general?  I surely don't.

    Parent

    The only (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 12:39:02 PM EST
    two that are of any interest to tea partiers here in the south is Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. They have no interest in Walker. You have to remember how Republicans down here think. They are not going to vote for any candidate who is outside of the confederacy and that would elminate all but Cruz and Paul.

    This they're going to split their votes among all these other candidates is pure beltway fantasy.

    Parent

    Jeb Bush (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 12:41:11 PM EST
    might not even win Florida if Marco Rubio is in the mix. Marco Rubio would have no constituency in the confederate states though.

    Parent
    Jeb will win the hearts and minds (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 01:22:55 PM EST
    of much of the media--plucking, they think,  the Republicans out of the tea party abyss.  A suitable substitute for the previous savior, Chris Christie, who is on the ropes.  

    I agree that Jeb has an albatross or two around his neck, but Daddy Bush is a faded memory for most and the spinners are working hard on making W, the artist formerly known as President Bush, a misunderstood man who is a benign fellow just trying to free his inner Rembrandt.

    And, Jeb will bank on the dynasty issue being muted by a Bush/Clinton race.  As for that albatross on his far right shoulder, he will surprise even Cruz and Paul.  Wingers may wind up loving him believing in another "Romney landslide,"  after all,  even the tea party will take water after eight years in the desert.

    Parent

    What a dilemma a Jeb nomination (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 01:44:18 PM EST
    for all the Dems and former Dems who abhor a Clinton running for Pres.  

    Parent
    No dilemma... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 02:03:56 PM EST
    just because you won't vote for Clinton Corp. doesn't mean you'll settle for worse with your vote...Bush Corp.

    Any presidential ballot I ever punched had more than two names on it.

    Parent

    Blue stater--sure, pick the libertarian. (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 03:34:16 PM EST
    Last time... (none / 0) (#90)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 03:37:02 PM EST
    the Green edged out the Libertarian for my vote...getting arrested put Jill Stein over the top...it takes a real American to get arrested;)

    My personal 2016 also-ran race?  Too early to call.

    Parent

    lol - Gus Hall's ghost... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 09:14:10 PM EST
    Nothing supernatural required... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 08:47:43 AM EST
    I'd vote for a corpse over those two quasi-fascist quasi-oligarchs...any corpse will do;)

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 02:30:17 PM EST
    i see some of the ones who aren't too fond of Hillary actually running to her once the spectre of another Bush presidency presents itself. One of the reasons why I think the GOP will not end up nominating him. Too many people remember the horror that George W. presented the country with and I don't think too many are hoping for a repeat performance.

    Parent
    He will be a big story, that's for sure (none / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 01:35:11 PM EST
    Maybe the GOP honchos think any free publicity is good publicity.

    Parent
    Good point about the media, KeysDan (none / 0) (#65)
    by christinep on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 01:46:05 PM EST
    It is quite likely that a Clinton vs Bush story could be played as the great match-up. The two families at it again ... all the spinning stories can guarantee readership and unending variations.  Hmmmm.

    Oh, btw:  'Love the description of the "inner Rembrandt" aspect.  Yet, for me, my reaction to the recast is more akin to Edvard Munch.

    Parent

    I think W is channeling Shephard Fairey. (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 03:28:32 PM EST
    Naw (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 02:09:09 PM EST
    I'm not seeing it. They are not ready to vote for anybody especially someone shoved down their throats like another Bush would be.

    How does Jeb expand their base that has shrunk from 2012? I don't think after a decade of being trashed by the GOP most hispanics are going to go running over there. I'm sure Jeb will adopt all the fundamentalist stuff that Romney did in 2012. He will continue the war on women. Frankly as the GOP is currently constructed I just don't see how anybody wins against Hillary. Their base is dying off and they are not adding new voters to replace them.

    Parent

    Amen dan (none / 0) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 05:26:24 PM EST
    The "act of love" remarks were the result of two things.  A naked play for Hispanic support combined with the fact he is married to a Latina and could not do otherwise.  
    These may be his actual feelings on the subject but my point is he would cheerfully throw Hispanics and anyone else, including his mother, under the bus if it gets him elected president

    Parent
    What happens if Jeb Bush is (none / 0) (#4)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 08:52:47 AM EST
    convinced to come out of "retirement" and run?

    Interested in your reaction to Influential Republicans working to draft Jeb Bush into 2016 presidential race, from the end of March.

    Many of the Republican Party's most powerful insiders and financiers have begun a behind-the-scenes campaign to draft former Florida governor Jeb Bush into the 2016 presidential race, courting him and his intimates and starting talks on fundraising strategy.

    Concerned that the George Washington Bridge traffic scandal has damaged New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's political standing and alarmed by the steady rise of Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), prominent donors, conservative leaders and longtime operatives say they consider Bush the GOP's brightest hope to win back the White House.

    [snip]

    Many if not most of 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney's major donors are reaching out to Bush and his confidants with phone calls, e-mails and invitations to meet, according to interviews with 30 senior Republicans. One bundler estimated that the "vast majority" of Romney's top 100 donors would back Bush in a competitive nomination fight.

    "He's the most desired candidate out there," said another bundler, Brian Ballard, who sat on the national finance committees for Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008. "Everybody that I know is excited about it."

    Is this just a measure of desperation, or could you envision a scenario where Jeb ends up with the nomination as the least crazy of the current crop of possibilities?

    Parent

    Have you given up on Christie? (none / 0) (#5)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 08:55:10 AM EST
    Given up? Are you under the impression (none / 0) (#10)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 09:22:36 AM EST
    that I am or ever was in favor of Christie running for anything?

    You must have me confused with someone else.

    I was just asking someone's opinion about the Jeb Bush factor - if there is a factor.  I'm not going to be voting for any Republican, of any persuasion, and I haven't found a Democratic candidate I'd want so badly that I have to root for someone crazy to win the GOP nomination.

    I find the whole thing depressing, actually, no matter who's running.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 09:36:44 AM EST
    he's confusing you with jbindc.

    Parent
    And wrongly of course (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 09:59:33 AM EST
    Since I was never FOR Christie either. But it's a good meme that a few folks around here have, especially those who don't understand words typed on a screen.

    But I'm NOT backing up your claims.  There are many Tea Party candidates supposedly running.  They will split the Deep South votes, which are the early votes, allowing a more moderate to come in and get the rest by the time the primaries move to places where the Tea Party is not as strong.

    I don't understand why you keep saying I'm proving your point, when I'm clearly showing the opposite - a way that NO Tea Partier will get enough votes to head into the later part of the primary season with a lead, let alone to the nomination.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:12:46 AM EST
    you kept saying that Christie could win the nomination which I knew he could not and that was even before all his scandals started up.

    None of this is rocket science. Just look at the numbers for the GOP: 25% moderates, 75% radicals whether they call themselves tea partiers or whatever they are still fundamentalist radicals. And these radicals are not going to go along with what the GOP establishment tells them this time.  

    Parent

    Sorry Anne I wasn't fully functioning yet (none / 0) (#47)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 12:00:33 PM EST
    Personally I don't think he would win (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 08:56:35 AM EST
    southern primaries, not even Florida. Can he get the nomination without that? I have not done the math, and won't this early. But I think Jeb is a DOA candidate even if they do convince him - but I also think he and Barbara are too smart to be convinced.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 09:11:31 AM EST
    I may not like the guy's politics, but I do think he's smart enough to understand what he and his family will go through, and it won't be pleasant, running for Prez. But I've been wrong before.

    Parent
    He wouldn't (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 09:38:12 AM EST
    win here in GA for sure. I'm expecting Ted Cruz to win the GA GOP primary. Even Rand Paul probably isn't far enough right for the GOP wacko birds down here.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 09:36:21 AM EST
    I knew this. They had abandoned Christie and were going for Jeb but the problem is his last name. No amount of money can overcome that last name.

    Parent
    And if not for the last name... (none / 0) (#29)
    by unitron on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:32:38 AM EST
    ...(or more specifically if not from that family) would he even have "Former Governor of Florida" on his résumé?

    Parent
    Add this (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:03:05 AM EST
    Could Jeb Bush win over the Christian right?

    Answer:  maybe, at least some of them.  

    But contrary to popular perception, it's not just members of the party's establishment wing who are urging the former Florida governor to considering running. More quietly, prominent social conservatives are also nudging him toward a White House bid.

    "Jeb Bush is an attractive candidate for evangelicals that adhere to a pro-faith family and religious freedom agenda," the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, who serves as president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, told RealClearPolitics. "He resonates on multiple levels. His optics on faith, his strong narrative as it pertains to his conservative leadership in Florida -- those credentials speak for themselves."

    One of the nation's most influential Hispanic evangelical leaders, Rodriguez cited Bush's appeal to religious minority groups that have been "discouraged by the Republican Party" as a particularly enticing prospect for the GOP.

    SNIP

    His vocal and longstanding support for immigration reform, in particular, may be a political winner in a general election setting, but it harkens back to the breach in party orthodoxy that helped sink Rick Perry's White House hopes in 2012.

    But many religious conservative leaders have in recent years become more vocal in supporting the emotionally charged issue of immigration reform. Leading pro-immigration voices on the Christian right such as Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, have drawn explicit comparisons between Jesus' treatment of foreigners and how the U.S. should welcome outsiders.

    And a Pew Research poll conducted last year found that 62 percent of white evangelical Christians believe unauthorized immigrants should be granted a way to stay in the country.



    Parent
    The problem (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:09:32 AM EST
    isn't that he couldn't get SOME of them but enough of them which is not going to be happening.

    If Jeb Bush got say 10% of them and then got ALL the moderates that would only amount to 35% which isn't enough. And again, his last name is so poisonous. He just can't get past it and I think the guy might be smart enough to realize that his idiot brother ruined his chances of being president FOREVER.

    Parent

    I Dunno (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:11:54 AM EST
    Jeb Bush has branding. BushCo..  

    And if Hillary runs, it will be one hated brand against another.

    My bet would be Jeb getting the nomination.

    50 cents.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:19:22 AM EST
    you certainly can never underestimate the stupidity of people that vote in GOP primaries but that being said, you have to realize that he is going to be taking a lot of incoming from the likes of Rand Paul on the foreign policy failures of his family and then Ted Cruz among others. He doesn't have enough of a base of support within the GOP to win I would think.

    Anyway, I'm sure Hillary would salivate at the chance to go after Jeb Bush. Let's see a Clinton economy (5% UE) vs. a Bush economy (economic collapse). That is such a gimme.

    Parent

    His last name might be the problem (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:13:11 AM EST
    But you keep saying it's about the TEA PARTY! which, if you note, I did not specifically mention just Jeb Bush, just I never said that Christie would absolutely win the nomination before his implosion.  What I have been consistent on is the fact that, in my opinion, I do not think there is any way a Tea Party darling is going to get the nomination.  You seem to think the TEA PARTY is running the world - I disagree, and think they don't have nearly as much power as you think they do.

