home

Tuesday Night Open Thread

Snow, wind and jail visits, that was my day.

Here's an open thread while I catch up on ISIS and the Russian plane crash news and El Chapo non-news. I missed last night's debate, but from what I heard on the car radio, I didn't miss much.

A special thanks to all our veterans. Even though I'm against war and big military spending, I appreciate their sacrifice and thank them for their protecting our country.

All topics welcome.

< Russian Plane Crash Investigation Moves to Hotels | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Is there a TL rule (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 08:15:40 AM EST
    against promoting and linking to a voyeur/exhibitionist blog?

    Did He Get You ? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:15:26 AM EST
    Did you shower, but still feel dirty ?

    Parent
    You are aware, I hope, that (none / 0) (#21)
    by NYShooter on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 11:08:44 AM EST
    clicking on an unknown website is a primary method that malicious websites use to install malware on computers, tablets, smartphones, etc? Simply clicking on the website URL is enough to infect one's device.

    Parent
    Oh, we know the website(s). (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 11:32:21 AM EST
    And this person is a well-known character in the  Seattle area.

    I think any comments of his that contains links back to his website(s) need to be treated and marked as SITE VIOLATOR comments.

    Parent

    I Don't Sweat it... (none / 0) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 12:22:40 PM EST
    ...especially here at work.

    At home, I like to do a lot of graphics, ROMS, and map conversions.  Tools for that kind of stuff never comes from a known source, it's risky, and bad things do happen.  

    I had a harddrive crash on one of my first computers,  I lost a bunch of important info including pics, but since then I am religious about backing up important stuff and haven't lost a file since.

    Parent

    in a recent class (none / 0) (#126)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 08:33:39 PM EST
    In a recent class on website design, there was part of our online "lectures" a video of a fellow in India, I think, illustrating how easy it was to hack someone's computer or phone . . .  Perhaps it was a Pablos Holman clip on youtube or perhaps it was another fellow, I think, in India . . .

    I guess I will have to find out if Kaspersky anti-virus is sufficient to protect you when you click on some of the alleged malicious websites . . .

    Parent

    If there isn't, there should be; (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:29:38 AM EST
    I don't know why it shouldn't be regarded as material that will potentially cause TL to be blocked from the law firms Jeralyn would want to have access to TL.

    Maybe it's me, but I keep getting the feeling that he's asking legal/case-related questions in order to generate interest in and traffic to his own site, and for reasons that are more about titillation than anything else.

    Parent

    hum . . . (none / 0) (#152)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 05:25:46 AM EST
    5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.

    *

    In this verse, some people believe that Paul is recommending that most people abstain from making speculations, assertions and especially negative judgments about alleged hidden motives of the heart of other people . . .

    *

    Maybe it's me, but I keep getting the feeling that he's asking legal/case-related questions in order to generate interest in and traffic to his own site, and for reasons that are more about titillation than anything else.

    *

    The most recent cases were 1) I asked about where the case of Abel v US, chiefly as a result of seeing Bridge of Spies and thereby being inspired to learn more about the story and to consider if the decision was morally good or bad . . .  Asking other lawyers and/or other persons who wish to philosophize or moralize or theorize on the moral goodness of Abel v US hardly constitutes some surreptitious attempt to evade talkleft rules . . . or for that matter, surreptitious tittilation by generatig traffic to my website . . .  Where I am from, we make judgments about cases being right or wrong or morally good or bad, just like you folks make judgments or assertions or claims about candidates being best or worse . . .

    and 2) I told you folks about the 2 recent situations with Scott Shimek, Air force veteran and amateur photographer, who has had some negative encounters with Pierce Transit people and also with some King County sheriff deputies.

    I get secret tittilation by saying that it appears that a KC sheriff deputy is being reported as having said at trial that he pointed a live taser on an unarmed, unthreatening man and he claimed he was using the live taser as a flashlight and I think that reflects either poor training or lack of honesty?

    Secret tittilation by studying Abel v USA or by reporting to you about the Shimek cases in Washington state including, as a part of the cases, attacks on an amateur photographer?  

    Do I have some secret tittilation by asking if their are religious reasons for Jeralyn's loose pacifism . . . a subject I know at least a little, from having been a pacifist . . . and from having JW and Buddhist friends . . . and been to Mennonite churches . . .

    Maybe I have been complaining less about HRC's email problems in the last six weeks because they were not tittilating enough . . .  maybe my mood has changed now that it is darker and I walk less outside . . .

    Parent

    You guys have a hard on... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 01:17:53 PM EST
    for this guy like the hard on he gets from reading your comments about him.

    Well maybe not as hard a hard on as that, but you get my point;)

    Parent

    Well.. (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 01:26:18 PM EST
    as we advance in years, sometimes you've gotta take 'em any way you can't get 'em..

    Parent
    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 01:38:58 PM EST
    sometime (none / 0) (#145)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 12:48:51 AM EST
    Sometime,

    some one of you might consider counting up the number of posts of the type:

    1) advocating near-nudity or near-voyeurism;
    and
    2) insulting me and saying or implying I am some sort of doofus or worse in various words . . .
    and
    3) implying or suggesting that I have nothing worthwhile to say, even to the point of the topics I bring up are perhaps not worthy of consideration or response, even when such topics are not on near-nudity or near-voyeurism.

    Here we are in a somewhat liberal leaning blog . . . hosted by a LAWYER who dislikes war . . .  with other lawyers who chime in . . . and a policeperson is reported in a trial in Seattle to have been pointing his taser at unarmed, nonthreatening amateur photographer . . .

    and wow . . . how interesting . . .  At least some of you did care a little about the Bridge of Spies story . . . and one of you sent me a link where I could read the decision . . . probably one of those "Supreme court trojan horse virus pages . . ."

    Oh, well, with my partly functioning Kaspersky, I have braved the risk that the deadly trojans would get ahold of my computer from reading things such as Supreme court decisions . . .

    Oh, boy.

    Parent

    No one wants to follow links back (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 06:47:51 AM EST
    to your super-creepy blogs, and since you have, on several occasions, misrepresented links as being about one thing, that turn out to be about something that makes people's skin crawl, no one trusts your motives.

    You also have a way of trying to hook people into responding to you that seems oh-so-innocent, but which really isn't.

    No one trusts you, and no one wants to be associated with your blogs.  You could have come here and engaged people honestly on legal issues - as many others here do on a regular basis - but you chose to promote - via your blog - activities that people find repulsive and perverted.

    And then you throw religion into the mix to make it really weird and creepy.

    This is how you chose to identify yourself, so whatever reaction you're getting, that's on you.

    Parent

    Dems Overreaching (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by vicndabx on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 10:59:00 AM EST
    Let's improve the condition of public housing before enhancing the nanny state.

    NYTimes Link

    "The argument about secondhand smoke is over," Julián Castro, the federal housing secretary, said in an interview on Wednesday. "It's harmful, and we believe it's important that we have an environment that's healthy in public housing."


    Nanny state..more like the health insurance (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 11:27:28 AM EST
    lobby controlled state..

    Ultimately it comes to $, and who doesn't want to pay out for people's smoking-related illnesses..imho
     

    Parent

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#34)
    by vicndabx on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 12:21:01 PM EST
    I would think most residents in public housing would be on some sort of gov't funded insurance w/limited risk to private insurers.

    Further, it's probably the result of initiatives of groups such as this, but I can't know for sure.

    If true, it's gov't officials trying to save tax payers money.

    Parent

    Not cool... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 12:18:38 PM EST
    a (wo)man's home is his/her castle...unless you're poor.  As if the people living in public housing don't have to suffer enough indignity.  A no smoking policy in hallways and common areas is fair enough...inside the home is some bullsh&t.

    Absolutely right Vic...this is exactly the type of overreach that makes people fear and loathe "liberal"/"progressive" governance.  There are so many problems in public housing, smoking doesn't even come close to cracking the Top 100 list.  But it's an easy target for pols with no desire to tackle real problems.  

    Parent

    I'm thinking of all the blunt smokers (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by vicndabx on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 12:26:46 PM EST
    that live in projects I've known.

    Totally agree with this:


    the type of overreach that makes people fear and loathe "liberal"/"progressive" governance

    Also smacks of elitist we know better than you poor folks what'll make your life better.  Bloomberg gone mad.

    Not to come off as ignorant, we all know smoking is bad for one's health, but determining one's own destiny is a fundamental right, IMO.

    Parent

    But of course... (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 12:33:32 PM EST
    smoking is bad for you...but so is having a bus depot next to your housing project. Or a waste management facility.  Or a power plant.  Or any number of things harmful to one's health that always get built in/near low income areas that Julian Castro ain't on a soapbox about.

    But let's ignore all that and evict a low-income human being from the only home they can afford because they smoked a Marlboro Light.  For the children, of course.  Brilliant!

    Parent

    The anti-smoking ijihad (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 01:35:20 PM EST
    does get a little ludicrous. They're kicking heroin addicts and crack heads out of rehab and back out on the street for smoking around here for smoking cigarettes. As if cigarettes were the same as heroin..

    Parent
    Beyond ludicrous... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 02:07:35 PM EST
    when my pops went to an in-patient rehab for his alcoholism he contemplated trying to quit smoking too.  His counselor actually advised against it...said it would be wiser just to focus on the addiction at hand, and not to overburden his willpower by trying to quit multiple addictions at once.  Wise advice, I think.

    What you describe borders on malpractice, imo.

    Parent

    Talk about unfunded mandate (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 06:40:20 AM EST
    Olatoye said it was unclear how the ban would be enforced, in part because ``we're at our lowest staffing levels in many years.'' She said it's likely the authority will designate an area where residents can smoke.

    Timothy G. Kaiser, executive director of the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association, which represents 1,900 housing authorities, said a smoking ban ``addresses an important health issue.'' But he said local housing authorities have higher-priority concerns, such as shrinking budgets for operating expenses and massive cuts to capital spending that have resulted in a loss of 10,000 apartments a year to decaying conditions.

    Will they allow more apartments to decay so they can fund designated smoking areas or fund enforcement.

    Parent

    It's all well and good for people to (none / 0) (#42)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 01:09:41 PM EST
    decide whether to smoke or not, but the problem is that their decision to smoke exposes everyone in their orbit to secondhand smoke - children, seniors, people with respiratory issues, immune system problems, and people who are otherwise healthy and have chosen not to smoke.

