Thursday Open Thread

Busy at work. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Tunisia Building Border Fence, U.S. Starts Online Messaging Campaign | Appeals Court Affirms Conviction of Ex-Gov. McDonnell >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Exxon knew of climate change in 1981... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 03:00:24 PM EST
    ...email says - but it funded deniers for 27 more years

    ExxonMobil, the world's biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change - seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm's own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.

    The email from Exxon's in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago - factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.

    Bernstein's response, first posted on the institute's website last October, was released by the Union of Concerned Scientists on Wednesday as part of a report on climate disinformation promoted by companies such as ExxonMobil, BP, Shell and Peabody Energy, called the Climate Deception Dossiers.

    Bernstein writes in his email to Ohio University: "Corporations are interested in environmental impacts only to the extent that they affect profits, either current or future. They may take what appears to be altruistic positions to improve their public image, but the assumption underlying those actions is that they will increase future profits. ExxonMobil is an interesting case in point."

    Bernstein, who is now in his mid-70s, spent 20 years as a scientist at Exxon and 10 years at Mobil. During the 1990s he headed the science and technology advisory committee of the Global Climate Coalition, an industry group that lobbied aggressively against the scientific consensus around the causes of climate change.


    Exxon did not go into production on the field, I guess that is something, but they lied, and lied, and paid for others to lie.

    Hey, they had some good company (1.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 06:54:27 AM EST
    "To capture the public imagination,
    we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
    make simplified dramatic statements
    and little mention of any doubts one might have.
    Each of us has to decide the right balance
    between being effective,
    and being honest."

    - Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
    ( in interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989)



    Jim's silly lies (none / 0) (#189)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 05:53:51 PM EST
    I would think you'd be able to come up with a few new lies, but I guess not. You DO know that inaccurate/clipped quotes are lies, don't you?

    Adventures in healthcare part 5291 (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 04:12:18 PM EST

    I waited to write about this until there was a resolution because there was a few times the resolution was not at all clear.
    I want to be very clear that this is a story about Blue Cross Blue Shield.   Not a story about the ACA.  Except for the fact that I am fairly sure that without the added oversight the ACA required BCBS would have gotten away with it.  I have no doubt that it was more or less business as usual.  Every conversation I had with them reinforces this belief.

    Last month, June, ended up being one of those months that needed some acrobatics to keep all the financial balls in the air.   One of the standard devices for this is the "grace period" of various bills.   Including my BCBS bill.   I have done this before.  I know what the periods are.   I received a letter from BCBS saying I had until June 30th to pay my bill.  That my grace period ended June 30th.  Like that.  It said it twice in the same letter.  So it was very clear.   On the 15th of June I called to pay the bill, coincidentally timed with receiving my check.  I was informed that I could not pay the bill.  That my grace period had expired and my policy cancelled.  I would not be able to pay the bill or sign up through the exchange until next year and oh, by the way, I would be fined by the IRS for not having insurance.   I said how can you do this?  You sent me a letter saying I had until June 30th.  They said we don't know what you are talking about, we have no record of sending you such a letter.
    Stunned would not cover what I was.
    After some conversations with health care people including my pharmacy I did a double fax of the letter and the story to BCBS and to the office of the Arkansas State Insurance Commissioner.   The commissioner sent a bundle of stuff to fill outta filed formal complaint.
    A few days later I got a call from BCBS.  I missed the call and they left a message.  I still have the message.  It said, we're very sorry.  We sent you incorrect information.  All you need to do is pay your back premiums and your coverage will be reinstated.  $314.05.  That was June 23rd.  On the 24th I paid the bill.  The check by phone (the only payment they will accept) cleared on the 26th.  The day I paid the bill I was assured the coverage would be reinstated by the end of the day.  
    With this done I went on to call the places that BCBS owed payment to.  Which is the most important part of the story IMO.  In the months they were refusing to pay I had had several medical things done.   Blood work.  MRIs of my back, etc.  it came to just under 6000 bucks.  I told these people there had been a glitch and payment would be forthcoming.  And I did fill out the forms for the commissioners office.
    I waited.  I checked.  I waited.  I checked.
    On the 2nd of July I got another call.  Which I missed.  It said I needed to call them.  I was not able to do that until the 6th.  Monday.  The nice lady informed me that sadly, I would NOT be reinstated.  That it was unclear who told me this or why but I passed the deadline and that was it.   With as much patients as I could muster, it took just under one hour, I forced this person to go through the notes about my calls to them and made her admit that, yes, SHE was misinformed and that I was indeed supposed to be reinstated.  Which she would do by the end of the day AND she would call me to make sure I was.
    She did not reinstate me.  She did not call.  Raise your hand if you, hearing this story so far, are surprised by this.
    I waited through Tuesday.  Just to give them time in case they were busy.  On Wednesday I got out of bed prepared for war.   First thing I got the Insurance Commissioner on the phone again.  That office is very good about returning calls it turns out.  I told him the whole story.  I don't think he actually believed me until I played the voicemails for him.  It's funny, this is a cautious guy.  Careful what he says.  Understandable in his job.  At the end he said, "that is freaking unbelievable.  In all my years of doing this I have never heard such a thing.  We will get you covered and those bills paid. Fill out the forms and fax them to us".  I did.
    Then, more out of boredom and curiosity to hear what their excuse would be this time. And to tell the, and that the commissioner was coming for them equipped with names and extension numbers, I called BCBS one last time.
    And a funny thing happened.   After weeks of dealing with people who could not find their a$$ with both hands, I got a person who took his job seriously.  He was amazed.  He was apologetic.  Most importantly he seemed to know exactly who I had been speaking to.   In about 15 minutes he fixed my problem.  Reinstated me.  Got my card working at the pharmacy and went back and found all the rejected medical bills and resubmitted them.  
    I just though this story worth sharing.  I not sure what the moral is.  Don't give up, maybe?
    I got the guys full name so I could drop BCBS a note and tell them he not only fixed my problem he fixed theirs as well since I called off the commissioner.