    Parent
    The tea (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:23:09 AM EST
    party of whatever they call themselves. It doesn't matter. They all share the same radical beliefs.

    You are wrong about the tea party. You don't understand how these people think. The more the GOP elite push one of their candidates the less likely the people who vote in primaries are to vote for them. Their way of thinking is that they are the same people who pushed McCain and Romney and they lost. So they believe that any candidate that the GOP elite is pushing is a SURE LOSER. The tea party or fundamentalist radicals or evangelicals or whatever name you want to call them comprise 75% of the GOP. Now you tell me how someone who is not a tea partier is going to get past those numbers?

    Parent

    Link? (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:33:22 AM EST
    The tea party or fundamentalist radicals or evangelicals or whatever name you want to call them comprise 75% of the GOP.

    I will disagree with your numbers, and as I said, 2016 is a long way off.

    Parent

    What exactly is going to change (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:37:53 AM EST
    between now and 2016? The GOP has been running on the same platform for decades. They gave lip service to changing in 2012 after the last presidential election but that went nowhere. And you know why it went nowhere? Because of the types of voters the GOP base is comprised of. So unless they find new voters there's not going to be anything that changes.

    Parent
    polling from (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:36:00 AM EST
    democracy corps.

    link

    Parent

    Old survey (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:48:41 AM EST
    Still old, but newer than yours.

    CBS / New York Times

    While 41 percent of Republicans see their party's nominees as about right, a third thinks they are not conservative enough. Tea party Republicans, who make up 42 percent of Republicans, would pull their candidates further to the right; 50 percent say their party's candidates are not conservative enough. By comparison, 67 percent of Democrats think their candidates are about right

    So, we could trade poll for poll all day, but I still think you way overestimate their numbers.

    And the election is two years away....

    Parent

    42% (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 11:03:46 AM EST
    plus and another 1/3 equals about 75% does it not?

    Parent
    I don't think the math works that way. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 11:20:55 AM EST
    But I've been doing taxes non-stop for days, it feels like, so what do I know?

    Parent
    Forget the math (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 11:32:31 AM EST
    and look at the behavior. These people are afraid of crossing the tea party in general.

    Parent
    Whose afraid of the Tea Party? (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 12:09:01 PM EST
    The establishment is pouring millions of dollars into local and state elections to defeat them as we speak.  You think John Boehner is afraid of them???

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    they are trying to defeat them but the Koch brothers are also spending millions to support tea party candidates. So it's not like it's a one sided thing. The GOP has created a monster and it's either going to be slayed or it's going to be eaten by the monster.

    Parent
    Yes, we know you believe this (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 01:52:33 PM EST
    You said this in 2012.

    It didn't happen.

    Parent

    What didn't happen? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 02:13:10 PM EST
    You said the Tea Party (none / 0) (#135)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 10:00:37 AM EST
    and crazy right wingers would never let Romney get nominated.

    It didn't happen.

    Parent

    You are (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 10:16:10 AM EST
    confusing me with someone else. I said that Romney WOULD get nominated. I said that the GOP voters would come out and vote for him just like they were told. I said McCain would get nominated in 2008 too. I keep making the point to you that things are different now. They are not going to do what they are told anymore. And you also have to realize that tea partiers will tell you right off that either they don't care about winning elections or they think that Romney and McCain lost because they were moderates.

    Why are you so desperate to say that the tea party is dead? I sure WISH like heck they were. I'm beyond sick of them and their crazy crackpot legislation which I have to deal with EVERY DAY.

    Parent

    They have (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 12:59:58 PM EST
    John Boehner by the short hairs. Yes, he is afriad of them. He won't even bring things up to a vote because of them. It's so obvious I don't know why you don't see it.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 12:11:10 PM EST
    Some of those people in the "1/3" are the same people in the 42%. (Probably all of them in this particular survey).

    Adding those numbers together waaaayyyyy overestimates the number of Tea Partiers.

    Parent

    They control the (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    party. If they weren't such a threat would the establishment be running ads against tea party candidates? Of course not. Americans for Prosperity is a tea party group loaded with a ton of money from special interests.

    Parent
    I think the establishment - in whatever arena (none / 0) (#74)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 02:20:26 PM EST
    establishments exist - will fight to maintain the status quo, because those inside want to stay there.  And those on the outside want to be on the inside.

    Clearly, the Kochs and Sheldon Adelson want to be on the inside calling the tune, not on the outside fighting to get in; their money has bought them a fair amount of power, and it's possible that whoever does end up on the ticket won't get there without selling his - or her - soul until the end of time.  I don't know that I have ever seen anything quite as disgustingly, ass-kissingly obsequious as the quasi-Dating Game that went on last week with Adelson.  Exhibit A in why we desperately need to fund elections with public money only.

    In my mind, the real threat isn't the Tea Party, it's people like the Kochs and Adelson that are funding their agenda.

    When all is said and done, I wish I had the feeling that the Democrats were thinking about something more than the inevitability of Hillary Clinton; it's not too soon to work on platform issues, and I don't want to see them diddling around for the next year assuming that "not Republican" is all the definition Democrats need in order to win.

    Parent

    I agree with (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 02:26:59 PM EST
    you on the funding.

    Well, I hope that Hillary is not going to be taking anything for granted. Sometimes people learn a lot more from losing than they do from winning.

    Look at the bright side: Sheldon Addleston is not too bright when it comes to picking winning candidates. In case you don't remember he blew through tens of millions funding crazy Newt.

    Parent

    In a lot of ways, (none / 0) (#80)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 02:41:55 PM EST
    it is still early days.
    Although a whole lot has changed in political campaigning since then, when Jimmy Carter entered the Democratic Presidential primaries in 1976, he had something like a 2% name recognition, and was given very little chance of winning the nomination by those supposedly "in the know."
    Heck, Richard Nixon supposedly did not decide (or, at least, he did not tell his family that he had decided) to run for President again until late in 1967, barely one year before the election.  And who would have thought that Richard "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore" Nixon, would have run again, and won?
    As I said, campaigns have changed in a lot of ways.  But there may (and I stress may) be a dark horse out there, on either side.
    I pretty much doubt it, but you never know.    ;-)

    Parent
    I don't understand how people have (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:47:34 AM EST
    managed to forget the cavalcade of clowns on display at the last GOP primary debates, and how, one by one, they got the hook, as a national audience got to see just how insane they were.

    I just don't for one minute buy the theory that somehow, the problem was that they weren't radical enough, and that the GOP establishment is going to take some crazy pills and let the good times roll.

    I think there will be a TP presence, but I don't believe they can win with a TP ticket.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 11:02:48 AM EST
    I don't think they can win with a tea party ticket but the GOP base seems to think they can. Remember McCAin and Romney were billed as moderates and they lost. However, even if say a Jeb Bush could get the nomination he would be ruined just like Romney was by the GOP primary. You can't hold moderate views on anything and have to sign onto all the tea party crackpottery to get through the primary.

    Parent
    As you've pinpointed before, Ga6th, (none / 0) (#53)
    by christinep on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 12:30:11 PM EST
    the Tea Party is not just the formalized group, because it is indisputable that significant far right notions have traversed the one-time clearer dividing line between the Tea Party subset and the broader Republican Party.  If I am reading you correctly, you are not simply saying that the likely Repub candidate will come from inside the group that calls itself the Tea Party but that said candidate will noticeably share many of the "values" pushed over these years by the Tea Party.

    IMO, it is naïve to look at today's Republican Party and not see the continued rightward drift that has resulted in a kind of merger or gobbling up of almost any major Repub would-be national candidate resembling a "moderate."  

    Parent

    Mitt Romney (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 12:50:42 PM EST
    is a perfect example of what the GOP primary does to candidates. He couldn't even talk about how MA has some of the best public schools in the nation or the fact that MA has or had the highest percentage of insured citizens in the country. No, Mitt Romney had to act like he was the Gordon Gecko governor of a state like South Carolina.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:50:54 AM EST
    I think there will be a TP presence, but I don't believe they can win with a TP ticket.

    And with a much shortened calendar, the crazies won't have as much free air-time, nor will they be able to raise the cash they once did, since many mainstream Republican groups are raising money to keep them out.

    Parent

    35% for a "moderate" (none / 0) (#136)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 10:11:22 AM EST
    Would win every early primary state, as the 4 or 5 other candidates would split the Tea Party / conservative vote.

    And as for your "they have been losing their base since 2012" meme...

    As of last month, 25% of the people surveyed identified themselves as Republicans (that's actually up from last summer).  30% identified as Democrats (which number has slightly dropped since last summer).  Know where those two numbers were on Election Day in 2012?

    Identify as Republicans - 30%
    Identify as Democrats - 35%

    So BOTH parties have lost about 5% of those who identify with them, i.e. "their base".  If you add in those who are "leaners" those numbers are:

    Identify as Republicans - 42% (Election Day 2012) / 42% (last month)
    Identify as Democrats -  50% (Election Day 2012) / 47% (last month)

    And yet again, the primary lection season is 2 years away....

    Parent

    Sorry - here's the link (none / 0) (#137)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 10:11:51 AM EST
    This (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 10:21:06 AM EST
    splitting the tea party vote is a beltway fantasy. It comes from the same place that thinks the tea party would split off into a separate party. it's all fantasy. There are going to be one or two tea party candidates that rise to the top and one of them is going to be the nominee. It's not rocket science. There are no moderates left in the GOP that could win. you are talking about "in theory" this ro that could happen but to believe that fantasy you have to ignore the basic fact of WHO votes in the GOP primaries. The people who come out for primaries are the most rabid of them all.

    Parent
    Ga6th: Question about the Repub primaries (none / 0) (#150)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 12:02:13 PM EST
    Do you recall whether the first or front-end primaries in 2016 will be loaded with more delegates that the later more northerly ones?  I seem to recall that--in the Repub primaries--states like Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, and Florida carry more weight proportionately than the more populous (and "bluer") states?  

    Parent
    You didn't ask me (none / 0) (#154)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 12:28:49 PM EST
    And this isn't "official", but I think it's a start to answer your question.

    California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Georgia have the most delegates.  But rounding out the top ten include Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Illinois.  All but one of those 6-10 in the north, and where a Tea Party candidate will have a tougher time.

    Parent

    PA (none / 0) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 12:39:32 PM EST
    GOP nominated a tea party candidate for Governor. So did Michigan and Ohio. So technically there are only three of those states where a tea party candidate probably would not win--NY, CA and IL.

    One thing you have to realize is that republicans all over the country have been infected by the same disease that infects the one here in the south. the CA GOP even ran a birther in the primaries that garnered quite a few votes. You really need to accept the fact that the GOP base has gone off the rails.

    Parent

    When did (none / 0) (#168)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 02:19:23 PM EST
    Michigan nominate a Tea Partier for governor?? You mean Rick Snyder? Heck even the local Tea Party groups in Michigan mock him for not being conservative enough. Check your facts - yes, he's conservative, but not a Tea Partier.