    Whatever rights smokers think they have, those of us who don't smoke also have rights, one of which is to not have to breathe what the smokers are expelling from their lungs.

    Parent

    What of people that cook foods (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by vicndabx on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 01:28:17 PM EST
    that cause me to have an allergic reaction or just simply stinks?   I smelled plenty of curry and bacalao living in NYC.  As a many years apartment dweller I did occasionally smell cigarette smoke, but I never saw or smelled second hand smoke in my apt in sufficient quantity to be worried about its effects on my health.  I probably inhaled more car exhaust walking down the street.

    I doubt people are getting sick in significant quantities due to second hand smoke from a neighbor's apartment.

    While I don't totally disagree with your point, surely you don't believe this is a rule that should be enforced by edict from the gov't?

    Not to bring up a health insurance analogy, but....people that don't eat healthy cause me to pay more for my health insurance coverage - should we force them to eat healthier because I'm impacted by their choices?

    Parent

    If you have a right not to breathe... (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 01:53:51 PM EST
    second hand smoke, then you have the right not to breathe car exhaust and what is pouring out of the smokestack at the waste management facility.

    I would argue there is no such right, though I can understand the frustration.  As Vic mentioned, there are many air pollutants besides cigarettes that bother people...I chalk it up to a cost of freedom, with the alternative being much worse...totalitarian nannyism.

    Parent

    the one problem I have (none / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 01:57:33 PM EST
    Is that I have strong opinions on the fact that you do have the right not to breathe what is pouring out of the smokestack at the waste management facility.

    And the clean air act isn't nearly strong enough, IMO.

    That being said, I don't think this is the same level of magnitude.  But we should be p*ssed at all the cr@p they build near public housing.

    As a personal anecdote - we're dealing with this issue right now, not with public housing, but my grandmother decided to take up chain smoking at 85, and as a result has been kicked out of her home and is now living with my parents.

    Parent

    Hold the phone... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 02:05:00 PM EST
    your Grandma just started smoking at 85?  I love her already! ;)

    That sucks she got evicted...I will be f&cked if I ever have to move.  The sweetest little old landlord east of the Mississippi lets us smoke the hell out of the joint.  I just got back from a little business trip where we stayed in a non-smoking hotel.  Waking up, putting yesterday's pants on, and going down to the street for smoke # 1 with bed head, instead of rolling over and lighting up smoke # 1 in bed, s*cks big time.

    If your parents tire of Grandma's smoking, she's welcome at my place!

    Parent

    well she smoked (none / 0) (#61)
    by CST on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 02:08:46 PM EST
    when she was younger, quit for about 40 years, and then at 85 decided f*ck it - and started chain smoking.  In all honesty it's a bit of a situation, because if her physical health deteriorates and she needs real medical care, they aren't going to be able to provide it, and the place she was living before - was.  Plus she has a lot less privacy now.  For now everyone is just treading water, but the future could be a lot trickier.

    Parent
    I can relate... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 02:43:43 PM EST
    to the f*ck it philosophy...I tell people one of the reasons I smoke is to insure I won't live to be 85.  

    Kurt Vonnegut called smoking the only dignified form of suicide.  

    (Gallows humor, I hope you take no offense as I don't mean to make light of the Grandma situation.)

    Parent

    Fire bad... (none / 0) (#138)
    by desertswine on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:36:00 PM EST
    kdog: "As Vic mentioned, there are many air pollutants besides cigarettes that bother people...I chalk it up to a cost of freedom, with the alternative being much worse...totalitarian nannyism."

    ... other pulmonary diseases and illnesses, your argument about encroaching "totalitarian nannyism" somehow being worse than inhaling second-hand smoke and car exhaust will probably float like a lead balloon. If you want to smoke, that's entirely your business. But that said, smoking is a personal choice, whereas breathing is a necessary function of life itself.

    If you choose to smoke, then please be courteous and respectful of others around you, and don't just assume that your second-hand smoke won't necessarily affect others adversely. It wouldn't hurt you to ask others in your immediate vicinity if they'd mind you lighting up. Because for people with pulmonary issues, it's a potential threat to their personal health and safety, and they'd appreciate being asked first.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Arguably there is a social utility to cars (none / 0) (#124)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 08:28:32 PM EST
    What social utility is there to cigarettes?  

    My mother smoked from 1948 to 1985. She died of lung  cancer last August. While it cannot be definitively proven, smoking was the likely cause. Libertarian arguments about controlling your own destiney v. The rights of others with regard to a product with no social utility seem hollow to me now.

    Parent

    Sorry for your loss Molly.... (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 01:17:08 PM EST
    One social utility for cigarettes is society not having to be around me during nicotine withdrawal...no small thing! ;)  

    But I didn't think an individual's rights to live as they see fit, within the confines of their personal dwelling, was subject to social utility.  I concede second-hand smoke travelling between apartments might pose some risk, but I would argue it is significant enough to warrant this kind of intrusion.

     

    Parent

    Just another way... (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 01:21:59 PM EST
    to shame the poor under the guise of social utility or public welfare.  The problem is that you can't shame people out of being poor.

    Parent
    Eeek... (none / 0) (#190)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 01:31:04 PM EST
    bad typo, should be not significant enough to warrant instrusion.

    I think I need a smoke! ;)

    Parent

    The earth moved, again.... (none / 0) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 12:39:01 AM EST
    Whatever rights smokers think they have, those of us who don't smoke also have rights, one of which is to not have to breathe what the smokers are expelling from their lungs.

    The problem with smoking is this. You get plastered and there is no doubt in your mind that you have hurt yourself.

    You smoke and that the terrible truth doesn't show up for 30 years...along with a RX for an oxygen generator and rescue inhaler.

    No one ever died from not smoking.

    Parent

    I'm not as convinced as you two are (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 01:15:52 PM EST
    that this is ultimately about "liberal/progressive overreach" -- more like the "market forces" of libertarian profiteers reaching for people's throats..

    Parent
    While I Agree... (none / 0) (#46)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 01:22:15 PM EST
    ...how in the hell are people on public assistance finding the cash it take these days to smoke.  

    A pack a day is a $2600 a year habit in Texas, in NYC $5300 a year, if this is accurate.

    It's public assistance, not expensive habit cash, it's meant to cloth and feed people who can't afford to, not support an expensive habit.

    When I was renting almost everyone wanted to know if you smoked, or rather let you know the heavy cost you would assume if you did smoke, not sure why people without means should be exempt.

    I can't get on board, public housing has many problems, yes, but the number one reason aid keeps getting cut is because of this kind of non-sense.  If you can't afford to pay your own bills, you sure as hell can't afford to smoke in 2015.

    Not for nothing kdog, but you know, I don't mind my taxes going to help people, I would double down on taxes going to help people, but I expect them to spend on things they need, even some they just want, and if they need to blow off some steam and get drunk or smoke some weed, no problem, but to feed a habit that as expensive as smoking is too much.  It's the equivalent to a new car payment, and that is not cool with me.

    Parent

    Lots of Bodegas... (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 01:50:50 PM EST
    in NYC selling bootleg cigarettes...and I'm sure some do what I do, get 25 dollar cartons from the Native Americans.  And that's premium Native American brand, you can buy the cheap stuff for as low as 8 dollars a carton, that's 40 cents a pack.

    I get your gripe...but I can't get down with policing how those on public assistance spend their money.  Their lives are hard enough, that's kick the dog sh&t.  They have stresses we will never know, knock on wood, and cigarettes can help alleviate that stress.

    But don't assume everyone in public housing has no job and is on welfare...many if not most work full time but still qualify for public housing and/or food stamps.  Sh&t McDonalds should be buying them cigarettes....that's who we are subsidizing here, low wage service sector employers...not a smoking habit.

    Parent

    Not sure How Not Letting Them... (none / 0) (#66)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 02:38:55 PM EST
    ...engage in a habit they can't afford in their home is policing, no cigs, like many other apartments and damn near every hotel in the land.

    Not trying to dictate what anyone does, but if they had rooms designated to burn money, I don't think it would out of line to lock the doors or ask them to quit burning money.

    That is just one of those things that sucks with not making enough to support yourself, some vary basic rules that don't apply to people who don't count on the generosity of others for shelter.

    I know there lives suck, but smoking sure as hell isn't help them, it will will without a doubt make their life worse.  No one is saying they can't smoke, just that they can't do it the housing they don't pay for.

    Parent

    What makes you think... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 02:58:29 PM EST
    tenants in public housing don't pay rent?  From Vic's link...

    "What I do in my apartment should be my problem, long as I pay my rent," said Gary Smith, 47, a cigarette in hand as he sat outside the door to a building in the Walt Whitman Houses in the Fort Greene section of Brooklyn.

    Both my parents grew up in public housing, my grandparents all worked and paid rent.  Sh*t one grandfather worked for the Post Office and the other for the City driving a bus...decent jobs.  Lots of WWII vets of modest means in NYC lived in public housing, and were allowed a little dignity.  Though that was before Reagan declared war on the poor, and when public housing was full of white people.  Things have changed I guess.

    There's a reason more poor people smoke than rich people, it's one of the few affordable joys in their lives.  You may disagree, but let them decide.


    Parent

    habit. 5K/year in NYC? For a couple that smokes that's 10k/year right out of the family budget.

    Maybe it's not that poor people smoke, but that smoking can make people poor.

    Probably cultural norms at play too.

    If, in your view, many of the "wrong people" say "smoking is dirty" and maybe give you dirty looks when you do it, then doing it is kinda like a middle finger to them. And many of the "right people" (fiends and family) do smoke. Solidarity.

    We humans do like our clans.

    Parent

    Could well be a self-fulfilling... (none / 0) (#189)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 01:29:19 PM EST
    prophecy...you smoke because you're stressed-out broke, and stressed-out broke in part because you smoke.

    As for me, I do feel a kinship with smokers...just as I'm sure you feel kinship with runners or fine wine connoisseurs. And If I wasn't spending 35 dollars a week on bad smoke (60 bucks for good smoke;) I'd spend it on another form of pleasure...eating out more, extra concerts, what have you.  We all need a release in some form, I happen to need a plethora.