    Sadly, having dealt with my share of (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 04:20:04 PM EST
    completely unrelated red tape at work this week, I have no problem believing your story. I feel sorry for people not as resourceful as you are.

    Yes the only moral is don't give up, and try to stay sane!


    I think a lot of times (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CST on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 04:25:29 PM EST
    people just don't know or have the patience to fight it.

    I know that happened to me before when my antibiotics were rejected for being "too expensive" when cheaper ones were "available" to cover the same problem.  Only I'm highly allergic to 95% of common antibiotics, so they weren't actually available to me.  At the time I just ended up paying for them out of pocket, which was a lot of money that I didn't really have.  I didn't find out or even consider until much later that I could've fought it.  I just figured I was $hit out of luck.


    Are you watching HUMANS? (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 04:25:22 PM EST
    yiu should also think about Mr Robot.  If you are not.

    Taping Humans, have not watched yet (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 04:29:31 PM EST
    I heard about Mr Robot, it does sound good...will add it.

    Penny Dreadful was so good. Poor Vanessa - that scene near the end with her holding on to Timothy Dalton's arm was so great. Wrenching.  And that actor that plays the wolf redeemed himself in my eyes in I think the 2nd to the last episode with the best utterance of 'oh for f***'s sake' ever. I could play that 100 times and not get tired of it. I'm on board!



    Like CST said though Ruff. (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 08:25:40 PM EST
    Sometimes ya gotta let the bastards win and give up to stay sane.

    Howdy, God bless him, is retired and has time to fight the good fight. In general I can't be bothered fighting corporate and government thieves...my time is more precious than money, and obviously the money means more to them than it does me. Which makes me an easy mark. My tactic is avoidance, limit your exposure.


    The problem (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 08:29:33 PM EST
    honestly was not being dropped.   It was the 6000 bucks in medical bills they were refusing to pay.

    Sort of made it worth the time.


    No doubt... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 08:44:30 PM EST
    This one was a biggie, glad it worked out. I'd fight that one too.

    The lesser nickel and dime sh#t the citizen consumer suffers daily...ya gotta pick your battles and hope karma is real. Or else you're spending a dollar to stop the theft of a dime.


    I think the moral of your story (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by sj on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 04:58:32 PM EST
    is that, in general -- despite the ACA -- the health insurance companies are still summbiches who will try anything to wiggle out of making payment. They are still focused on making that profit and being "responsible to" their shareholders and not their customers.

    The other moral is don't give up -- and don't let them get away with it. :)


    That's why state insurance commissioners ... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 06:08:34 PM EST
    ... are so important, because it's their job to provide oversight of the industry, scrutinize its business practices, and deter its abusive propensities.

    For those of you who live in states where the IC is an independent elected official, rather than a political appointee of the governor, I would urge you to give very close scrutiny to the candidates for that job whenever it's up for election. While it's certainly not a glamorous position as elective offices goes, it's nevertheless a vitally essential one, a fact which you'll quickly learn to appreciate if ever you have a problem.