    Ohio?  John Kaisich?  Funny how he will probably have a Tea Party challenger then (even if he claims he was a "Tea Partier before the Tea Party"). Again -yes, he's conservative, but he isn't bowing down to those people.

    So a Tea Partier is running in California?  So what?  He's going to get trounced by Jerry Brown in November anyway.

    One thing YOU have to realize is that just because you may live among some crazy Tea Partiers does not mean that all Republicans across the country are like those in your area.

    Parent

    Snyder (none / 0) (#172)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 02:39:09 PM EST
    was a tea party darling until recently. They came out against him once he started considering taking the Medicaid expansion.

    John Kasich was a tea party darling back in 2010 along with Snyder. But Kasich took the Medicaid expansion like Snyder did or was considering and that was all it took for the tea party to find another "darling".

    When I bring up CA I'm just using it to show you that the disease that is the tea party does not only exist in the south. It's eating up the entire GOP.

    I have said time and again that there are moderates but they do not control the GOP. The radicals control the party. Look at the radical legislation Snyder and Kasich both put forth. It's one of the reasons they are both in danger of losing in November. The voters even voted down what Snyder did and he undid what the voters did. If that's not a radical tea party agenda I don't know what is. Again, this is not rocket science. Have you looked at some of the actual crackpot legislation the GOP house has put forth that has had almsot all of the reps signing onto? You pay too much attention to the beltway stuff which is fed to the press by the GOP elite who want to downplay the fact that the inmates have taken over the assylum.

    Parent

    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 12:55:14 PM EST
    about the delegate numbers but generally speaking the south decides who the nominee is. 2012 may have been the lone exception to that.

    The GOP may even be looking at a brokered convention if they can't settle on just one.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#155)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 12:30:17 PM EST
    There are going to be one or two tea party candidates that rise to the top and one of them is going to be the nominee.

    Let's leave it at that.

    Parent

    Look (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 12:40:12 PM EST
    no further than our own resident tea partier Jim. He's even saying that a tea partier is going to be the GOP nominee.

    Parent
    From Charlie Pierce (none / 0) (#109)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 06:44:04 PM EST
    The problem is that, even more than Willard Romney was, Jeb Bush remains the walking definition of electoral schizophrenia. The Base has no use for him. The family brand is still dinged up, perhaps beyond repair; everyone from the activist left to the Tea Party right has one reason or another to be sick of the Bush family. The only thing Jeb has going for him is the thing that will doom him in the primaries -- his occasional forays into mock moderation. And I haven't even brought up his craven performance in helping to turn the death of Terri Schiavo into a media circus complete with bomb scares at elementary schools and death threats against judges. I offer this as an "act of love," Jeb. Don't listen to them. Stay home.


    Parent
    Yeah, I saw that...just love the way (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 07:57:25 PM EST
    Pierce has with words.

    Funny thing is how all of a sudden Jebbie's getting a look - he's not a moderate, I agree completely with Pierce on Jeb's sordid pandering in the Schiavo debacle.  He's one more guy who shines up well, looks respectable and can string sentences together fairly well.

    But his ideas are as rotten and wrong as any of the other clowns who seem driven to run for public office.  

    Far as I'm concerned, the worst thing Jeb has going for him is that cold-hearted witch of a mother; can't even imagine what being raised by someone who thinks the Astrodome after Katrina worked out well for all those poor people would do for one's psyche.

    God, it's only April of 2014, and I'm already sick of the politics.  We're going to end up with someone who's been bought and paid for by some bunch of plutocrats who just want to make sure they can keep making oceans of cash, the rest of us be damned.

    Parent

    I guess the (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 08:30:34 PM EST
    GOP is starting early this time and instead of picking up a crackpot and discarding him or her, they're now starting with the so-called moderates and then discarding them.

    I hope Jeb knows that he can't win and just stays home. Even if he's in the race for a very short period of time you are going to be hearing his mother over and over again. Which even a few short months would probably be way too much.

    Parent

    But at least Jeb does not have the (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:12:24 AM EST
    adopted southern accent of his brother.  That is a mercy.

    Parent
    That Texas (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:28:55 AM EST
    twang was so annoying. The whole fake cowboy thing was really annoying. The fake ranch. It was all a fake put on for the "rubes".

    I think Charlie Pierce said it best about old Jebbie. There's no there there.

    Parent

    Jeb won't run (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 07:42:48 AM EST
    He has exactly zero chance because of his immigration comments and I think he knows it.

    I see candidate Walker as Prez and either Cruz or Jindal as VP.

    Parent

    I think your prediction is the most likely I have (none / 0) (#144)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:28:01 AM EST
    seen. I always forget about Walker.

    Parent
    Also hailing from Wisconsin (none / 0) (#146)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:51:25 AM EST
    ... Paul Ryan.  That joust between Ryan and Walker could be fun to watch.

    Parent
    Ryan (none / 0) (#152)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 12:24:09 PM EST
    Is in line and wants the Chair in the House Ways and Means Committee (being vacated by Dave Camp).

    Parent
    Mt Rushmore (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 08:27:35 AM EST
    So, if you feel compelled to continue justifying our own government's continued illegal confiscation of the Black Hills by noting the fate of other indigenous peoples in our country, just because you consider yourself an art lover and think a national park has a great gift shop, then I feel sorry for you. Because for all your liberal inclinations and pretensions, you really don't get it.

    If you and others are not enjoying Mt Rushmore because of US government arrogance abominably disrespectful attitude towards Native Americans, you are focusing on a pea when there is a tsunami of horror and injustice that you, Jondee, and all americans are ignoring in order to function on a daily basis.

    Enjoyment of Mt Rushmore as a work of art, albeit on the kitsch side, has nothing to do with the Lacota dispute.

    If the tribe wins back the land and destroys the sculptures, or remakes them into Native American icons, that will be OK too.

    But for now, all this business about money, which is basically what it is 150 years after the fact, is a commercial dispute between people. It just so happens that Mt Rushmore exists in a place where there is dispute.

    Sure, I would love to see the Sioux get all the land back. That would make me feel better. Do I want them to get my apartment, and the park that I enjoy too. well not really.

    Do I want the Native Americans to be in charge of the US, considering that we invaded and conquered them, and be deported to some sh!t hole, like we did to them, NO.

    I guess my deep empathy does not lead to action when it comes to my own survival, and interests.


    Commercial dispute (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 09:21:17 AM EST
    If that's what it is, and if commercial sort of law is applied fairly, then you have to find in favor of the Sioux, IMO. When you violate every treaty you sign with a people, you give up all claims to be representing anything marginally approaching justice. Give it back, let them do what they want with it. And it would set a wonderful example to admit the wrong and remedy it. End of story, to me anyway.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:00:57 AM EST
    I have no problem with that, but it has zero to do with enjoying the artwork at Mt Rushmore.

    And if the Sioux take it down, change the name of the mountain and never let a white man (or black yellow green etc) step foot on the land no big deal.

    Things change. Nothing is permanent.

    Parent

    My intial comment (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 03:25:04 PM EST
    never had anything remotely to do with the aesthetic merits of the carvings on Rushmore. I wouldn't give a damn if the work had been done by a team of two hundred Rodins; it'd still be a vile insult and a desecration.

    You've been arguing with an imaginary adversary.

    Parent

    they might even stop selling things (none / 0) (#149)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 12:00:13 PM EST
    you like in the gift shop. Though, that could be going too far..

    Parent
    Speaking of gift shops (none / 0) (#151)
    by fishcamp on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 12:22:13 PM EST
    the best one on the Mt. Rushmore road is at the Mt. Rushmore caves where you finally exit the maze of caves directly into the gift shop.  It's very tacky but fun.  

    Parent
    That wrong was already acknowledged, ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 05:15:57 PM EST
    ... when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its 1980 ruling in United States v. Sioux Nation. The present argument is over the proposed remedy.

    The U.S. is offering a cash settlement that as of this writing stands at $1.4 billion, which the Sioux have rejected. Further, if one goes back to the initial 1875 federal offer to purchase the Black Hills, the Sioux have refused such cash offers for 139 years now, and have repeatedly stated that they want the Black Hills returned to them. And for their part, local white residents fear being displaced from their homes, should the tribes' sovereignty of the region be restored.

    And for all this, we can thank the vainglorious and intemperate Brig. Gen. (Brev.) George Armstrong Custer. Because 140 years ago in the spring of 1874, and on his own volition, he led the 7th Cavalry into the Black Hills illegally, under the ruse that the regiment was railroad surveyors exploring a proposed new route for the Northern Pacific Railroad.

    In reality, Custer's incursion was really the initial step in an ultimately successful land grab of the Black Hills on behalf of U.S. gold mining interests. It was also, as the Sioux attempted to point out to President Grant and his administration in their subsequent requests that Custer's troops and the accompanying miners be removed from Indian lands, a clear violation of the provisions of the 1868 Treaty of Ft. Laramie, which had awarded the Black Hills to the Sioux in perpetuity only six years earlier.

    That set in motion a subsequent, predictable and quite tragic chain of events, which two years later quite rightly cost the flamboyant but headstrong Custer and 260 men under his command their lives at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, and led to the present legal circumstances which exist today in the Black Hills.

    "I pass through the land of Custer's Last Stand and I grin.
    So this is where Old Yellow Hair's Ghost Dance begins."

    -- John Hiatt, "Your Love Is My Rest" (Walk On, 1995)

    For his part, Gen. Custer made a series of horrible blunders in the hours leading up to the Battle of the Little Bighorn on June 25, 1876. Initially, he made a conscious decision to ignore the direct orders of his superior Gen. Phil Sheridan that the 7th Cavalry was only to reconnoiter and fix the exact location of the Indians, and was not to engage them before the rest of Sheridan's command could arrive and deploy.

    Secondly, once his scouts had located the site of the vast Indian encampment along the Little Bighorn, where the Sioux and their allies had retreated following their initial successful repulse of attacking Army columns commanded by Gen. George Crook at the Battle of the Rosebud one week earlier, Custer made no effort whatsoever to ascertain the size of that village or the number of warriors he might be facing. Rather, he made an impetuous and reckless decision to immediately attack the Indians head-on, even as his own scouts pleaded with him not to do so because the Indians were now aware that the 7th was on top of them.

    Finally and most fatally, in the face of his own ignorance regarding the true size of the opposing force facing him, which some modern estimates place at well over four times his own strength, Custer then further divided his 600-man regiment into three separate columns, by battalion. Leaving one column with his supply train, he sent the other two scurrying off in entirely different directions, each out of contact with the other (and leading one column of troops himself), in a foolhardy attempt to envelop an encampment of some 12,000 to 15,000 Indians, which further included perhaps 3,000 very well-armed warriors.