    And smoking as protest of societal norms is something that is definitely right up my subconscious alley Sarc;)  Though I'd say the first of several reasons is pleasure, with addiction second.

    Parent

    most of the extra 35/week into savings. Yes, I know your philosophy on that!

    What I'm not convinced about, is that poor people smoke because they have more worries and/or less medical care than not-poor people.

    Everybody's got worries and is stressed-out, and everyone's worries and stresses are huge to them. Plenty of not-poor people choose to smoke, despite every medical benefit known to man.

    I still think it's a lot cultural, who you hang around with. Choices. etc.

    Parent

    Definitely cultural and exposure... (none / 0) (#195)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 02:41:55 PM EST
    at play too...no one reason.

    As for stress, yeah everybody is stressed...but there are degrees.  

    I mean when got a pile of job specs to review and quote, and customers and my bosses up my arse, that stresses me out.  But that ain't no stress like "rent is due tomorrow and I have 3 dollars" stress.

    Lee Trevino the great golfer said it this way, when a reporter asked him how he dealt with the pressure of a PGA event.  Lee laughed at him and said (paraphrase)..."Pressure?  This is no pressure.  Playing mini golf for 20 dollars a stroke when you have 5 dollars in your pocket...that's pressure."

    Parent

    I really don't agree. (none / 0) (#196)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 02:54:25 PM EST
    Are you are thinking that not-poor people don't have money worries?

    Whether it's "$500 rent due tomorrow and $3 in my pocket," or "$5000 mortgage due tomorrow and %300 in my bank account" all of these stresses are just as big to the person who has the worries.

    Are you thinking the more zeros on your money worries, the less they important they are to you?

    Parent

    I'm thinking... (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 03:09:48 PM EST
    500 due 3 in hand is similar to 5000 due 300 in hand, sure.  But the 5000/300 guy at least has some equity in his house, he could sell and downsize his monthly nut.  And he's got 300 dollars for a cheap motel room and food if he got evicted tomorrow.  A very stressful situation to be in, to be sure, but not destitute like 3 dollar guy.  That's the most stressful, that's all I'm saying...degrees.  

    Parent
    And what I'm saying is (none / 0) (#199)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 03:29:27 PM EST
    the guy with a 5k mortgage pmt due and 300 in the bank is worried as sh1t, just like the guy with 3 in his pocket.

    No, I don't buy it

    Maybe WE may feel the 300 guy shouldn't be AS stressed at the 3 guy, but to each of those guys their stress is just as real as the other guy's.

    If the $300 guy's family and/or "crew" smokes, then he's likely to smoke too. And if the $3 guy's fam/crew doesn't, he's less likely to either.

    People are worrywarts and stress kings and queens, how thick your wallet happens to be doesn't change human nature in this aspect.

    Parent

    But... (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 03:44:58 PM EST
    the 300 dollar guy doesn't have as many economic worries as the 3 dollar guy...regardless of how he "feels".  He's got 100 times the amount of money available to him to live on till he finds more money.  That's real.    

    I'm sure Bill Gates and Barack Obama "feel" stress too, like everyone else...but the 300 dollar and the 3 dollar guy would laugh at their stress. They have no risk of missing a meal.  

    I won't argue against social conditioning being a greater factor in why people smoke than stress, but I think stress is a factor.  

    Parent

    And if the Guy... (none / 0) (#204)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 03:51:08 PM EST
    ...with $3 quit smoking, next month he would have 150 times that amount.  Based on a yearly wage of $20k, he could increase his wage by ~30% after taxes by not smoking.

    The guy with $300 would be the same boat, because according to you he isn't stressed and doesn't smoke.

    Parent

    I Would Imagine... (none / 0) (#200)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 03:36:01 PM EST
    ...it's more about education.  

    The idea that kdog keep pushing about stress and smoking is absolutely ridiculous.  As someone who smoked for about a decade and who currently chews, the only stress nicotine relieves is the GD stress of not having nicotine.

    Therapeutic, please, if he wants to romanticize and rationalize nicotine addiction, he should pony up some proof, like poor people have more stress, and that nicotine is some sort of stress reliever.

    Nicotine, as we all know, has very similar effects as caffeine, both are stimulants.

    I would also offer that other stress relieving substances, like drugs and alcohol, do not follow the same graphs in regards to income and use.

    I have no doubt poor people have more money related stresses, but to say that smoking helps more than not smoking is something someone with little understanding of how money works, would say.

    Parent

    I gave up my beloved Redman loose leaf (none / 0) (#201)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 03:41:21 PM EST
    about 20 years ago. I still miss it just about every day, every time I walk into a 7-11.

    Parent
    People also use smoking... (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 03:57:36 PM EST
    to self-medicate. Especially true of psychological conditions.  The rich can afford the kind of health care that addresses those health issues.

    Parent
    Exactly. A member of my family (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by caseyOR on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 05:09:37 PM EST
    has schizophrenia. Smoking is a way to self-soothe. And it mitigates a little the bad side effects of psych meds. For people with mental health issues smoking can be the lesser of two evils.

    It is much harder for the less affluent among us to get any mental health treatment except psych drugs, which have harsh side effects. No talk therapy of any kind for the poor. It costs a lot less money to simply keep people drugged to the gills.

    Smoking can have a calming effect for people without severe mental health issues. If you are making next to nothing, working a couple of dead-end jobs, worried about feeding and clothing the kids, well, the calming effects of smoking may be the only form of releif you have.

    I am not a proponent of smoking. I hate to be around it. The smoke makes my eyes water, turn red and if I don't get away from it, swell up. The smell is awful. Still, I understand why the vast majority of smokers in thsi country are at the low end of the income scale.

    Parent

    OK, What is the Point of Public Housing ? (none / 0) (#72)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 03:07:38 PM EST
    Providing a decent affordable place to live... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 03:12:31 PM EST
    to working people, to get them out of tenements PETA would have you locked up for letting a dog live in.

    Not to say we've lived up that ideal, but that was the idea behind it.  And it's a noble one.  

    Parent

    Come On... (none / 0) (#83)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 03:54:52 PM EST
    ...you want to have a discussion about government housing without being honest about it's purpose today ?

    It's not about getting people out of tenements.

    Parent

    Yes it is (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by vicndabx on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 05:02:20 PM EST
    What is Public Housing?

    Public housing was established to provide decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. Public housing comes in all sizes and types, from scattered single family houses to high rise apartments for elderly families. There are approximately 1.2 million households living in public housing units, managed by some 3,300 HAs.



    Link


    Parent
    Yeah... (2.00 / 1) (#102)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 05:12:35 PM EST
    ...point totally missed.


    Parent
    speak plainly then son (none / 0) (#103)
    by vicndabx on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 05:17:24 PM EST
    ;)

    Parent
    Dude... (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 01:21:32 PM EST
    you asked why we have public housing, I answered you.  We have it because it before we had it, too many people lived in squalor conditions in tenements.  And I conceded we might not be living up to that purpose, some housing projects today look like tenements and feel like prisons to tenants.  

    If you're asking why we still have them, I'd say it's because there is still a need for them...without them, perhaps worse tenements return and homelessness would rise.  Where would the tenants go?  

    Parent

    Proposal (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by vicndabx on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 02:59:29 PM EST
    how about we cut your pay based on all the food you waste a year?  There's hungry people out there you know.

    People who live in public housing aren't all on PA.  If they are, it's food stamps and a rent subsidy based on income.  They bring cash to the table as kdog notes.

    In addition, many are retirees living off a pension and SS they earned.

    Interesting follow up article on the smoking decline in the US.  Who's still smoking?  The poor.

    Parent

    vic... (none / 0) (#73)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 03:10:10 PM EST
    ...say what, cut my income based on the amount of food I waste ?  That is related to smoking, how ?

    For the record, I am pretty sure that me paying for something I throw away is already dinging my paycheck, no ?


    Parent

    Your point is waste (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by vicndabx on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 03:17:33 PM EST
    waste of resources given to those in need.  My point, what if we penalize everyone who wastes resources?  In your case, food you throw out each year.

    Parent
    But I Paid for it... (none / 0) (#87)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 04:16:21 PM EST
    ...still missing your point as it related to this conversation.

    Are there not any fiscal differences between a person who earns enough to help someone who does not earn much ?  Can the person helping never require anything of the person receiving ?

    The money I/we earn is loaded with strings, the idea that there are no strings for the people we are helping, to me is absurd.

    Parent

    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by vicndabx on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 04:43:57 PM EST
    But there should be meaningful requirements not punitive ones.

    Again, most of these people work and earn a portion of their money. IMO, they should be allowed to spend a portion they earn to live as they see fit.

    Why do you think those in public housing aren't subject to the same strings you are? Do they pay taxes like you? Of course they do.

    Parent

    speaking of punitive......... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by NYShooter on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 07:59:35 PM EST
    How's $6.00 a pack for taxes in NYC?

    Every time those corrupt swine in Albany need more money, who you gonna tax? The poorest, most beaten down segment of New York's citizens, of course.

    Why, who did you think they would tax? J.P. Morgan's derivative traders? Hedge Fund Managers? Or, maybe the Bond Trader Pigs who borrow billions from the Government at 2%, and, lend it right back to them at 6&, thanks to the never ending "billionaire bail out plan," QE, forever.

    They even gave it a catchy name: "ZIRP" Zero Interest Rate Policy. Of course, "SLURP," would have been a more appropriate term, like pigs at the trough, "SLURP, SLURP, SLURP."

    Nah, best not to look to them when the City needs money. Like that Prophet, George Carlin once said, The Rich own the Government, and, THEY own YOU."

    Get it from those single moms on food stamps. "Yeah, that's the ticket. Then we can tell'em what they can eat AND, IF they can smoke."
    "Anyway, they're the ones who caused our economy to blow up, didn't they?"

    "Well, didn't they?"

    I gotta go walk the dog now, so, ciao.....later.

    (btw, This is not meant towards you, vicndabx. I just started writing a response to your post, and got carried away.)

    Parent

    About rent in public housing (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 07:16:15 PM EST
    Public Housing Tenants Pay for Rent?