    There are untold thousands of Southern California homeowners and business owners who suffered damage from the 1994 Northridge earthquake, and who could tell you lots of horror stories about the immediate fate of their claims because the corrupt Chuck Quackenbush so happened to be the state's IC at the time, rather than someone who wasn't squarely in the insurance industry's back pocket.

    It took the State of California the better part of a decade to clean up the mess that Quackenbush left in his wake, once he finally resigned his office in the face of pending impeachment proceedings in the state legislature.



    It is so weird to be reading this... (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 08:36:42 AM EST
    my husband's brother and his wife live in Idaho, and BCBS is like the only insurer in the whole state.  A couple of months ago, they were informed that their policy had been canceled due to late payment.  My brother in law called them and said, "it says right here on the bill that it has to be paid by the 30th of the month, and I paid on [whatever date that was before the 30th].  Getting reinstated was pretty much the same process and experience you had.

    And of course - and in what I have to believe was no coincidence - this all happened in the middle of some serious medical issues my sister-in-law was having.  "Mary" has some sort of chronic anemia that requires medication and sometimes transfusions.  For months, BCBS refused to cover her for the medication she had been taking for some 15 years, even with intervention by her doctors.  As a result, her condition got pretty bad, such that she landed in the ER.  In the ER, it apparently doesn't matter if the insurance company won't authorize the medication - if the ER doc decides she needs it, she gets it.  And she did.  Unfortunately, because she was so far behind the 8-ball at this point, when she needed the prescription refilled, she got the "it's not time yet - you can't have any more for another two months" routine.

    She ended up in the hospital, with cascading medical problems.  Eventually, she was to be discharged - not to a rehab facility so she could get herself in shape to be able to return home and deal with steps and what-not, but directly to home, which was not equipped properly for her needs.  Why?  BCBS wouldn't cover it.  

    To make matters worse, the hospital discharged her with pneumonia - they didn't know she had it, or so that story goes.  Not too much later, she ended up back in the hospital, with breathing being so difficult, and her lungs so full of fluid and infection that she had to be intubated.  In addition to the pneumonia, she developed a condition known as ARDS - Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome - which can be very hard to treat.  Then, she got MRSA, some of which attached itself to her aortic valve, which will need to be replaced - IF she ever gets past the ARDS and the pneumonia and off the ventilator.

    My brother-in-law has been dealing with the insurance commissioner for some time now, but the real problem seems to be that with BCBS being the only game in Idaho, it functions as a dictatorship, has no accountability, no transparency.  There's an article that's supposed to be published in the Idaho Falls Post Register  this coming Tuesday, which will lay out the whole sordid, sorry mess.

    No, this isn't a case of incompetence on the part of BCBS, this is a case of maximizing the profit margin, taking people's money and telling them to Fk Off when they need help.  If BCBS had not fked my sister-in-law over, their financial exposure would have likely been limited to paying for a course of medicine, and not the so-far three weeks in the ICU.

    One's blood just boils at how wrong this is, on so many levels.  We knew, didn't we, that once the insurance companies were obligated to cover everyone and everything that they'd be devising new ways to push people off the rolls - the ones who most need the coverage, of course.  


    I don't think there were state (none / 0) (#114)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 10:36:38 AM EST
    exchanges available in either case.  If that were true, wouldn't that be another factor to consider as well?

    It's not going to get better (none / 0) (#120)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 11:24:07 AM EST
    As insurance plans in some states are proposing HUGE increases in premiums (which will likely be knocked down some, but not enough).

    obamavate's bill is due

    ....The bill for the health care expansion is coming due, just as the recipients will be heading to the ballot box to vote in the first primaries for the 2016 election. More than a few are likely to be annoyed.

    Last week Oregon's insurance commissioner, Laura Cali, announced that the state had approved a 25 percent premium increase for the largest health insurer on the state's exchanges. The second largest insurer did even better: It received permission to boost its monthly charge to consumers by 33 percent.

    Oregon might be the first health insurance exchange equivalent of a penguin getting shoved off an ice floe, but it won't be alone in the freezing-cold waters for long. For example, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee requested an average 36 percent price increase for the plans it offers--after receiving a 19 percent bump last year. And that sounds like a relative bargain compared with Minnesota and New Mexico, where the BlueCross BlueShield family is looking for increases of more than 50 percent. Even if the final numbers are lower than the asks, it seems quite likely these states will approve substantive premium increases.

    The problem is simple. As Trudy Lieberman reported this month in Harper's, the ACA made a decent stab at solving the problem of Americans lacking insurance. Unfortunately, the bargain struck to get the bill to a point where lobbyists for the hospital, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries to sign on, or at least not fight it, did not adequately address the issue of overall medical costs.