    "Benteen: Come quick! Big village! Bring pacs! P.S.: Bring pacs!!"
    -- The final handwritten communique sent by Gen. George A. Custer, to Capt. Will Benteen at the 7th's supply train (June 25, 1876)

    The tremendous disparity in opposing forces was such that the battle's outcome was never in doubt at any time. Custer and his own column of 215 men were quickly overwhelmed well before they could ever locate the Indians' left flank, and by some estimates were completely wiped out within thirty minutes of their initial contact with the 2,000 Sioux and Cheyenne warriors led by Crazy Horse, as they realized their folly and vainly attempted to entrench themselves along the bluffs overlooking the Little Bighorn River and the village itself.

    The 175 soldiers of the other attacking column led by Major Marcus Reno were easily and simultaneously repulsed by the 1,000-plus Sioux and Arapaho warriors who had remained to defend the right flank of the vast Indian encampment. The survivors in Reno's command were then driven back upon the remaining column under the command of Captain Will Benteen, which was advancing per Custer's orders from the rear with the 7th Cavalry's supply train. Together, they hunkered down at a place now called Reno's Hill, where the remnants of the 7th Cavalry were then besieged by the Indian allies.

    "I am only too proud to say that I thoroughly despised the man."
    -- Capt. Will Benteen, speaking about his late superior Gen. Custer before a U.S. military commission convened to investigate the Little Bighorn disaster.

    Having lost 46 men of their own with another 103 wounded in this terribly ill-considered assault, these remaining 440 soldiers escaped with their lives only because the warriors engaged them for as long as it took the thousands of Indian non-combatants to pack up their encampment and retreat, before departing the battlefield themselves. They knew full well that Gen. Sheridan and his own 2,000-strong column were only two days behind Custer and fast approaching.

    Ironically, and unfortunately for the Sioux Nation and its allies, their success at the Little Bighorn had disastrous long-term consequences regarding their possession of the Black Hills, because the first news of Gen. Custer's horrific debacle finally arrived on the east coast some nine days later, on July 4, 1876 -- which, of course, coincided with the very culmination of the United States' own centennial celebrations.

    Upon hearing the news, which quickly overshadowed the ongoing public patriotic events, people were at first stunned and then enraged at what happened to the 7th Cavalry at the Little Bighorn. That anger quickly gave way to a grim national determination to give the Sioux and their allies no quarter, and to avenge the so-called massacre of U.S. troops at the hands of red savages.

    It was therefore inevitable that the Indians would be soon defeated by the winter of the following year, their lands duly confiscated, and most survivors exiled to the Standing Rock and Pine Ridge reservations in Dakota Territory.

    A sizable group of about 1,200 Sioux led by Sitting Bull sought the protection of the British Crown by fleeing to Canada. But the British and Canadians didn't want them, and while they made no attempt to drive them out they also did nothing to help them. By 1881, Sitting Bull and his people had drifted south and back into U.S. territory, where they were subsequently rounded up and also sent to the Dakota reservations.

    In the meantime, the federal government declared that the Black Hills were in forfeit by the Sioux for a war which the Indians had neither sought nor commenced, and had fought only because they had been wrongly attacked by federal troops in the first place.

    That's a quick historical background regarding how this most regrettable current impasse over the Black Hills came about.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The Grand Wurlitzer (none / 0) (#182)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 03:51:20 PM EST
    seemed to be spinning even then, in the 1870s. For decades the version of events proffered to the American public was, for the most part some variation of the later They Died With Their Boots On. Dramatic Currier & Ives prints and such of the captain going down with the ship surrounded by savages -- a story probably good for recruitment and demonizing the Indians further.

    Custer basically had his men slaughtered when a little basic reconnoitering could've determined that he was a attacking one of the largest Indian villages ever assembled with 200 men..According to Black Elk, the Souix medicine man, the main part of the battle may've been over in as short a time as twenty minutes, in which time Custer's detachment was basically reduced to a giant greasy spot on a hillside.

    Parent

    ... on your apartment building. Again, this is about the tribes' legitimate legal claims to the Black Hills, It has absolutely nothing to do with either the fate of the Ponca or Native Hawaiians or any other indigenous people currently under U.S. jurisddiction, or the fact that you think the four heads adorning Mt. Rushmore are absolutely fabulous.

    Were the Sioux to eventually regain their rightful sovereignty over the region, I seriously doubt that we'll subsequently see the Mt. Rushmore sculptures get blown to smithereens, Taliban-style, or that American visitors will be denied access to see them.

    Rather, the only difference will probably be that the Sioux Nation would then control the park concession and derive its financial benefits thereof, rather than the federal government. And that is how it should rightfully be.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Get over yourself, Squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:53:49 AM EST
    this isn't about anti-art philistinism, or people who want to spoil your weekends and gift shop jaunts, and no one is ignoring the larger picture of the history of U.S government viciousness, treachery and racism in dealing with the Lakota Souix. That was the reason I brought up your favorite giant paper weight/movie backdrop in the first place. You are aware of the fact that the Black Hills are/were considered sacred land by the Souix and Cheyenne people, right?

    Bringing up Rushmore as a symbol - and potent symbol it is - was just a hyperbolic jumping off point to a (hopefully) more inclusive discussion of the history and struggles of Indians in this country.  

    Parent

    Shorter squeaky and Jim: (none / 0) (#161)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 12:44:34 PM EST
    "Come quick! Big village! Bring packs!"

    Parent
    Sacred? (none / 0) (#202)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:37:07 PM EST
    hahahahahah...  What a load.

    I guess that all of a sudden you have become a fan of organized religion.

    I am certainly in favor of the Lacota getting all their land back, and treble damages of the value the sacred gold that was removed.

    Also, it would be fine for me if the Lacota erased the presidents from their sacred site and put up as many Native American heroes or gods.

    Got it, you were using the Monument to start a discussion about US citizens historic and current decimation of Native Americans and their culture.

    Sad story. Certainly does not make Mount Rushmore the Monument less interesting than it is as a Visual statement.

    Parent

    Squeaky, the so-called (1.00 / 6) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 07:50:19 AM EST
    Native Americans arrived some 10,000 years ago and were busy pushing each other off their land right up to the day the Europeans showed up with better technology and better culture.

    Human sacrifice and cannibalism didn't stand up well to the Europeans offerings, as bad as we think they were when compared to modern mores.

    Parent

    They were at the time 400 distinct (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:57:48 AM EST
    people who spoke 400 different languages.

    They didn't all practice cannibalism anymore than all red staters wear white hoods and blow up churches.

    You really just revel in that ignorance sometimes, don't you, Jim?


    Parent

    That has to be a trick question (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 05:30:13 PM EST
    Or a rhetorical one

    Parent
    Right you are, Jim, because ... (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 12:34:23 PM EST
    ... accusing people of witchcraft and sorcery and then hanging them, while imprisoning others on similar charges, was just so much more civilized and refined than the cultural practices of Native Americans.

    But that was all so late 17th century, and white people have sure come a long way since then. How about the base enslavement of millions of people in the United States until 1865 because of their skin color, and their subsequent wholesale repression and discrimination for another century-plus thereafter? Or the wanton slaughter and extermination of millions upon millions of people throughout continental Europe from 1940 to 1945, for no reason other their ethnicity and religion?

    Does the fact that both southern European-Americans and Germans considered themselves at the time to be the most civilized and cultured peoples in their respective regions of the world, somehow excuse or mitigate the barbarous acts they visited upon other human beings?

    Your supposition of white European cultural superiority is as big a crock as your argument that climate change is somehow a hoax.

    Mano a mano, the only primary practical advantages that white people of European descent enjoyed over Native Americans in the Western Hemisphere and other indigenous peoples in the Pacific and Africa were their population numbers, their firearms and their innate physical immunity to certain diseases such as measles and chicken pox. Period.

    But quite honestly, all that's neither here nor there with due regard to the actual topic we had been discussing previously, which was the legal disposition of claims to title the nine tribes constituting the Sioux Nation have staked upon the Black Hills region in the north-central United States. And based upon our nation's own laws, per the U.S. Supreme Court's 1980 ruling in U.S. v. Sioux Nation, those claims have been upheld as legitimate.

    Therefore, the current argument in that case centers not upon validity, but rather remedy. All other extraneous arguments about the fates suffered by other native peoples -- and whether you consider those fates to have been pre-ordained or otherwise -- are completely and totally irrelevant.

    And in this particular instance, those arguments have served only to envelop both you and squeaky fully in your own rhetorical dust clouds, and thus obscure the core issue in your own minds.

    Sometimes, I wonder whether some people actually prefer it that way, in order to avoid having to confront the conundrums posed by their own logic.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Great video on Warm Spring Ranch in MO (none / 0) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 08:33:53 AM EST
    Warm Springs Ranch is where the Budweiser Clydesdales are bred and where scenes of a Budweiser commercials were shot.

    The video has scenes with with baby Clydesdales. At the moment there are 15 at the ranch with 13 more on the way. Warm Springs ink

    I have never seen a Clydsedale colt (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 09:23:28 AM EST
    Like giant Great Dane puppies with those huge feet.

    Parent
    If you and your family are ever in MO, (none / 0) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 09:39:14 AM EST
    the tour of the Warm Springs Ranch in Boonville, MO is definitely something the whole family would enjoy. You need a reservation and there is an admission price but it is very well done. The adults in the group also get 2 free beers so you definitely get your money's worth.

    Parent
    My brother-in-law lives in St. Louis (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:22:16 AM EST
    We get there every few years. And my wife and he grew up in KC, so we're always liable to go between the two, and Boonville looks to be about halfway. Next time we're there I'll give it a look see. Thanks for the tip. ;-)

    Parent
    Plus, my wife LOVES horses (none / 0) (#27)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:23:50 AM EST
    Used to ride as a girl, hang out at the stables, I'm sure she would love it. Thanks again.

    Parent
    They have started staggering their (none / 0) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 12:13:35 PM EST
    breading schedule to have babies available for viewing year around. They are even more adorable up close and personal. Also, they have one of their adult, retired Clydesdales available to pet and for pictures.  

    Remember you need a reservation. From what I've heard they are not difficult to get, but you do need one.

    Parent

    Also remember . . . (none / 0) (#72)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 02:17:50 PM EST
    to check out their Dalmatians while there :) Still doing the job they were bred for and riding, running with the teams.

    Parent
    A Dalmatian was walking around one of the (none / 0) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 02:41:24 PM EST
    viewing areas when we went. He came up and interacted with our group primarily sniffing people who had dogs of their own. Friendly but went his own way when he got bored with a particular individual.

    The area had huge archways leading out onto other areas. Before we left, the Dalmatian walked to the middle of the entrance/exit area and left a present for everyone. The guide didn't see the humor and was somewhat embarrassed.

    BTW, all the buildings are spotless. Much cleaner (not to mention grander) than most homes.


    Parent

    Two free Budweisers? (none / 0) (#100)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 05:41:31 PM EST
    No, thank you. I'll take a pass on the cheap American beer, but a tour of the Warm Springs Ranch itself and the sight of baby Clydesdales would certainly be worth the admission price all on its own. I like Budweiser's Christmas commercials much better than the product being advertised.