    Most tenants pay 30 percent of their income (after certain deductions are taken out) for rent and utilities.  Housing agencies can choose to require families to pay a minimum rent of up to $50 even if this is more than 30 percent of their income, and families can opt to pay a flat rent based on local market rents regardless of their income.  



    Parent
    The price schedule linked is for Marlboro (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 11:51:05 PM EST
    Marlboro is considered a premium brand. Generic, no name brands are quite a bit cheaper as kdog has indicated.

    Getting drunk or smoking some weed on a regular basis is pretty expensive as well. Not sure why one waste of funds is better than another other than your own personal preference.

    Parent

    This is what I've been talking about: (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 11:46:12 AM EST
    While Mr. Obama's 2008 election helped usher in a political resurgence for Democrats, the president today presides over a shrinking party whose control of elected offices at the state and local levels has declined precipitously. In January, Republicans will occupy 32 of the nation's governorships, 10 more than they did in 2009. Democratic losses in state legislatures under Mr. Obama rank among the worst in the last 115 years, with 816 Democratic lawmakers losing their jobs and Republican control of legislatures doubling since the president took office -- more seats lost than under any president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

    The conventional wisdom seems to be that the Dems should move further to the right to stem the tide.

    I think that the Party should move in the direction of Bernie Sanders.
    Progressive.

    My sense is that the Democratic party considers Sanders a threat rather than a potential savior. They are hooked in with the idea that HRC is unbeatable against a bunch of Republican hopefuls who seem, to us, as increasingly wacko.

    I, on the other hand, see HRC as extremely vulnerable.
    Damaged by her own actions, inactions, and 180° shifts. (September -'"I am a moderate" / October - "I am a progressive".)
    Kinda sorta for and against the death penalty...

    Obama's administration has brought us 8 more years of war.
    We are further from income equality than ever. The inner cities are still a source of neglect. Racism is no less fierce than it was. Women's rights are more in danger than ever. Gitmo - that festering boil on our countenance - exposing us to international ridicule and condemnation - continues 8 years after the promise to end it. The droning program that continues to kill the innocent - including children - on a daily basis.

    How are we going to attract voters? Young voters? Minority voters - "middle class" and poor voters - with a record like that?

    Can't we have a party that is unequivocally for a woman's right to choose?

    There was scarcely a mention that Sanders voted against the military appropriations bill. A principled vote. Conventional wisdom would have him moving to the right in order to catch up with Clinton. But he held his ground.

    I'm not saying that Sanders is the one that we should rally around. I don't have a clear sense of what he would do to end the wars - although he did at least express serious reservations about our increasing involvement in Syria.

    But I am worried by my perception (perhaps erroneous) that we, who identify more with the Democratic Party, are content to chuckle at the absurd posturing and garbled bleatings of the republicans - the "clowns" - as if that will somehow ensure a victory for us via Clinton.

    I do not see articulating my fears as "whining".

    I see it as my way of expressing my apprehension that we are teetering on a precipice.

    I think our problems are more complex (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by vicndabx on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 12:54:00 PM EST
    than whose policy is more popular.

    Not intending to insult you but I would submit most of the Democratic base doesn't care about most of this stuff:

    Obama's administration has brought us 8 more years of war.
     We are further from income equality than ever. The inner cities are still a source of neglect. Racism is no less fierce than it was. Women's rights are more in danger than ever. Gitmo - that festering boil on our countenance - exposing us to international ridicule and condemnation - continue years after the promise to end it. The droning program that continues to kill the innocent - including children - on a daily basis.

    with the exception of income inequality.  The activist few, yes.  Most everyone else - bread and butter issues around paying bills.  That is why Republicans are winning at state and local levels (as well as Dems that are successful).  They keep money in people's pocket.  Anecdotal evidence in my state (NY) at least.

    Parent

    If you (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 02:01:33 PM EST
    are correct, and the Democratic base doesn't care about racism, Gitmo, the wars, the drones, the killing of the innocent on a daily basis, and the assault on women's rights, then I would have to wonder what in the world the Democratic party stands for - if anything.

    I guess, for you, the only contest between these two monsters, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, is which of them will leave a few more pennies in our pockets after they are finished picking them.

    You may be right.

    But if so, it is a very sad state of affairs.

    And we should consider, those of us who do care about those issues, building a new party from scratch.

    Parent

    The wall that you face, lentinel (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 01:11:45 PM EST
    is that the American electorate, historically, votes for the person considered somewhat center or moderate in the general election. From time to time, that changes with small pendulum shifts (right of center to/from left of center.) And, of course, it is voter perception of where the candidate stands--not necessarily a quantitative or predictive test--that determines the image-reality of the candidate.

    IMO, most Democrats neither consider Senator Sanders to be a "threat" nor to be a "savior." That really is not what is going on here.  In fact, many of us HRC supporters welcome the argument and testing that Sanders has brought to the nomination race.  It is obvious that his entry in the race has necessitated that HRC pay more attention to the significant and more liberal component of the Democratic Party (see, e.g., TPP and Keystone XL.) Yet, as Ga6th succinctly suggests, the Senator's positions as to "checked boxes" of a more purist nature may not bode well in the general where categorizations of what constitutes a threat are very different than what we would consider to be so.  

    The wall: Bernie Sanders is closer to the purists on the left than has been accepted by the majorities in general elections.  Starting with nomenclature ala democratic socialist, etc.  While that directness causes strongly positive reaction with smaller percentages of our party's further left component, it is highly likely to have the opposite effect for most of the electorate.  It may not be fair, but it would be a strike against him right out of the general election box.

    I value Senator Sanders for his convictions and for the internal Democratic evaluation that has promoted. But--in terms of approach--I think that he would ensure a loss for our party along the lines of George McGovern. (Aside: That loss taught me a lot ... having worked in the campaign, having pinned my hopes on the courage of his convictions, the election night showed me a lot of things that I couldn't see earlier or through my tears, then.)  

    Politics is the art of compromise.  Beginning with the Constitution, that is what we as a country have always been about.  As we have grown increasingly diverse in populace and in belief system, that ability to move forward for everyone in a spirit of compromise becomes paramount if we are not to balkanize ourselves.  Without going into too long a screed, here, I would say briefly that HRC represents best that leadership quality of anyone on the political scene in years.  

    Parent

    Not exactly Anne (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by FlJoe on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 04:26:51 PM EST
    "Politics is the art of compromise". I would consider compromise the product of politics rather then it's essence. To me the true art of politics is balancing the pragmatic and the ideal. that's basically what all these flame wars are about.

    Parent
    This may be naive to say... (none / 0) (#97)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 04:48:54 PM EST
    but I don't think we need any more politicians making concessions to bring about just about nothing that matters.

    We need leaders.

    I mean people whose convictions about something is so strong - it can bring millions around to their point of view.

    Two examples spring to mind:
    Malcolm X and Martin Luther King.

    Gandhi.
    Patrick Henry.

    Maybe even Edward R. Murrow.

    People willing to put themselves on the line and fight. Get out there - daily or weekly press conferences (I believe JFK did week press conferences...)

    Don't tell me about the odds -- as Malcolm once said.

    What am I saying?
    I must be nuts.
    That kind of leader in this day and age?
    Can't happen.
    Shouldn't happen.
    I like it the way it is with two parties on the same side reaching out to each other to benefit themselves.

    Parent

    Don't (none / 0) (#156)
    by FlJoe on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 06:19:19 AM EST
    forget Mandela, Bolivar any many more. One common theme among all these names is that the movements  that predated the leaders.

    You say

    I mean people whose convictions about something is so strong - it can bring millions around to their point of view.

    I say their were millions who had strong convictions about civil rights long before MLK gave his first sermon, Patrick Henry was just repeating what he had been hearing in the town squares and taverns.

    A black person in Selma or Memphis circa 1960 woke up each day knowing they were oppressed, just as their parents were.

    Bernie is indeed a strong voice against the oppression of the American people by the oligarchs, but it's not an in your face oppression like Apartheid or Colonialism and it definitely is not a generational thing.

    Parent

    Should be, "not exactly, christinep" (none / 0) (#114)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 06:44:59 PM EST
    as that is who authored the comment you're responding to, not me.

    Parent
    oops (none / 0) (#149)
    by FlJoe on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 04:19:48 AM EST
    sorry Anne

    Parent
    I'll go further than my initial statement (none / 0) (#116)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 07:04:15 PM EST
    Governance is an art. It involves compromise at its essence ... just as living in this world involves compromise.

    Parent
    Sometimes (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by FlJoe on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 05:02:20 AM EST
    It's art, sometimes it's a barroom brawl. Currently it's trench warfare, compromise is not in the Republicans lexicon.

    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#183)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 12:05:56 PM EST
    Exactly how then did Obama sign a 2 year budget deal?

    Parent
    I guess (none / 0) (#184)
    by FlJoe on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 12:59:25 PM EST
    if you consider kicking the can down the road as compromise, then hope is alive!

    Parent
    Sanders (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 12:01:42 PM EST
    problem is he is perceived as checking all the boxes of previous losing candidates or at least that's the read I get from what you are stating.

    Parent
    Could (none / 0) (#55)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 01:54:33 PM EST
    you be more specific about which boxes of which candidates you're talking about?

    Parent
    Losing (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 02:37:38 PM EST
    candidates come from New England, don't have much appeal to minorities etc.

    Parent
    So (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 03:33:43 PM EST
    you don't want any candidates from New England.

    OK.

    Parent

    It's (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 03:39:50 PM EST
    not about me. It's about why people think Bernie can't win. There's been three candidates from New England in the last 25 years and they all lost. That and the fact that he seems to not be doing well with minority voters.

    Parent
    I see. (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 04:02:47 PM EST
    People you know, or read about, say that they don't think someone from New England can win.

    Forget Kennedy.
    That doesn't count.
    Nobody even remembers him.


    Parent

    Three (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 04:36:45 PM EST
    candidates more recent lost but if you include Kennedy in the last 55 years you are talking about a 25% success rate.

    Parent
    Romney, Kerry (none / 0) (#95)
    by CST on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 04:47:09 PM EST
    and...?  I'm blanking on the third.

    Unless you mean Dean?  But I assume we're not talking in the primary or else the success rate for every region goes waaay down.

    You could also make a strong case that the Bushes (especially senior) are "from" New England.  Depends how you define from I guess.

    Parent

    Dukakis! (none / 0) (#96)
    by CST on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 04:48:07 PM EST
    You'd think I'd remember him.

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#110)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 06:03:26 PM EST
    Nobody does.

    Olympia Dukakis.

    Now you're talkin'.

    Parent

    Oh lordy... (none / 0) (#113)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 06:10:08 PM EST
    I just remembered Michael reaching across the aisle as it were - driving around in a tank --- all you could see was his nose...

    Right then it was syonara.

    Parent

    Where is (none / 0) (#107)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 05:53:49 PM EST
    Hillary from?

    New York?
    Arkansas?

    Parent

    Illinois (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Peter G on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 08:41:49 PM EST
    If that was a serious question.

    Parent
    Well, Peter, it is lentinel, so (none / 0) (#134)
    by caseyOR on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:21:12 PM EST
    I suspect his question was more snarky than serious. He does not like anything about HRC.

    Parent
    Hence the "if" qualification (none / 0) (#135)
    by Peter G on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:25:40 PM EST
    on my response.

    Parent
    for what it's worth (none / 0) (#167)
    by CST on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 09:15:42 AM EST
    by that metric, Bush Sr. is certainly from New England.

    Parent
    I would say (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 09:17:13 AM EST
    By any honest metric Bush is from New England

    Parent
    yea, although (none / 0) (#170)
    by CST on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 09:24:14 AM EST
    In defense of the "new england candidates stink" argument, he did lose re-election.  And W. has a much stronger case of being from Texas.

    But at the same time, it's certainly an area that has provided a number of presidents and presidential candidates.  More than a lot of places.  I do think there is something to the attitude that doesn't sell well, but it's not like it's impossible, probably depends more on the person.  I'm not saying Bernie is that person, but he's not in any way a blue blood/elitist, which is I think the issue Kerry/Romney/Bush ran into a bit.

    Parent

    W was born in New Haven, CT (none / 0) (#171)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 09:49:00 AM EST
    And let's not forget, he went to high school, college, and graduate school in New England as well.

    Parent
    yea (none / 0) (#172)
    by CST on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 09:52:12 AM EST
    But he grew up as a kid and started high school in Texas, and spent most of his life there.  He certainly sold himself as a Texan during the election.

    Parent
    My 2 cents (none / 0) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 10:55:08 AM EST
    about NE candidates is they assume that voters know things that voters don't necessarily know. It's kind of like Dukakis saying about the Willie Horton ad that nobody believes that. Well, probably in New England nobody did believe that kind of thing or would never vote based on that kind of thing. From what I've seen New England candidates kind of cringe at the thought of cutting off the legs of their opponents. Look at how Edwards is cutting the legs off of Vitter in LA and tell me if that's something you would see in New England?

    Parent
    And how many (none / 0) (#98)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 04:51:55 PM EST
    were from Texas?

    Parent
    2 (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 05:32:48 PM EST
    and both won but also blew up their coalitions.

    Parent
    Blew up (none / 0) (#106)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 05:52:43 PM EST
    their coalitions?

    What are referring to?

    What coalition did LBJ blow up?
    I know he blew up the USA with his unending escalation of the war in Vietnam.

    Everything went down the drain.

    Then we got W.

    And he blew up the rest - what was left of us.

    In any case - it was quite a spell between these two Texans.

    It's time for another New Englander.

    Parent

    When LBJ (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 06:06:33 PM EST
    signed civil rights it blew up the coalition. He knew what he was doing but decided it was worth it.

    Well, we've had New Englanders before and they lost like I said above. They don't seem to know how to run national campaigns.

    Parent

    The Far Left thinks the Demos should (none / 0) (#146)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 12:51:04 AM EST
    move farther to the left.

    The Far Right thinks the Repubs should move farther to the right.

    Both sides believe the other will lose if they do that.

    Somebody's wrong.

    Parent

    On the other hand, (none / 0) (#151)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 05:12:14 AM EST
    they both could be right.

    Democratic voters could figure, what the hell... the Democrats been in charge of the White House for eight years and haven't done anything for me... Maybe I'll vote for the Republican...

    And

    Republican voters could figure, what the hell...
    the Republicans have been in charge of both houses of congress for -- six years - and haven't done anything for me...
    Maybe I'll vote for the Democrat...

    And so both sides will vote for any alternative to the status quo and it will all even out.

    :.)

    Parent

    I think that people might vote against (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 08:10:29 AM EST
    the status quo candidate from within their own party, but I don't believe they will entertain the delusion that somehow, Republicans are going to give Democrats what they want, or vice-versa.

    On issue after issue, we hear the GOP mouthing the buzz-worthy themes, but if you go deeper into the details of their plans, you immediately understand that that none of them are in any way consistent with or even close to anything remotely Democratic.  

    I don't really have to list all the ways in which Republicans' ideas are in direct conflict with Democrats, do I?  I mean, what do you hear that would give you any glimmer of an idea that the GOP is going to fairly represent you and what you believe in?  

    The other thing you have to factor is this: people are creatures of habit who generally resist change, and that holds for voting habits, too, I think.  I look at myself, who in 2008, did not cast any vote for president, and in 2012, voted Green.  Those were not easy decisions for me, and I made them after years, really, of being engaged and informed on the issues in a much broader and deeper way than probably most people ever are.  It was harder than I thought, standing in front of those machines, to break a habit I'd had ever since I first voted.

    I think people toy with the idea of breaking away, but I'm not sure many people actually do, when it comes crunch time.  And it makes no sense for people to break away and go in the exact opposite direction to a party or a candidate who doesn't represent their interests.

    I do think there's a good possibility that Republicans will choose someone from the outside as their nominee, but I'm not sure that Dems will (and really, there aren't any "outsider" candidates on the Dem side - Sanders' ideas are closest to being outside what has become the establishment, but he's not an outsider, by any means).  

    I can only tell you that as frustrated as I am sometimes with the Democratic Party, there is no way I'm ever voting for a Republican in this or any election.  I may not believe the Dems are exactly where I am on all the issues that matter to me, and I may want them to move more to the left on a number of things, but what I know for sure is that there is nothing the Republican party wants to do or is choosing to advocate for that is anywhere in the same universe as I am.

    Parent

    We suffer the Chinese curse (none / 0) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 06:57:49 AM EST
    We live in interesting times.

    Parent
    Interesting issues to think about (none / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 12:20:09 PM EST
    I don't consider it whining at all. I'd love to give the Dem top level brass some truth serum and ask them just what they stand for and what their strategy is. It has been said they are focused on the presidency at the expense of everything else, ideology included. That certainly is how it looks to me. I think they can reach that goal with HRC against the current GOP hopefuls, even without her attracting any more left voters than her normal slightly left of center stance. I think she will get a lot of centrist women with that stance, women that may have voted for a moderate Republican, if there were such a thing. She can't lose the left entirely, but she does not have to go that far to court Bernie voters, because she is going to make it up in the center. I think that is the strategic bet they are making.

    So what are the Democratic Party goals beyond that?

    Parent

    Centrist women and Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by itscookin on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 02:55:29 PM EST
    I don't think Hillary Clinton will attract as many centrist women in 2016 as she did in 2008. The idea of voting for a woman because she's a woman has lost some of its mystique. If voting strictly based on gender was a good idea, then voting for Sarah Palin or Carly Fiorina would be an equally valid decision. As many people who comment here can attest to, most Democrats, male and female, don't really believe any woman is worth a vote just because she's woman. And surprise! surprise! neither do centrist women, and we find it hypocritical for the Democrats to suggest gender as a rationale for voting after the feeding fests the left has fomented against conservative women. Hillary Clinton is going to have to earn the votes of women who do not have strong allegiances to either party just like any of the other candidates have to do. She's going to have to distinguish herself from the last 7 years of the Obama administration and not pander to the Bernie Sanders voters. I'm not sure Hillary Clinton has the political skills to do that, and I worked for her in 2008. Where centrist women go in 2016 will depend on who the Republicans nominate. We're not as against the possibilities as much as folks who lean to the left like the people here are. Or if neither party puts up a candidate who appeals to us how enthusiastically we'll go to the polls for either party. But Hillary Clinton is far from a slam-dunk with us this time around.

    Parent
    'Splain please.. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 03:38:05 PM EST
    She's going to have to distinguish herself from the last 7 years of the Obama administration and not pander to the Bernie Sanders voters.

    And why do you think she shouldn't "pander to", that is to say attract people interested in the policies and proposals being offered by Sanders?

    If she loses the left of the party, she's toast.
    (imo)

    The "centrists", the right-wingers in the party would just as soon vote for a republican, imo.

    Parent

    You realize (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 03:44:11 PM EST
    Thst "the left", as i think you perceive it to be (or should be) is not necessarily the majority of the party, and that even many people on "the left" will most certainly vote for her, especiially if it looks like it will be a close election.

    Parent
    The "left" and the party... (none / 0) (#88)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 04:20:04 PM EST
    That "the left", as i think you perceive it to be (or should be) is not necessarily the majority of the party, and that even many people on "the left" will most certainly vote for her, especially if it looks like it will be a close election.

    They will if the holding-your-nose-and-voting-for-the-least-worst pattern holds.

    From what I sense, I'm not sure that is going to hold. I think fewer and fewer people are voting.
    And I believe that is the reason. Holding one's nose is no longer a viable alternative for many.
    And I don't blame anyone for taking that route.

    What I think you are inferring is that what we now have is two center-right parties - with one being somewhat to the left of the other - at least in verbiage.

    That's what it looks like to me.

    But with neither party proposing a course that will end our involvement in wars - with all the disruptions and deaths that entails (not to mention the enormous drain on our economy and resources) - and neither party strongly supporting the unequivocal right of a woman to choose what goes on in her own body (which I consider to be a basic human right - and I could argue the most important one) I'm not sure that the extent that the dems are to the left of the repubs is going to be enough to make a difference at the polls.

    For example: If Trump says he's gonna put money in our pockets, and he's already created 10s of thousands of jobs, people who need a job and need money might just say... what the fk... I'll give it a try. The other party hasn't done sht for me so... why not?