    Parent
    Lovely! (none / 0) (#102)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 05:43:29 PM EST
    When my kids were little, on a visit to their grandparents in St. Louis, we took them to Grant's Farm, where they had a wonderful time, and were able to see a bunch of the Anheuser- Busch Clydesdales.
    I don't even know if Grant's Farm still does this?
    And, BTW, it is called "Grant's Farm" because it used to be owned by Ulysses S. Grant.  Auggie Busch, Sr., purchased the property in the early 1900's.
    Which I am sure that you are aware of, MOBlue, but I doubt that many people outside of Missouri know.    ;-)

    Parent
    Yes, you can still tour Grant's Farm (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 06:14:55 PM EST
    The admission is free but it is $12 to park your car. Reservations are not required. A really fun place to visit. You can see mature Clydesdales at Grant's Farm but no babies. To see the babies you must go to Warm Springs Ranch.

    Visiting Grant's Farm

    We have a wide variety of attractions - perfect for all ages - at Grant's Farm! Park in our visitor's parking lot and head towards the stables at the end of the lot to visit the home of the world-renowned Budweiser Clydesdales. Hop aboard our tram (located across the street and in front of the General's Store) and take a guided tour throughout our 160-acre Deer Park to learn about the history of Grant's Farm, see Grant's Cabin, and meet the diverse array of animals living there. The tram will drop all guests off at our Tier Garten to enjoy goat feeding, carousel rides, animal and elephant shows and camel rides. For adults 21 and over, a sample of an Anheuser-Busch product is provided to taste and enjoy. We look forward to your visit!  



    Parent
    It does (none / 0) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 05:31:47 PM EST
    For a time I worked for Busch. New got passes.

    Parent
    For Anne - to answer your question (none / 0) (#32)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:36:07 AM EST
    Here's is a response to your question from a non lefty...

    Jeb Bush would be a formidable candidate.  Keep in mind all this talk of crazy republicans blah blah blah was also the chatter in 2012 and who did republicans nominate?  

    Mitt Romney.

    In my view Jeb has much better street cred with the "crazy right" then Mitt Romney.

    Also Mitt won the nomination despite being unable to challenge Obama on his one glaring weakness...Obamacare.

    No such obstacle exists for Jeb, maybe immigration but he is one of many on this subject and he has plenty of time to craft that message.

    He will raise a ton of money and eventually square off against a more tea party type candidate and if he's motivated he'll win.

    A national presidential primary is not a local state or community primary.   It is a series of elections in all sorts of states and typically the better candidate prevails.

    If Jeb Bush decides to run he has a very good chance of winning.

    I for one don't look forward to a Clinton Bush election (especially after seeing the two buddies enjoying the game last night) but it is unfortunately looking more likely.

    He can't (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:53:28 AM EST
    change his last name can he? I'm sure Hillary would be salivating at the chance of taking on a Bush. Economic collapse and another war vs. peace and prosperity? It's a gimme.

    Parent
    Bush can't change his last name, but (none / 0) (#79)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 02:41:38 PM EST
    I think the same applies to Hillary, doesn't it?  That same-last-name thing probably doesn't hurt Hillary with Dems, but it isn't going to help her with anyone else, I don't think.  Pretty sure Bill's still considered pretty high up on the "public enemy" list.

    I think there will be some clues how this is going to go - Jeb's already been out there giving more speeches, and I think he had a little one-on-one with Adelson, if I'm not mistaken.  If the media can't have Christie v. Clinton, I think they'd be just as happy to have Bush v. Clinton - so keep an eye on what the media's doing, because that's going to drive a lot of this, I think.

    As an exercise in political handicapping, this is all mildly entertaining; the reality that the election is going to set a course for the country for the next however-many years continues to be a lot less entertaining, and a lot more depressing.  If there's a bigger establishment candidate than Hillary Clinton, I don't know who it would be, and honestly, if there's an organization that needs shaking up, an establishment that needs new and more liberal blood, it's gotta be the Democratic party.

    And that's why I'll likely be voting Green.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 03:13:41 PM EST
    but you have to realize the Big Dawg left office with close to a 70 point approval rating and both Bushes left with an approval rating in the low 30's.

    Most of the people who don't like Bill are people that are not going to vote for any Dem.

    She'll either convince you to vote for her or she won't. I happen to think she will.

    And if she was as establishment as you think the party would not have done what they did to her in 2008.

    Parent

    I don't have to realize anything, actually. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 04:01:28 PM EST
    Bill Clinton left office almost a decade and a half ago - a virtual political lifetime ago.  So what if he had a high approval rating then?  Do you think people would be so approving then if they knew he had set the stage for the banking meltdown of 2008?

    And I don't care what you say, Hillary is the definition of an establishment Democrat. The reasons are many for why she got pushed around and treated so badly; the "change" meme worked against her, for one, and anyone on the inside - and some of us on the outside - knew that Obama may have looked like "change," but he was in no way going to be "different" than what the establishment expected from their candidate.

    But go ahead, stomp your feet, be stubborn and insist Hillary isn't establishment; I'll be over in the corner snickering.


    Parent

    He was able (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 04:08:24 PM EST
    to pull Obama over the finish line in 2012. Reagan was 1/3 of a century ago and the GOP still talks about him like they have not won any presidencies since then.

    BTD has debunked that one about banking so I will let him explain that one.

    I'm not going to stomp my feet. I'm just saying if she was so establishment she sure was not treated that way in 2008. I always thought that Obama was more establishment from the standpoint that he could be "controlled" and Hillary was more of a loose cannon for the establishment. Remember the establishment wasn't all that hot on Bill either back in the day.

    Parent

    ... and is licking his wounds after the Gators' disappointing Final Four loss to UConn. He didn't even bother to post any odds for yesterday's men's championship game. I bet if you reach his voice mail, you'll probably only hear some guy muttering a nearly inaudible string of profanities under his breath before the beep comes to leave your message.

    ;-D

    Parent

    You have (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 10:57:08 AM EST
    to remember too that the GOP primary can turn any candidate into a raving lunatic. Unless Bush can do a sister souljah on the fundamentalist radicals that are controlling the GOP right now he's got exactly zero chance of winning a national election. We all know how Bushes promise things and then do a 180 once in office.

    Parent
    I humbly disagree (none / 0) (#71)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 02:13:33 PM EST
    A strong candidate will appear to battle Hillary and the 2016 election will swing on how happy the nation is as a whole with the leadership of Obama.

    If he's middle of the road to popular then Hillary could walk away with it.

    If the country is fed up with him then she has a big hill to climb, unless the republican is a total loser but I don't foresee that.

    See 1992, 2000, 2008 as my evidence.

    Even a personally popular Clinton couldn't push Gore over the finish line.

     A fed up nation put Obama in the Whitehouse rather easily.

    A happy nation essentially gave Reagan a third term by putting Bush in the Whitehouse.

    Dems are kidding themselves if they see Hillary as anything other then a Wahington insider who comes with tons of political and historical baggage.  

    She will have a tough narrative to make that her policies will be different then Obamas if Obama is still stuck in the low 40's when it comes time for his theoretical re-election.

    What if Obamacare is still a disaster?  How does the inventor of Hillarycare claim she'll be the person to fix the fledgling federal program?  What if were still stuck in neutral after eights years of Obamas economic stewardship?  How does she separate herself from his foreign policy?

    In addition with her political notoriety comes a history of votes, actions and narratives and Mrs. Clinton has plenty.   Some good, some bad.  Depending on your point of view of course.

    How does she attack Jeb for being a Bush when she is a Clinton?  Another Dem could make the argument and Jeb has never served in Washington.   All the sudden she is more of the same and he is the Washington outsider who will fix what ails us.

    In my view Obama is her biggest challenge and right now he is not sowing the seeds for victory in 2016.  

    Parent

    Bush VS. Clinton? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 02:57:34 PM EST
    Oh, wow that is such a gimme. Let's see we had a roaring economy under Clinton and a disaster under Bush. We had a terrorist attack, we had the housing collapse, we had the stock market collapse, we were lied into a war. No baggage Hillary has can top the baggage a Bush would have. Heck even the people that aren't thrilled with Hillary would run to the polls to vote for her to keep from having another disastrous Bush administration. Even Obama's lackluster economy would beat anything a Bush was offering.

    And as George Will said: reminding people of George W. Bush is enough to keep the GOP out of the white house for a generation. And you think putting forth a candidate with the same disastrous name is going to win? Both Bushes left the white house with approval ratings in the low 30's.

    And I'm sure the GOP will do a darn good job of driving even more women voters away with what they will say about Hillary. They just can't seem to help themselves.

    Go with Rand Paul. At least he would be bringing in some voters other than aging evangelicals and unreconstructed dixiecrats.

    Parent

    First of (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 02:46:32 PM EST
    all I think this is wishful thinking. It's more of the same that brought defeat to the GOP in 2012. The GOP thought in 2012 that the country would be so unhappy with Obama that they would turn him out.

    Since 2012 the GOP has done nothing but run voters away. They have lost voters because their base is dying off and they are not replacing them.

    People also remember the horrors of the Bush Administration. Is the GOP going to lie us into another war? Are they going to collapse the economy again? We all know they profess to do this or that but then when they get into office they'll do the same thing George W. Bush did.

    Hillary was not in congress during Obama's term. Hillary had nothing to do with any of his economic decisions. And you guys have been raising the spectre of the primary fight between Hillary and Obama in your own presidential campaigns over the years. How are you going to explain away you guys doing that?

    I think the GOP is kidding themselves. They have this attitude the the voters are going to ignore all the hideous legislation that they have put forth in congress. I'm sure Hillary will do very well reminding everyone of their crackpot legislation like giving legal personhood status to a fertilized egg.

    The people who think like you do are 1/3 of the nation. Where is the GOP going to get about 20% more voters from?

    And the electoral college is biased against the GOP. The only way the GOP can win the presidency these days is by some razor thin type Jimmy Carter win.

    And is the GOP going to offer anything new in the way of economic solutions? Candidate after candidate have been offering nothing more than more failed trickle down and more failed trickle down? Is the GOP going to modernize their platform? Or are they going to add yet even more backwards items to it?

    And remember George W. Bush couldn't even win the popular vote in 2000 and since 1992 the Dems have won the popular vote in presidential elections five out of six times.

    I'd never say that the GOP couldn't win because you never know but right now the GOP is headed on a collision course with death rather than winning presidential elections. The strategy for the GOP is to get more of the white vote. Well, if Obama got Dukakis' white vote percentage in 2012 and still managed to win the GOP absolutely cannot win with the way it is constructed right now.

    Parent

    Jeb won't be nominated (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 07:57:41 AM EST
    But the Left is just in a tizzy wanting him because he can't win and they know it.

    The south will absolutely stay home and no Repub can win without them.

    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 08:20:11 AM EST
    Actually if I had a dream ticket to run against it would be any ticket with Ted Cruz on it.