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 10:01:41 AM EST
    Despite how you feel about her, there's going to be the same excitement around Hillary Clinton as the possible first female president as there was with Barack Obama being the first AA.  Oh, she doesn't have the new car smell that he had, but you also have to realize that most people aren't enthused about the election at all right nor.  It's annoying to hear about it and see commercials when we are a YEAR OUT.

    And what you see as the most important issues, aren't necessarily the most important to other voters, including other Dems.

    Parent

    Which (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 03:40:49 PM EST
    Republican would these voters consider voting for? Just curious.

    Parent
    Did I say they would vote for her (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 03:46:10 PM EST
    just because she is a woman? I will be astounded if it is not a factor however, as much as people say they are gender blind.

    Parent
    Recent polling said (none / 0) (#125)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 08:30:53 PM EST
    35% of the country would never vote for a woman for President. I doubt that number is true as many in the GOP knee jerk to that answer knowing Hillary will be the Dem nominee. But if true, then to be elected Hillary will need to win better than 78% of the voters that would consider voting for a female for President.


    Parent
    39% (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 06:41:18 AM EST
    of voters is the GOP base so that would be about all the Republicans.

    Parent
    Anyone seen the Zach Brown Band live? (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 02:10:12 PM EST
    I'm going to see them in Tampa tomorrow. I had never heard of him until I saw him on an episode of Dave Grohl's Sonic Highway's show...but he looked like so much fun I snapped up a friends offer of a ticket if I would drive.

    I'm going Sunday (none / 0) (#127)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 08:36:10 PM EST
    Be sure and give me your Friday review.

    Parent
    I'm going Sunday (none / 0) (#131)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:03:36 PM EST
    Be sure and give me your Friday review.

    Parent
    Looks like I'm going twice Sunday (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:06:30 PM EST
    Marco Rubio, during the Tuesday (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 05:29:44 PM EST
    Republican "debate," claimed .."We need more welders and less philosophers."  Either bolstering his argument or pandering to the rampant Republican anti-intellectualism, he claimed, further, "Welders make more money than philosophers."  

    My truck with Rubio is not that his wage/salary assertion is false,  since so much of what he and the rest of his cohorts spouted off with fits comfortably into the falsehood domain.

     Rather, it is Rubio's philosophy of the matter: It is valuable to get a vocational degree/certificate and, vocations, such as welders are valuable.  And, in demand.

     But, the value of vocational training need not be advocated by derisive treatment of another field, such as philosophy.  And, Rubio's  premise that vocational education bears a stigma is more fantastical than real.

     What may be true, is that society in general, and parents and counselors, in specific, may urge their children/ students to achieve the highest level of education in keeping with individualized talent. And, it may or may not be related entirely to wages/salary.

    Within certain vocations and professions, greater respect or prestige may exist: for example, in the building trades, the electrician is often viewed in that manner; in the medical field, the neurosurgeon (or used to be).

    There are many pathways to success. Probably as many as there are definitions of success. I would encourage every capable student to maximize their education.  But, that does not mean that vocations are somehow lesser in respect and dignity.

     Marco Rubio need not advocate for vocations by tearing down others who have worked hard and treasure their fields. Indeed, rather than being divisive and asserting educational contamination, Rubio needs to weld worthwhile goals together. So, from that perspective, Marco is right, we need more welders, starting with him.

    This may be as (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 05:56:35 PM EST
    shallow a statement that anyone can make...
    But Rubio and Cruz make my flesh crawl.

    Parent
    It's one of the usual conservative straw men (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 06:57:06 PM EST
    arguments - that liberal 'elites' don't respect people that go to trade schools, or anything other than an elite college degree. Of course it is hogwash. I don't know anyone that does not think anyone should be able to do anything he or she truly wants to do in education or career. I just don't want limitations like expense or bias to limit people's horizons.

    Parent
    Yeah, Says the Guy... (none / 0) (#175)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 10:43:22 AM EST
    ...who went to University of Miami School of Law.

    We don't need any college educated politicians lecturing anyone on the virtues of swinging a hammer.  And while these trades are honorable, they are blue collar and there is not an electrician alive that hasn't felt the electrical sting of their trade.  I weld as a hobby, it's a dirty & loud job, well paid, but wearing a welding shield for 8 hours a day and breathing in sometimes toxic fumes, isn't exactly the same as shuffling papers in an office.

    There is a price to pay and a reason certain vocational jobs pay very well.  They are stigmatized because they take a greater toll on one's body and one's health, not because the professions are less dignified.  Just my 2 cents.

    The issue I had with his comment is, people graduate with philosophy degrees, but how many people are actually employed as philosophers ?  I mean seriously, he put a profession that employees hundreds of thousands up against a profession that is basically non-existent.  Of course welders are more important than a position that doesn't exist on any practical level.  I would imagine it's one of those rare fields in which there are more teachers than actual positions.

    The point here is, what Rubio wants, we already have, practically no philosophers, any less and they simply wouldn't exist.

    I would argue what we really need is more politicians that do their jobs, and fewer politicians who view their current positions as stepping a stone to bigger and better jobs.

    Parent

    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 01:07:16 PM EST
    Rubio has a knee slapper that he uses on the stump: The job market for Greek philosophers has tightened over that last 2000 years.

    Always good for a hee haw from his followers. But, in addition, to his anti-intellectualism to make his point about vocational training, he misses the value of philosophy.  Not, as a career (which takes graduate education and scholarship) but as a foundation to understanding.  Indeed, as a building block in other career paths.  Philosophy challenges you to construct cogent arguments and evaluate arguments of others critically.  

    Rubio could take a course or two in philosophy. When apparently challenged by Rand Paul on his budget proposal to increase Pentagon spending, Rubio resorted to a child-like response about safety and jihadists beheading and killing Christians.  Of course, the Republicans loved it, but still.

    Parent

    Ah, the old "who is better" debate... (none / 0) (#192)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 02:03:42 PM EST
    It has been said that a garbage collector is more important to society than a philosopher...and that is true in the sense that without garbage collection the philosopher will probably die of some disease.

    Of course almost everyone can be trained to be a garbage collector while not everyone can be trained to be a philosopher.

    Of course the greater problem now is that everyone must have a college degree to be employed.... I remember that a utility meter reader's posted req's were a BS. Of course with a remote monitoring and automatic billing that position is no longer needed.

    Parent

    The police in Louisiana (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 07:05:07 PM EST
    ...who shot and killed the kid have been arrested for murder.

    Sorry, McBain, but it turned out that nothing they said about the incident was true, the father had no warrants, no weapon, did not drive the car at them, and was shot while his hands were raised.

    How many times do the police have to cry "Wolf!" before you stop believing them?

    How do you know he had his hands raised? (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by McBain on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 07:26:58 PM EST
    Have you seen the body cam video? I haven't.

    No one knows why they started shooting.  Do you really believe they intended to execute the boy?  I find that extremely hard to believe. It's been reported they called for back up.  If that's true, why would they decide to murder someone in front of witnesses?

    One thing for sure the police wasted little time arresting the two marshals.  The superintendent of the Louisiana State Police basically said it was an unprovoked shooting. I'd still like to see the video and more evidence.  
     

    Parent

    Pretty weak tea, McBain. (none / 0) (#129)
    by caseyOR on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 08:44:38 PM EST
    Did you even read the story at the link? The body camera worn by one of the officers puts the lie to the version of events those two marshalls gave.

    They may not have intended to execute the boy, but it seems they did intend to execute the father who somehow survived.

    Parent

    The report I read is that the child was shot (none / 0) (#132)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:05:34 PM EST
    6 times in the chest and head. Make of that what you will.

    Parent
    So, you've seen the video? (none / 0) (#140)
    by McBain on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:54:26 PM EST
    And you've read the officers statements? I wouldn't mind having a link to both of those.  I did read the article and several others. Not a lot to go on yet.  Not ready to convict them of murder 1.  Apparently, you and others are.

    They may not have intended to execute the boy, but it seems they did intend to execute the father who somehow survived.

    So, both officers decided to throw away their careers, their lives and execute someone with a good chance of being caught?  Were they planning on planting a weapon?  I'm trying to figure out what the theory is here....

    Parent

    I Read/Saw.... (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 11:04:44 AM EST
    ...that one of them was trying to hook-up with the few's wife or girlfriend online.  That the office showed up at their place, and the Few told him if he came around again he would get hurt.

    I know, he/she said, but several reports have indicated there was a personal issue between the cop and the victim.  It would also explain why warrant officers decided to pull over Few.

    I think it's safe to say the prosecutor has seen the video and that the murder charges are based on more than what you or I have privy to.  The million dollar each, bail also leads me to believe whatever the evidence, it's damning enough that they don't want these two out on the streets.

    The idea that we need to actually see the video to know what happen is dumb:

    When officials reviewed body-cam footage of the incident, they found Few actually had his arms in the air when the officers unloaded the barrage on the car.

    "This was not a threatening situation for the police," said Mark Jeansonne, Few's attorney. Colonel Mike Edmonson, the superintendent of the Louisiana State Police, affirmed that after watching the footage.

    I think the word of the superintendent of the Louisiana State Police is more than sufficient evidence to assume that the Few wasn't a threat.

    For all your bluster about people finding them guilty, you are doing the exact same thing with their innocence, and if you took a look at the evidence available, it certainly does not support any claims you and the two cops have made.

    At least people who claim the cops are guilty have what little evidence is available on their side, you have nothing but the statements of two cops that have been proven false if the word of Louisiana's top cop is to be believed.

    Parent

    It seems like this case (none / 0) (#181)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 12:02:01 PM EST
    is one where you have to give the Police Captain I saw, at least, some credit for the speed, and, forcefulness with which they brought charges, and, with, what looked like to me, a real show of sincerity in the way he conducted himself in the news conference I watched.

    The incident must've been truly horrible, that's the sense I got from his statements. And, also, from the fact that we've seen some pretty terrible videos in other cases. yet, he said this one was so bad he wasn't going to open to the public, at least, at this time.

    Finally, unless the captain was the best actor ever, I was moved by his very emotional, from the heart, rendition of the "unfairly tragic manner that sweet little boy's life was cut short."

    Parent

    What are you saying? (none / 0) (#194)
    by McBain on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 02:19:56 PM EST
    Both marshals are guilty of murder one and we don't need to see any evidence?  It's easy to say it doesn't look good for them but not so easy to know what to do with them.  We still don't know if they knew the kid was in the car.  

    Edmonson's statements are damning but could it be possible the marshall with the grudge is guilty of murder and mislead the other one into thinking Few was a threat?  I see lots of possibilities here ranging from cold blooded execution to justified shooting.  


    Parent

    What I Am Saying... (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 02:57:51 PM EST
    ...it it does not look good for the cops and if one were more guilty than another I would think bail would reflect that.

    It is interesting to see you include execution in the realm of possibilities considering you previous statements regarding the word.

    I never said guilty, as a matter of fact the only person using the word is you, twice.

    Parent

    Sounds (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by FlJoe on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 09:24:08 AM EST
    like all the Republicans who want huge tax cuts and bigger defense spending, with no idea how to pay for it. Maybe old Neil better try asking them the same question, or would that be considered to much of a gotcha question.

    If you had watched the FNBC debate (none / 0) (#191)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 01:53:41 PM EST
    you would know that the question was asked several times with various answers.

    Parent
    Jebs (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 06:23:53 PM EST
    Losers all (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 07:03:03 PM EST

    WASHINGTON -- Billionaire industrialist Charles Koch said Wednesday he's unlikely to back a candidate in the crowded Republican presidential primary, the latest sign that one of the most influential figures in conservative politics seems less than enthusiastic about his choices.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 07:29:21 PM EST
    considering how well the people he has picked have done the candidates should be out celebrating. This is a case of not getting into an area where you know nothing about. And in the few places he's got someone it has been utter destruction for the residents of the state.

    Parent
    Accidently found the way to get money (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:40:34 AM EST
    out of politics. Get candidates no one can stand to spend money on.

    Parent
    You were right (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:56:11 AM EST
    He is Katy Segals son.   We found that out in the last moments of this weeks episode.

    I really like it.

    Been watching?

    Next week is the season finale.

    Oh, and American Horror Story got picked up for another season.  Woo hoo.
    I hope Lady Gaga is involved.   She's been spectacular.

    Parent

    Yes, I can't quit the BA (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 11:59:12 AM EST
    Though sometimes I hate myself afterward. Gees, so violent. Did they really have to kill all those guys to get to the Frenchman? Use your words, Chamberlain!

    I was of course not surprised by that big reveal -  and if I am not surprised in the least, you know it must have been pretty well telegraphed!

    Parent

    Larger storyline (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 12:12:38 PM EST
    Pretty fascinating

    Parent
    Yes, it is kind of getting into (none / 0) (#90)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 04:29:06 PM EST
    Da Vinci Code territory there...with the alternative gospels etc. I like that better than going into the supernatural.

    Parent
    He'll back the eventual winner of the GOP primary (none / 0) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 07:19:58 PM EST
    against the war? (none / 0) (#5)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 08:09:56 PM EST
    You are against which of "the" wars, if I may ask?

    the continuing war in Afghanistan . . . the war against ISIS . . .  some other war I can't think of . . .

    against the civil war in Syria?

    against the probably averted potential war in Iran?

    the war against snowden and/or manning?

    Since Isis has begun to kill civilians . . . I am not sure how you might wish to be against it . . . and I don't know how much we are doing . . .

    Maybe the Russians will decide to destroy ISIS and we will provide a little bit of satelite information . . .

    meant to type "war" (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 08:16:01 PM EST
    not "the war". I'm against all war.

    Parent
    I am (none / 0) (#8)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 09:28:43 PM EST
    I am mostly and usually against wars . . .

    I assume you must mean that you are against wars unless we are directly attacked?  You would have supported US action in WWII . . .  I suppose . . .

    I looks like Iraq II was quite bad idea . . .

    Prior to 9/11, Al-qaeda made repeated attacks in us citizens or ships or property . . . or ambassadors.

    At some point in between bin Laden declaring war on the USA and 9/12/2001, I assume you would have agreed that it would be good to make war on Al-qaeda?

    The only people I know who are genuinely against all war are Mennonites and JWs and other Christianly oriented pacifists . . . and even the JWs believe it is ok to fight for Jehovah if they knew it would be Jehovah's war.

    In the absence of a religiously backed Christian or Buddhist pacifism, which has never successfully governed any society, how could you be against all wars?  I assume you are not a Christian pacifist . . .

    And, unfortunately, the Buddhist pacifist societies have gradually made various exceptions for soldiers . . . and even then, it seems like the USA has had less known injustice than the SE Asian countries have tolerated.

    To be against "all war" is like proposing that the USA cease to exist as such.  We could be divided up between Canada, Mexico and Al-qaeda, countries that do believe in war!

    Parent

    I'm against murder (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 11:51:33 AM EST
    torture, rape, the traumatization of children and the uprooting of families, the radical suspension of civil liberties, disgusting armaments profiteering and corrupt revolving doors..the distortion and perversion of markets.. the irrevocable destruction of the natural world..veterans scarred for life and desperate for a helping hand..the breakdown of civility and rampant paranoia..propagandistic lies fed by governements to the citizenry..

    No one should ever be ashamed to say they're against war.

     

    Parent

    I was (none / 0) (#7)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 08:24:02 PM EST
    reading the motto above, about honoring all those who served in times of war and peace --- and I realized that I cannot offhand remember the last time we had peace... A time when we were not bombing somebody somewhere...

    We've been at war... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 12:20:42 PM EST
    as long as I've been alive in one form or another...hot or cold, overt or covert, legal or illegal.  

    Parent
    Yep. (none / 0) (#91)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 04:34:00 PM EST
    Me too.

    Parent
    A seemingly bad arrest in "Burien"? (none / 0) (#9)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 09:35:16 PM EST
    Scott Shimek, amateur photographer and Air Force veteran, was arrested for obstructing and 5 months later, charged with both obstructing and resisting.

    At the trial, it is reported that the officer who had kicked him in the knees also pointed a live taser at him and claimed during the trial that he was doing so in order to use it as a flashlight . . .

    If you folks wish . . . search for scott shimek or go here to my page on the matter  or here for the Stranger article . . /

    also re Shimek (none / 0) (#10)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 12:31:42 AM EST
    In a different incident, Shimek was at a bus stop or bus station and soon to catch a bus to go to work.  He was also taking some video and he was approached and accosted and confronted by some transit employees, one of whom threatened him.

    Police came and gave the transit employee a citation . . . and then the pierce county transit system gave a trespass notification to Shimek claiming that he had been on transit property for the purpose of provoking a fight or some other weird thing.

    To me, it appears to be a suppression of 1st amendment protected conduct . . .

    Any views in agreement or disagreement?

    information and discussion found here and here . .

    Someone mentioned the other day (none / 0) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 08:07:42 AM EST
    that the NFL would never return to LA.

    Just listened to an NFL rep that said the priority was to have two teams in LA before 2020 and probably one for 2016. Inglewood is already pulling permits for the old Hollywood Park racetrack (Rams). Carson site a little further behind but land deal already completed (Chargers/Raiders).

    Could be a bluff but a lot of money has already been spent on both sites.

    Oh noise.... (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 07:17:50 PM EST
    I (none / 0) (#16)
    by FlJoe on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:52:47 AM EST
    wonder how many friends like this,
    Republican presidential contender Ben Carson has maintained a business relationship with a close friend convicted of defrauding insurance companies and testified on his behalf, even as the candidate has called for such crimes to be punished harshly.
    Dr. Carson has?

    Charlie Pierce's take: (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 11:35:07 AM EST
    The attraction of a brilliant neurosurgeon to the dingier precincts of his profession--this guy, Mannatech--is one of the more curious things about him. There are two possible reasons for this, and I think they're both true. The first is that there is something dangerously messianic to his personality that enables him to justify everything he does, including consorting with con-men and thieves, because he's the one doing the consorting, and whatever he does is justified through his brilliance, his biography, and/or his close personal relationship with certain Nazarene carpenters. The second is that he cannot see the flaws of anyone who sees the world the way he does. Make the right mouth-noises about "values" and the Bible, and you can be dismembering your grandmother in the backyard with a circular saw, and Dr. Ben will sit down and chat over economic policy with you. Neither of these is a trait we ought to encourage in our public officials.​

    Link

    Parent

    I see a backlash building (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 12:34:16 PM EST
    Against the timid press idiots that are afraid to call this guy what he is because he wraps himself in religion.

    He is a con man.   Conservatives are starting to say this.   It won't effect his die hard zealot supporters but I think you are going to see a shift in Dr Carsons coverage.  Already seeing it.

    Parent

    Charlie (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 11:59:03 AM EST
    basically has it right from my personal experience with evangelicals. As long as you're doing something in the name of Jesus even if it's killing someone it's all right. If you screw up? Just play the Jesus card and all will be right in the world.

    Parent
    I'll (none / 0) (#111)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 06:05:38 PM EST
    always think of Jesus as W"s favorite philosopher.

    Parent
    That is not a characteristic of evangelicals, (none / 0) (#130)
    by Peter G on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 08:45:13 PM EST
    per se, in my experience, but rather a common characteristic of members of all sorts of insular, hyper-religious groups. Jewish, Muslim and Christian alike.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:30:36 PM EST
    Rulemongers (none / 0) (#139)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:51:59 PM EST
    and authoritarians exist in every religion.

    Parent
    Yes, but, why do we (none / 0) (#178)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 11:11:49 AM EST
    have to go there when Ga was, obviously, talking about the particular Southern Evangelicals who are in the forefront of the Primary debates we're all discussing here?

    I really doubt she had visions of Iranian Jihadists, or, Hassidic Jews in her head when she made her comment.

    Parent

    somebody (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 10:09:51 AM EST
    is dumping all their oppo research into the press I see. I wonder which Republican it is?

    Parent
    It's (none / 0) (#19)
    by FlJoe on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 10:20:01 AM EST
    all ok for Ben, because it's all a pack of lives, and besides Tony Rezko!

    Parent
    Playboy magazine to eliminate fully nude photos (none / 0) (#37)
    by McBain on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 12:33:26 PM EST
    link

    Apparently, their circulation has fallen from around 5 million to around 800,000. Not sure how this will help.  

    It won't help Playboy... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 12:38:22 PM EST
    the once great written content of the magazine has slipped big time from what I remember when my dad got me a subscription for my 16th birthday.  