    Yeah, you are right. The south would sit home but any candidate that makes the south show up is also a ticket that goes down in a landslide.

    Parent

    And, so we see the "fruits" of (none / 0) (#133)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:18:38 AM EST
    the infamous Nixonian Southern Strategy.

    Parent
    I'm (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 10:55:10 AM EST
    not so sure that Jeb couldn't win.

    I would not have believed that a blithering idiot like his brother could have won against someone as seemingly intelligent and experienced as Gore.

    And that goes for GHW Bush too.

    And that goes for Reagan.

    All laughable.

    Yet they won.

    And now Reagan is an idol and an airport.

    Parent

    If not Jeb, (none / 0) (#129)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 08:09:31 AM EST
    who in your opinion will be the Rebuplican nominee?


    Parent
    "The New Yorker" cover, (none / 0) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 11:06:34 AM EST
    April 14, 2014.   One of its most clever, in my view: All the children lined up to take their medicine, Boehner crying; McConnell, boy and grown-up, all in one; Bachman, in her party dress; Cruz in his little boy jamys, all rosy cheeked; Miss Lindsey in shorts; and R. Paul within ear shot.   Some wags suggested that Paul Ryan was depicted on the anatomy poster, but I disagree, no backward baseball cap--more likely Ryan's blueprint to skin Medicare.

    Oh my (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 11:09:28 AM EST
    that depiction of Mitch. I wonder how that would play back home in KY?

    Parent
    Love it - definitely going to grap a jpg (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 01:05:38 PM EST
    Thanks for pointing out Miss Lindsey - I did not figure that out.

    Parent
    "Miss Lindsey"? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 05:56:57 PM EST
    Whodat?

    Parent
    Lindsey Graham (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 06:24:45 PM EST
    Though I prefer the nickname bestowed by maybe Charlie Pierce (?) Senator Pissypants.

    Parent
    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 09:40:25 PM EST
    Amateur historian that I am, I've sometimes referred to Lindsay Graham as the living reincarnation of Sen. William Rufus King (1786-1853) of Alabama, who had long labored in Washington under the derisive nickname of "Aunt Fancy" -- a 19th century euphemism for an effeminate man or homosexual -- that was bestowed upon him by no less than President Andrew Jackson.

    President Jackson further opined openly to others his firm suspicions that King was the lover of then-Sen. and future President James Buchanan (1791-1868) of Pennsylvania, and also disparaged Buchanan to others in public, calling him "Miss Nancy." (And people think Washington gossip is tough today!)

    King lived with Buchanan in D.C. for 10 years between 1834 and 1844, when he was appointed ambassador to France by President John Tyler. In conversations with others, he referred to his relationship with Buchanan as a "communion." From many contemporary accounts at the time, they were inseparable, attended most official Washington functions together, and appeared to be quite content in one another's company.

    Neither King nor Buchanan ever married, and both remained lifelong bachelors. (Buchanan had once been officially engaged in 1818 to Anne Coleman, daughter of a prominent and wealthy Philadelphia industrialist, but the relationship soon foundered when she began suspecting him of wanting to marry her for access to her family's money. She broke off the engagement, and died shortly thereafter, reportedly by suicide from an overdose of laudanum.)

    Most of the correspondence between King and Buchanan, written while apart from one another for extended periods, was subsequently destroyed by their respective family members after their respective deaths, but author James Loewen suggested in a May 2012 article in Salon.com that what survives -- while certainly circumspect, given 19th century attitudes toward sex in general and homosexuality in particular -- lends strong credence to the rumors that they were in fact a same-sex couple.

    Further, per historian Robert Watson in his 2012 book Affairs of State: The untold story of presidential love sex and scandal, 1789-1900, Buchanan had written the following to wrote his distant cousin Cornelia Roosevelt, sohrtly after King's departure for Paris in May 1844:

    "I am now solitary and alone, having no companion in the house with me. I have gone a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I feel that it is not good for man to be alone, and should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection."

    I wonder what the folks at Politico would've thought of all that, had they been around back then?

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Obamacare costs money (none / 0) (#73)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 02:20:03 PM EST
    What?

    I thought it was gong to reduce costs?

    How is this possible?

    I'll tell you how.  There is no free lunch.  More coverage of more people with additional care costs money.   This is the inevitable outcome of providing more.

    But to tell the truth would have been sticky politically so they lied or convinced themselves that smart policy could defy the realities of economics.

    you guys (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 03:09:02 PM EST
    are doing a great job proving that the for profit health insurance model doesn't work. I'm sure Hillary will use it as a reason to open up Medicare to everybody since the insurance companies are going to be charging too much. Within ten years we'll probably have single payer in this country.

    Parent
    Medicare: a great name for single payer. (none / 0) (#115)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 09:28:46 PM EST
    You paint with a braad brush (none / 0) (#85)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 03:25:10 PM EST
    This is the cost of premiums in the individual and small group markets, in some states. Pretty narrowly defined cost increases.

    Parent
    Plus, there is no way to know now what the costs (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 03:27:04 PM EST
    would have been without the ACA, no matter what these providers and analysts choose to blame the costs increases on now. What were they blaming their 20-50% increases on prior to the ACA?

    Parent
    They were blaming (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 03:33:24 PM EST
    hospitals, doctors and pharmaceutical companies. The pharmaceutical companies, doctors and hospitals were blaming the insurance companies. They had a great "look over there" thing going on. Now they can use Obamacare as their excuse.

    At one point in time our insurance company told us they had to jack up our rates 20% back in 2002 becase essentially they were afraid of Bill Clinton and once George W. Bush got in office they knew they could raise them with no problem.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#93)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 04:44:47 PM EST
    This is why I think Obamacare is not going (none / 0) (#94)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 04:49:21 PM EST
    to be the magic bullet the GOP is hoping for in the midterms or 2016. People may not have direct experience with all the issues, but they do with health care. The facts on the ground will determine the issue. I in no way think Obamacare is perfect or what I preferred, but I do believe many more people are helped than hurt. All the GOP whining is going to to ring false to people that have been helped.

    Parent
    It's not. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 04:56:38 PM EST
    All along I have said the same thing: it's a wash. Some people are going ot have problems, some people are going to get better insurance and then a lot of people it basically doesn't change much for them.

    I'm just tired of hearing the GOP scream about it. A lot of this reminds me of 1998 when they were sure that everybody in the country hated Bill Clinton as much as they did but it didn't work out for them.

    I'm just really tired of all their temper tantrums and childish behavior about everything. I mean everything.

    Parent

    Yes, I have been agreeing with you (none / 0) (#97)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 05:18:20 PM EST
    Mostly silently....finally had a few free minutes today!

    Parent
    They are going to have to crank up (none / 0) (#98)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 05:20:21 PM EST
    the manufactured outrage machine on another topic. God knows what it will be.

    Parent
    Benghazi (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 05:42:01 PM EST
    BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI!!!! BEEEEEEENNNNNGGGGGHHHHAAAAZZZIII!!!!!!
    I can already hear them screaming it now. I guess they'll be postulating a new conspiracy theory about it any day now.

    Anything that will fleece the "rubes" for more money.

    This is one of the reasons I don't care much for Obama. He had a chance to shut these nuts up and instead of shutting them up, he gave them mouth to mouth.

    Parent

    Yup, huge mistake letting them off the hook (none / 0) (#108)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 06:28:53 PM EST
    I understand the impulse to disengage with idiots, but that is not how to shut this particular breed up.

    Parent
    I like when the conservative pundits (none / 0) (#99)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 05:25:21 PM EST
    get pushed and they always fall back on "Well, you can't deny the rollout of the web site was a disaster", as if that is going to have any sticking power a year after the fact. Ask Apple how many people still care about the faulty antennas on the iPhone 4.

    Parent
    What (none / 0) (#142)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 10:48:15 AM EST
    I read is that the number of uninsured has gone down to the level it was in 2008 when Obama took office.

    That is, I suppose, progress...

    Parent

    Last one I promise. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 02:41:23 PM EST
    Is their a pay gap in this country?

    Some say no.   To explain why there isn't I give you Jay Carney.

    When Obama was attaching his typical straw man today was he really talking about Jay?

    Just what we need to fix a societal issue that is complicated.  Another set of federal regulations.  I guess lowering the oceans has already been accomplished?

    There IS a wage gap (none / 0) (#123)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 07:37:23 AM EST
    But no, it isn't the "Women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns" that keeps being trotted out.

    And now it seems, the Democrats won't really have this as a huge issue because of the WH's own record and the fact that Republicans have conceded there is a small gender gap and have gone on the offense.

    Part of the problem, as the WH is finding out, for example, is (my bold):

    Carney, as well as Cecelia Munoz the Director of the Domestic Policy Council, insist that the White House should be lauded for having a figure that is higher than the national average, though well over half the states, including Texas (79 cents) and New York (84 cents), are either at or above the 77 cents figure, according to a report by the American Association of University Women.  The White House also casts itself as a model of transparency, which is what the Paycheck Fairness Act would mandate for other employers.  Yet, it will be hard for the White House and Democrats to maintain the bully pulpit on this, given their own record, where, according to Munoz in an interview on MSNBC's "All In With Chris Hayes," women are "over-represented in entry level positions" in the White House.

    Just like they are in the rest of society.  

    Seems to me we should be doing more to encourage young women into good paying jobs from the beginning, making it easier for both women and men to take time off for child rearing without penalty, and to help and support those in lower wage jobs who wish to seek training and develop other skills. This could be buttressed by things like child care assistance and such.

    So, yes, while the Democrats constant bleating about the "77 cents" has been debunked time and again, the Republicans don't get off so easily  on this issue and say "Nothing to look at here, folks."

    Shame on all of them that this is a constant battle instead of an issue everyone should easily agree is a problem without making stuff up.

    Parent

    In fact (none / 0) (#125)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 07:48:48 AM EST
    The Fact Checker gave Mr. Obama "One Pinnochio" for this "77 cent" comment a couple of times.  Now the FC has upped it to "Two Pinnochios":

    Betsey Stevenson, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, acknowledged to reporters that the 77-cent figure did not reflect equal pay for equal work. "Seventy-seven cents captures the annual earnings of full-time, full-year women divided by the annual earnings of full-time, full-year men," she said. "There are a lot of things that go into that 77-cents figure, there are a lot of things that contribute and no one's trying to say that it's all about discrimination, but I don't think there's a better figure."

    SNIP

    From a political perspective, the Census 77-cent figure is golden. Unless women stop getting married and having children, and start abandoning careers in childhood education for naval architecture, this huge gap in wages will almost certainly persist. Democrats thus can keep bringing it up every two years.

    There appears to be some sort of wage gap and closing it is certainly a worthy goal. But it's a bit rich for the president to repeatedly cite this statistic as an "embarrassment." (His line in the April 8 speech was almost word for word what he said in the 2014 State of the Union address.) The president must begin to acknowledge that average annual wages does not begin to capture what is actually happening in the work force and society.