    Nudes/no nudes hasn't mattered since everybody first signed up with AOL.  It's irrelevant to Playboy's woes.

    Parent

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 01:24:32 PM EST
    At one time, Playboy was a pioneer at the forefront of men's magazines, and its content was an intriguing combination of open sexuality, men's fashion and enlightened journalism which unabashedly celebrated all three as products of the modern era.

    But today, it's a painfully dated anachronism in a media industry that's been evolving at lightning speed for some time now, and its editors apparently seek to emulate Esquire without quite realizing that Esquire has long since beaten them to the punch.

    That's not to say that Playboy couldn't successfully make the transition with vigorous leadership, and become competitive again. But that's a steep mountain to climb at this point, and one which will take time. And time and vigor are two things that 89-year-old publisher Hugh Hefner -- still the inspiration and driving force behind his magazine -- simply no longer possesses due to his advanced age. I think when he goes, Playboy will soon follow him to the grave.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Men's fashions....enlightened journalism? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 01:43:48 PM EST
    You two

    When have that many guys lookin for nude women cared about their fashions? Certainly not enough for a magazine to make a profit, or maybe I missed something :)

    Parent

    The (none / 0) (#58)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 02:03:53 PM EST
    rag was always about t&a.

    Parent
    Since you are a woman, you are obviously ... (none / 0) (#141)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 10:25:34 PM EST
    ... not part of Playboy's target and primary demographic. Playboy regularly published works by respected authors such as Joseph Heller, Kurt Vonnegut, Roald Dahl, Saul Bellow, Doris Lessing, Norman Mailer, Margaret Atwood, Jack Kerouac, and Gabriel Garcia Marquez, among others.

    "Fahrenheit 451," Ray Bradbury's acclaimed dystopian novel, was first published in its entirety its entirely by Playboy in three separate installments, from March to May 1954. So was Ian Fleming's 11th James Bond novel, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," which also appeared in Playboy over three months, from March to May 1963.

    Playboy has also been renowned for its topical and illuminating in-depth interviews with some of our era's towering figures, which over the years have included Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Fidel Castro, Jimmy Carter, Ayn Rand, John Kenneth Galbraith, Albert Schweitzer, Miles Davis, The Beatles, Joan Baez, Princess Grace, William Masters and Virginia Johnson, Bill Gates and Tina Fey.

    At its height, Playboy's circulation exceed 5 million. It biggest selling issue was published in June 1972, selling 7.2 million copies. While the magazine's print circulation today is only 800,000, its online subsidiaries do a rather robust business, so overall Playboy Enterprises, Inc. is actually been quite profitable, and is valued at $185 million. Founder and publisher Hugh Hefner holds all its shares, having once again taken in private in March 2011.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Fahrenheit 451 (none / 0) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 01:15:22 AM EST
    was the expanded version of the short novel, "The Fireman" which was published in the 2/51 issue of Galaxy Science Fiction.

    Written at a time when science fiction was largely space opera, westerns with rockets and ray guns, it established scifi as a serious branch of literature.

    Parent

    Or you can read The New Yorker :) (none / 0) (#165)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 09:09:53 AM EST
    I only read the articles (none / 0) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 12:56:32 AM EST
    and scanned the cartoons.

    ;-)

    Parent

    As all intellectual men do :) (none / 0) (#166)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 09:10:49 AM EST
    Sorry, Tracy, (none / 0) (#179)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 11:44:27 AM EST
    I gotta agree with Donald on this one.

    I'm well aware of the smirks & snarks when guys talk about Playboy, and, their "articles." And, its probably not worth the time trying to explain the aura, and, marketing philosophy behind Playboy's founding, and success.

    If hip, young men just wanted overt sex & nudity there were a lot more graphic mags available than Playboy. Hefner's philosophy aimed at an audience of, mostly, urban young men, either in, or, post college, and/or just starting on fast-track business careers. Yeah, the photos were scintillating, but, far from pornographic. Hefner was selling a whole lifestyle, provocative young women were just part of the package.

    The truth is that many truly great authors chose Playboy as the vehicle for their stories. So did clothing, auto, travel, and sports purveyors use Playboy as their vehicle to introduce their products to this upwardly mobile, target audience.

    Now, if you're talking about "Hustler," that's another story. But, I doubt if anyone carrying a Playboy magazine ever got spat on.

    Parent

    Of course not (none / 0) (#182)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 12:02:17 PM EST
    You could leave it on the coffee table when you were baching in your mid 20's. And the Hustler was in the bedside drawer.

    It's my perception, I didn't date anyone who displayed it after I witnessed that. It was like clockwork, if it was on the coffee table objectification of women in the form of ignorant insensitivity and a low level disrespect of women in general as an equivalent human being soon followed.

    Once again, I am willing to own that this was MY perception :)

    Parent

    On the TV... (none / 0) (#63)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 02:10:46 PM EST
    ...they were saying that Playboy think many people aren't buy the magazine because of the nudes, that there is an untapped market for people who actually read it for the articles.

    They have some interesting articles, but it's not like they are filling some niche no one else is, it was hot naked girls with a side  of reading, never the other way around IMO.  What I understand it, they are still going to have girls, just not naked.  Sounds like they are trying to mover over into the popular Maxim niche.

    If anything, the best reading in any men's magazines was always the satire and cartoons.  Including this infamous one that made it to the SCOTUS.

    Parent

    ldog (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 02:16:56 PM EST
    Was thinking of you this week as the BF and I saw the Ry Cooder, Sharon White, and Ricky Skaggs in their "Music for the Good People" concert - not once, but twice.  BF is a HUGE Ry Cooder fan (and has been for 30 years) - even got a couple of autographs and I got to snap a quick picture of the two of them.

    I like going to this venue - The Birchmere (we've seen Richard Thompson, Dave Akvin, Lucinda Williams, Lyle Lovett, and John Hiatt there)-  because I am usually one of the youngest in the crowd.  :)

    Very cool... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 03:05:45 PM EST
    I'm sure he's made you watch "The Buena Vista Social Club" if he's a Ry Cooder man.

    Rock on kid!

    Parent

    Not guilty verdict in "Goodfellas" trial (none / 0) (#76)
    by McBain on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 03:29:09 PM EST
    link

    One of the biggest heists in history if I'm not mistaken.  Too bad Frankie Carbone had to buy that fur coat for his wife.  

    The Times (none / 0) (#93)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 04:39:14 PM EST
    in reporting the story said that the "mobster" got the not guilty verdict.

    I was just wondering if "mobster" is an honorary title for life ... like the way they say "governor" Bush... or "Doctor" Carson...


    Parent

    I don't know.... (none / 0) (#99)
    by McBain on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 04:59:02 PM EST
    is he a "made man"?

    Parent
    Made (none / 0) (#108)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 05:55:08 PM EST
    as in Goodfellas - or made as in Frankenstein?

    Parent
    I'm pretty sure the "made man" (none / 0) (#118)
    by McBain on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 07:05:13 PM EST
    honor is a real thing but I don't know what the exact qualifications are.  In Goodfellas, Henry Hill wasn't able to attain made status because he wasn't full blood Italian.  

    I love the scene when Tommy (Joe Pesci) thinks he's finally going to be made but when he enters the ceremony room and sees no one there he knows he's about to get whacked.

    Parent

    not just Italian, (none / 0) (#180)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 11:47:19 AM EST
    pure blooded, "Sicilian" Italian.

    Parent
    Jihadi John dead? (none / 0) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:28:12 PM EST
    Appears he might be.  There is breaking news about air strikes targeting him.  Families of victims have been contacted by the government.

    Do they do that for "targeting"

    Tamir Rice shooting justified in another report (none / 0) (#142)
    by McBain on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 11:49:35 PM EST
    link

    This is the 3rd report from an expert to basically say the same thing...

    It is simply obvious that the officers had a reasonable belief that Rice was armed," Katsaris wrote.

    Currently, a grand jury is hearing evidence to determine whether criminal charges should be filed

    Hayes all in free speech question (none / 0) (#154)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 05:34:56 AM EST
    I was at the gym on Thursday evening and part of the All In program with Hayes I think was about the conflicting claims between AA living without harassment and free speech.  I missed a lot of the segment . . . and only saw the last few minutes of it.

    Any wise comments on that topic?  Of course, I tend to favor free speech and have to be persuaded by overwhelming evidence or factors to believe it should be suppressed on the sake of reducing emotional harm  . . . at least generally speaking.

    Rachel maddow Carson problem (none / 0) (#155)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 05:37:59 AM EST
    On Thursday evening, on the Rachel Maddow show, she showed that Carson has been making claims of secret knowledge or top-secret guidance he claims to be getting which others don't have . . .

    Perhaps Carson is firing torpedoes at himself out of boredom . . .  the top-secret info claim unfortunately does not endear him to me and maybe there are others who similarly may be irritated . . . others who actually vote . . .

    here is some of the clip (none / 0) (#157)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 06:35:22 AM EST
    Here is some of the clip by Maddow . . .

    Oh . . . well . . . not so great . . . for my previously . . . favorite Adventist . . .

    Parent

    Meet one of the student (none / 0) (#163)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 07:29:59 AM EST
    leaders who have it all figured out.

    trump hyperbole . . . (none / 0) (#174)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 10:24:00 AM EST
    Trump apparently said he had gotten to know Putin quite well, as a result of being stablemates with him briefly prior to some cbs interviews . . .  However, putin was interviewed in Moscow and Trump ws interviewed in New York . . .

    Great point, btw (none / 0) (#202)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 03:43:53 PM EST
    I would also offer that other stress relieving substances, like drugs and alcohol, do not follow the same graphs in regards to income and use.


    dog, it doesn't matter how WE rate (none / 0) (#205)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 04:06:40 PM EST
    someone else's stress, it's how THEY rate it.

    If they are "very stressed" then they ARE very stressed, regardless of whether we think they should be more stressed or less stressed, or how we think their stress should rank vs someone else's stress.

    If someone smokes due to their stress, they don't smoke because of how someone else rates their stress, they smoke because of how THEY rate their stress.

    Heck, by your standard the $3 man shouldn't be stressed at all. Losing an apartment isn't anything compared to that guy over there who's wife is dying from cancer, etc.