    Thus we are boosting the rating on this factoid to Two Pinocchios. We were tempted to go one step further to Three Pinocchios, but the president is relying on an official government statistic-and there are problems and limitations with the other calculations as well.



    Parent
    This is (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 08:22:48 AM EST
    not going to help the GOP. You are forgetting that the GOP has said that women SHOULD make less and then they have all the comments about calling women sluts and whores. The GOP just cannot seem to help themselves.

    Parent
    It also (none / 0) (#153)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 12:25:11 PM EST
    doesn't help the Dems as much as they would like because it's a smokescreen and uses bad data and conclusions.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 12:33:11 PM EST
    it might not but it certainly DOES NOT help the GOP. The GOP cannot help trashing women every time they open their mouth. It's not like Obama has been great but when your choice is between someone who calls you a slut and a whore and someone who basically ignores you, which one do you think most women are going to pick? It's the same with Hispanics and African Americans. In the case of Hispanics Obama promised immigration reform that he has not delivered on but do you really think they are going to go running over to a party that does nothing but call Hispanics lazy and worthless?

    Parent
    This is just beyond sad: (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 02:01:55 PM EST
    ...but when your choice is between someone who calls you a slut and a whore and someone who basically ignores you, which one do you think most women are going to pick?

    And is emblematic of why the quality of our elected representatives keeps declining.

    I can't speak for "most women," just myself, but if those are my only choices, I'm not picking either one.  I'm not giving the least bad candidate or party any reason to think I'm that desperate, so that they can keep rolling over me in the mistaken belief that I have nowhere else to go.

    When is enough enough?

    Parent

    Well (2.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 02:11:29 PM EST
    I don't disagree with what you are saying and I don't think Obama has been all that and a bag of chips but it's really unfortunate that it has come to those kind of choices isn't it?

    Third parties had a real opportunity to fill a void in 2012 and they chose not to for some reason.

    Parent

    "They chose not to for some reason?" (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 02:43:42 PM EST
    Wow.  Really?

    So...if a third party had a fully-functioning organization, candidates and campaigns, a website, volunteers, raised money, had GOTV efforts, a platform, a convention, but the media hit the mute button, and no one who wasn't looking for other options would have been hard-pressed to find them through the media wall that kept them off the radar, that translates to the third party not taking the opportunity to fill a void?

    As for the rest, you may not disagree with what I'm saying, but I get the impression that's a theoretical agreement, because in practice, you told Obama you were okay with him/Dems ignoring women - half a bag of chips is apparently enough for you.

    Parent

    They chose (none / 0) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 02:52:59 PM EST
    not to compete in states. Here in GA there was only the libertarian party. Where were the rest? How many states had only two candidates to choose from? You have to compete in all 50 states if you're going to build an organization. And here the libertarian party apparently wants to keep itself small and not get out there and compete.

    Parent
    GA is not a macrocosm (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by sj on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 05:27:17 PM EST
    Third parties showed up wherever they could. I had more than two options for more than two offices. Maybe third parties would have a stronger presence in more states -- even Georgia -- if they weren't being consciously strangled as much as possible by the "two" major parties and their supporting oligarchs.

    Parent
    Those are the choices? (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by sj on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 02:25:42 PM EST
    when your choice is between someone who calls you a slut and a whore and someone who basically ignores you, which one do you think most women are going to pick?
    Those are the choices.

    I think... none of the above.

    Parent

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 02:42:48 PM EST
    it pretty much doesn't it?

    Parent
    I'm not thinking anything about that (none / 0) (#160)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 12:41:04 PM EST
    I was pointing out that all this spectacle of the much debunked "A woman earns 77 cents for every dollar a man makes" really doesn't help the cause you are trying to support when the same people making the (false) rallying cry are not practicing what they preach.

    Parent
    You know (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 01:06:53 PM EST
    that talk about the white house pay comes from the American Enterprise Insitute. You can look at the pay right on the website. It's public record. I just hit a conservative with it on facebook and he went blank. There are some women who make more than some men and vice versa.

    Parent
    Yes, I know (none / 0) (#170)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 02:27:10 PM EST
    Where the study comes from.  But this line has also been proven false by oh, the Federal Reserve in St. Louis and (wait for it), the Department of Labor, which works for whom...?

    And since every credible media outlet is running with it and also pointing out that the DoL is saying the same thing, I don't think your trying to downplay it will do much good.

    Parent

    I researched it (2.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 02:41:25 PM EST
    and the GOP is lying. It is something like 93%. Why on earth do you keep apologizing for the GOP? Did Obama turn you into a Republican?

    Parent
    Of course the AEI is going to spin this (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 03:36:43 PM EST
    in a way that turns the pay gap into a myth, but neither side in this issue is being 100% objective.  And questioning that isn't a signal that someone is a Republican.  

    It's an issue that can't be reduced to one percentage - it's way more complicated than even just the numbers.

    You keep saying you've done research, you know the truth - well where is your research?  What are you reading?  jb's posting links to information, and you're just saying, "no, that's not right, because I say so, and if you don't believe me, or if you want to say otherwise, well, you must be a Republican."

    Sorry - I don't mean to be unkind; I'm sure the Democratic Party appreciates your loyal service to whatever it is they're putting out there this week, and I'm sure they will thank you by ignoring you when it suits them.

    Parent

    Here you (none / 0) (#181)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 03:50:24 PM EST
    go:

    link

    Parent

    What (none / 0) (#183)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 03:56:41 PM EST
    has gotten into you lately? I'm not trying to be mean but you don't seem yourself? Is putting the facts out there now standing for Obama? I certainly have been very critical of him and a lot of his decisions but you seem to have forgotten that for some reason. I refuse to buy into the spin that the GOP is trying to sell everyone. I looked for the facts myself and found them.

    Jb just seems to me to have gone over the line into apologizing for Republicans lately. That was mostly my point on that statement. It's always some beltway blather about how the GOP is going to win everything in November. I don't know what is going to happen in November. Heck we don't even know who a lot of the candidates are going to be yet. But we've been hearing this same story from the beltway bloviators since 2010 and it hasn't materialized. Maybe this year they will be right or maybe this year they will be wrong yet again.

    Parent

    You don't have any trouble being (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 04:09:22 PM EST
    critical when everyone's critical, but when someone challenges whatever it is the Dems or Obama are putting out, you automatically defend them.

    The president's numbers were wrong.  That doesn't mean there isn't a pay gap - there is - but how does it help his argument to not be armed with the facts?  Whether it's 77% or 93%, the problem is that there's a gap.

    I think - I could be wrong - that that was the gist of jb's argument - not that the GOP was right, but that the president was having a little fun with numbers, and it looked bad - optics mean something, remember - and only ended up undermining his efforts.

    What's wrong with me is I probably need not to be here, as I said a couple weeks ago.  It's the same old arguments, the same old sniping, the same old justifications and excuses and accusations.

    It just kind of slays me that you so glibly blame third parties for not showing up, even as you continue to find ways to justify continuing to vote for candidates who don't really serve you the way you want.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#185)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 05:04:13 PM EST
    I was not defending Obama. I just showing that the GOP is lying. I don't think showing that the GOP is lying is really defending anybody. Some of you are fortunate enough to live in blue states where you don't have to concern yourself with tea party crackpottery. I have to deal with a governor who wants to have shoot outs in churches, wants poor people to die in the street and has massive corruption going on in the state government. At this point I'm a lot more worried about that kind of stuff and fighting the GOP than anything else.

    I never said that there wasn't a gap. What I said again is that the GOP is lying.

    JB was using what the GOP was saying to undermine Obama not looking up the actual facts like I did. I would have said nothing if she had done that.

    I did not blame third parties for not showing up. I said they didn't even put themselves on ballots. It just seems to me that they are not interested in becoming a national party if that is the kind of thing they do. It seems to me that they like being a boutique political party surviving on the crumbs of whatever is left out there from either the D party or the R party.

    Parent

    Your comments about third parties are (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 05:52:58 PM EST
    disturbingly glib; I really am just blown away by the level of ignorance reflected in them.

    In case you're wondering why your comments about the pay gap met some challenge, look no further than your comments about the third party movement; if you can be that dismissive and that careless about that subject, it calls into question a lot of what you have to say about other issues.

    I guess I've grown irritated with the way you have extrapolated your experience in Georgia to be the last word on the national political scene, refusing to entertain anyone else's experience or opinion that doesn't fall in with your own.

    I'm sorry you live in the heart of crackpot country, and I suppose I can see why, in your case, anyone who isn't certifiably insane seems like a better choice, but if the metric is "not certifiably insane," there's a lot of room for some really marginally functional public officials.  That metric isn't going to change as long as people keep thinking they have no other choice.

    Parent

    Third (none / 0) (#195)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:03:07 PM EST
    parties had a great opportunity in 2012 but why didn't they take it? Why didn't voters have a choice outside the two here in GA other than Libertarian? Why didn't the Green party put their candidate on the ballot? Why don't they run candidates in local elections? They just don't seem interested in really building a party because you start at the bottom running candidates and for whatever reason they are not running them. I mean if you truly believe that third parties are the answer then it seems you would want them to start building a party instead of acting like a boutique party.

    You keep saying i'm being "glib' but I'm asking serious questions. They can buy ads on TV as well as anybody else. They can get their presidential candidates on ballots in states but they aren't doing that. It just seems they want to repeat the Nader model over and over and never really build a serious challenge to the Democrats. If you think they are the answer then I would think you would be concerned about their failure to do any of this.

    Parent

    Oy (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by sj on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:17:56 PM EST
    It's a wonder jb and Anne continue to take your comments seriously. Your experiences in GA are not the be-all-end-all you seem to think they are.

    Neither are jb's nor Anne's, but they aren't presuming so, they are simply defending their observations and conclusions.

    You're not asking serious questions at all.

    You keep saying i'm being "glib' but I'm asking serious questions. They can buy ads on TV as well as anybody else. They can get their presidential candidates on ballots in states but they aren't doing that.
    What you want is a third mega-party with mega-financing. Apparently, only then will you take a third party seriously. From my perspective, once they reach mega-financing then it just means yet another vehicle for the oligarchs to corrupt and coopt a message.

    Regardless, what "third party" candidates need are

    1. funding to a level that allows qualifying for matching funds, or
    2. campaign finance reform that actually eliminates all except for public financing, and
    3. votes

    So if you think other parties aren't doing enough for you, you might take a look and see what you are doing for them.

    Parent
    This does not strike me (3.00 / 2) (#201)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:30:50 PM EST
    as a commenter merely defending his/her pont of view:

    Your comments about third parties are ...
    disturbingly glib; I really am just blown away by the level of ignorance reflected in them.


    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#199)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:23:33 PM EST
    no I just think to build a third party you need to start at the bottom and run people for things that don't cost money. That's my whole point. Why only run people in races that they are unlikely to win and that cost a lot of money?

    Parent
    I went (none / 0) (#196)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:09:36 PM EST
    and checked the Green Party website. They are running a total of four candidates in November. One for govenor in NY, one for Gov. in TN, one for the 2nd Congressional district in TN and one for the senate in TN. Nobody is running for those county commission posts or election board or school board? That is the offices they need to be running for not the senate which requires money. You could win a county commissioner seat with very little money. This is the kind of thing that makes people not take third parties seriously. I mean if only show up every two years and then you run only for state and federal offices people wonder.

    Parent
    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by sj on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:54:54 PM EST
    I mean if only show up every two years and then you run only for state and federal offices people wonder.
    If you have a limited amount of money, and the issues that are of primary importance are of national stature, I assure you I wouldn't be spending my time and money on zoning issues. For example.

    I disagree with your premise that the only way to build a party is by starting with commissioner and dogcatcher. It's the same dismissive propaganda the two major parties have been dispensing as long as I can recall. Apparently it's effective propaganda.

    As for oculus' comment below (to which I cannot comment directly), I find it amusing that she-of-the-one-liners chooses to sniff about one line from someone who comments in detail -- as if Anne was as parsimonious with words as you (oculus) are. And also as if Anne had not expanded upon and supported that one line. Nevertheless, oc, I'll model my response to your style and be brief as to my opinion of your opinion.

    pfffft.

    Parent

    For the TL book list (none / 0) (#107)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 06:27:16 PM EST
    Matt Taibbi's latest, The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap. Getting it from Audible now.

    Did you see his interview last night on the (none / 0) (#112)
    by DFLer on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 08:48:24 PM EST
    Yes, that was how I learned of the book (none / 0) (#118)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:14:46 AM EST
    Usually I can't read his books because I get too mad, but this one seems especially important so I will make the attempt Will practice my cleansing breaths.

    Parent
    Stewarts interview not the best, will see others (none / 0) (#119)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:18:42 AM EST
    too I am sure. Stewart always brings things around to the bankers not being in jail, which of course is an outrage, but Taibbi was alluding to a lot more basic forms of injustice.  Wall Street just the tip of the iceberg.

    Parent
    Yet (none / 0) (#141)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 10:45:45 AM EST
    another reason to ask Obama what he was thinking when he appointed Eric Holder?

    Parent
    Anyone see Justified finale? (none / 0) (#120)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:21:13 AM EST
    Without spoiling , I will say it set up next season well. Gotta believe next season is the last, based on what seems to be the main plot . Glad it is getting back to basics.

    Next season (none / 0) (#122)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:44:58 AM EST
    Seems like the right call to me (none / 0) (#145)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:34:39 AM EST
    It was getting hard to keep track of all the new bad guys. Put the focus back on Boyd and Raylan for one final season.

    Parent
    Classic example... (none / 0) (#165)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 02:10:46 PM EST
    of the law being a hinderance instead of a help, and blind allegiance to the law/lack of discretion causing direct harm to the people it is intended to protect.

    Homeless woman arrested for leaving her kids in the car during a job interview.  Warning, mugshot is a tearjerker.

    Granted, it was not a smart thing to do, and potentially dangerous...but imo not criminally so in light of the circumstances, and certainly an opportunity to rectify any mistake on the part of a desperate mother in a positive way instead of a punitive way.

    But luckily, where the law and bueracracy fails, individual human decency prevails.  Sympathetic NJ good samaritan helps raise 90 grand for the mother.  Very cool.  So at least we are on our way to a happy ending, hopefully the prosecutor will come around and drop the charges too.

    To me (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 02:13:06 PM EST
    this is more of a prosecutor run amok than the law. I'm not saying the law is perfect but as I understand it prosecutors can choose not to charge people.

    Parent
    Just as police officers... (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 02:35:43 PM EST
    can choose not to arrest people, and issue a warning.  The officer in the link sounded sympathetic too, the responding officer could have nipped this in the bud and shown mercy, instead of our all too common response which is piling misery on misery.

    Parent
    That too. (none / 0) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 02:43:29 PM EST
    If that prosecutor is so damn concerned about the (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Angel on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:00:11 PM EST
    children why doesn't he help find this family a place to live? Surely he can do that and withhold the prosecution of a mother trying to find work.  That's the problem with poverty and homelessness - it's a vicious circle and once you get down to that place you can almost never get back up to where you were before without some kind of help.  

    Parent
    Typically late to the party (none / 0) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 05:35:28 PM EST
    I finally saw The Desolation of Smaug.

    Yeah, I know, it careened wildly from the book yadda yadda

    I liked it.   Smaug doesn't not disappoint.  That alone is an achievement

    I'm even later, have not even seen the first one (none / 0) (#197)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:13:28 PM EST
    yet. Been meaning to do a marathon - the 95 deg+ weather is coming soon, that will be one of my hibernation days. I have not read the books, so I can enjoy on its own terms.

    Parent
    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:25:45 PM EST
    The first hobbit movie was a bit of a snore. But as one review I read says "with all the packing and preparation out of the way, he gets down to it"
    The Smaug movie takes lots of liberties with the story, but anyone who read the book knew he would to make three movies from the one book.  One thing that has bunched a lot of panties is a new character.  A she elf.  But I understand why they might want to do that.  That is, interject some women into he action of the movie rather than only have them show up glimmering untouchable elf goddesses or something.  I really liked the character.  She even has a bit of a romantic thing with the cutest dwarf.  Which I liked probably because I have a thing for short guys.  the dragon is awsum.  The dragon girl from GoT might want to watch this movie as a cautionary tale.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#204)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 07:00:17 PM EST
    sj all I can say is the way the GOP took over the south was precinct by precinct. They changed things not by starting at the top but by starting at the bottom and right now the Green party isn't winning any of those elections and those are expensive elections when they could be running for offices on lower levels and building a party.

    the GOP (none / 0) (#205)
    by sj on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 07:17:41 PM EST
    already had an organization behind them. Stop defending your presuppositions as if they were the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
    sj all I can say is the way the GOP took over the south was precinct by precinct. They changed things not by starting at the top but by starting at the bottom and right now the Green party isn't winning any of those elections and those are expensive elections when they could be running for offices on lower levels and building a party.

    A kernel of truth does not a whole truth make. You are swallowing and spitting out propaganda and don't even know it. Again, I reject your premise. One hundred and fifty years ago the Republican Party won the Presidency with their second candidate: Abraham Lincoln. Now they spend their money making sure no one else can accomplish that.

    And, cripes, it's already time for me to leave this place again. What happened to the actual thinkers here? You used to be one of them, I thought.

    GA6th (none / 0) (#206)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:50:48 AM EST
    You know (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 01:06:53 PM EST
    that talk about the white house pay comes from the American Enterprise Insitute

    Well, that may be true, but it also June O'Neill.  From the Factchecker link I posted above:

    June O'Neill, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office [during Clinton's administration] who has been a critic of the 77-cent statistic, has noted that the wage gap is affected by a number of factors, including that the average woman has less work experience than the average man and that more of the weeks worked by women are part-time rather than full-time. Women also tend to leave the work force for periods in order to raise children, seek jobs that may have more flexible hours but lower pay and choose careers that tend to have lower pay.

    Indeed, BLS data show that women who do not get married have virtually no wage gap; they earn 96 cents for every dollar a man makes.

    And, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis:

    Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis surveyed economic literature and concluded that "research suggests that the actual gender wage gap (when female workers are compared with male workers who have similar characteristics) is much lower than the raw wage gap." They cited one survey, prepared for the Labor Department during the George W. Bush administration, which concluded that when such differences are accounted for, much of the hourly wage gap dwindled, to about 5 cents on the dollar.

    And, Betsey Stevenson:

    Betsey Stevenson, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, acknowledged to reporters that the 77-cent figure did not reflect equal pay for equal work. "Seventy-seven cents captures the annual earnings of full-time, full-year women divided by the annual earnings of full-time, full-year men," she said. "There are a lot of things that go into that 77-cents figure, there are a lot of things that contribute and no one's trying to say that it's all about discrimination, but I don't think there's a better figure."

    And the American Association of University Women

    The AAUW has now joined ranks with serious economists who find that when you control for relevant differences between men and women (occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace) the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing. The 23-cent gap is simply the average difference between the earnings of men and women employed "full time." What is important is the "adjusted" wage gap-the figure that controls for all the relevant variables. That is what the new AAUW study explores.

    Oh, and don't forget the Department of Labor

    From the HuffPo article:

    One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap "may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers." In the past, women's groups have ignored or explained away such findings.

    "In fact," says the National Women's Law Center, "authoritative studies show that even when all relevant career and family attributes are taken into account, there is still a significant, unexplained gap in men's and women's earnings." Not quite. What the 2009 Labor Department study showed was that when the proper controls are in place, the unexplained (adjusted) wage gap is somewhere between 4.8 and 7 cents. The new AAUW study is consistent with these findings. But isn't the unexplained gap, albeit far less than the endlessly publicized 23 cents, still a serious injustice? Shouldn't we look for ways to compel employers to pay women the extra 5-7 cents? Not before we figure out the cause. The AAUW notes that part of the new 6.6-cent wage-gap may be owed to women's supposedly inferior negotiating skills -- not unscrupulous employers. Furthermore, the AAUW's 6.6 cents includes some large legitimate wage differences masked by over-broad occupational categories. For example, its researchers count "social science" as one college major and report that, among such majors, women earned only 83 percent of what men earned. That may sound unfair... until you consider that "social science" includes both economics and sociology majors.

    So, please spare me the squeaky/christine schtick of how I am a Republican because I dare challenge the Democratic Party on the blatantly wrong and completely outrageous statements they make to try and win cheap points instead of actually doing something meaningful to solve the problem.

    Anne (none / 0) (#208)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 10:06:20 AM EST
    Yes, I agree.

    I didn't say it didn't exist - I said it's not nearly what the Democrats say it is and it most certainly is almost not because of discrimination (although that too, does exist in pockets).  I also agree (and have stated above) that the Democrats are making a big show about this on the Sunday talk circuit and paying lip service to this, instead of addressing the real problems that cause this - such as fostering environments where it's ok for a man to take time off for child care and rearing (that's not something government can do on it's own, and is more of a cultural thing, but government can certainly help facilitate it through incentives and such); to better and more access to child care; to more investment in training programs for women who are in these lower paying jobs who want to develop more skills.  

    Now, how do you pull out the data on those women who choose to leave the full-time work force and only work a (lower paying) part-time job because they want to be home raising children or for just because they can?  That's the question.  What Moyers doesn't address however, is the numerous studies and thoughts of those (some of whom I have quoted above) who are NOT AEI, but are actually liberal or left leaning, who also have the same conclusions based on the data.

    Hey - I believe teachers and nurses, for example (mostly "woman's work" kind of occupations)should be paid a heck of a lot more.  But I am totally disgusted that this issue, once again, will not be truly taken seriously because people choose to dangle data out there that time and again has proven to be false, or at least, seriously made up.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 326 (none / 0) (#209)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 10:47:23 AM EST