    And that's where the consumer comes in. Someone is "it," the party paying the bill. And that "it" is increasingly you, whether you receive insurance on the exchanges or from an employer.


    True, more than 80 percent of those purchasing insurance on the exchanges are eligible for subsidies for their premiums. But that's not a solution, in either the short-term or the long-term. First, there are still deductibles, and although subsidies covering parts of the deductible and other approved costs are available to those meeting certain income limits who sign up for particular plans on the exchanges, it's a complicated, difficult-to-understand process.* Second, subsidies don't mean freebie. The taxpayer pays the money to the insurance industry, leaving less funding for other priorities. Third, of course, it leaves the people who are not eligible for subsidies feeling like chumps, stuck paying the bill for a health insurance expansion that, no matter how necessary, many of them don't see as offering them enough in return for their own personal increased costs. It's highly unlikely they will give the reforms a pass simply because premiums were also increasing before the ACA became law. Obamacare, after all, was supposed to put a stop to this sort of thing.

    They can go ahead and do it (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 01:49:08 PM EST
    Obamacare is something the majority wants and is coming to believe is their right, Obama has created a voting block. Go ahead and continue to look for ways to screw the people and that majority voting block will move closer and closer and closer to single payer, medicare for all.

    The people who are getting it free or mostly (none / 0) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 04:34:02 PM EST
    free may want it. The remainder who will suffer the full shock of the price increases not so much.

    As opposed to no or partial shock. (none / 0) (#180)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 05:07:30 PM EST
    And this morning (none / 0) (#123)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 11:37:45 AM EST
    Krugman describes the ACA as a major success.

    Two opinions. Take your pick.


    I haven't read the Krugman piece, (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 12:41:18 PM EST
    but I guess it would be important to define "success."

    If the metric is the number of people who have insurance, mandated services at no extra cost, and the ability to obtain care they couldn't in the past, I think he's right: it's a success.

    If the metric is holding the line on the cost of care, in general, or maintaining the "introductory" premiums (I swear, this reminds me of the way the banks handle credit card rates) people paid, I think that's a much grayer area.

    No one should be surprised by rate hikes; even though the ACA created millions more paying subscribers, I don't know of anyone who believed the insurance companies were going to be satisfied with the additional revenue, because they were all of a sudden going to be covering services with no co-pays and no deductibles.  I don't know the breakdown between new subscribers who were generally healthy but who hadn't been able to afford insurance in the past, and those who were sick, suffering from chronic illnesses and diseases, who couldn't afford both care and coverage under the old system - but the combination of mandated coverage, plus a new group of medically needy subscribers has insurance companies raising rates in order to maintain and even increase their profits.  

    We knew this was going to happen.  We knew insurance companies were not going to function as charitable organizations. We knew that in the years between passage and implementation, insurance companies were going to establish strategies for getting around the costs - to them - of what the ACA was going to impose on them.  We knew that any shortfall in profit would be taken out of the hides of the subscribers.

    The only question I have is, how long before, once again, people can't afford insurance, and the rising costs of that insurance will put many back where they started: paying for insurance but not being able to afford the co-pays and deductibles?

    This is what happens when a so-called new system is built on the dysfunctional, profit-driven foundation that brought us to the crisis point to begin with.  


    What is the Purpose of Getting Permission... (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 01:17:22 PM EST
    ...to raise rates from the state if they are going to rubber stqamp 35 & 50% increases.

    I dated a woman in Wisconsin for years who was an actuary for Blue Cross/Blue Shield.  The notion that they had no idea is preposterous.  This is their entire business model, accurately predicting the medical costs of groups of people.  No insurance company could survive to date getting it wrong by even 10%.

    And the safe guard, the states, are failing use their powers to deny ridiculous increases.  Stock price alone should be reason enough to deny rate increases greater than inflation.


    If you allow the government (none / 0) (#124)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 11:46:11 AM EST
    to negotiate for lower prices on medications on Part D Medicare as, for example, the VA can, and get the Medicaid expansion going on in the red states despite Republican opposition to such things, then that would help lower the cost of medical care, and, by extension, the cost of the premiums as well.

    The Slate article is a slatepitch.  That's why I hardly bother with it except for a few writers who don't do slatepitches when they write on that site.


    You are correct (none / 0) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 04:31:46 PM EST
    on the Part D but while I am for the Medicaid expansion I don't see how said expansion will lower costs.

    The more poor people are covered (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 06:57:13 PM EST
    The less these poor people will have to use the emergency room or wait until they require more medical care then if they had go to a doctor in the first place, so the overall spending on medical care goes down, not up, as it does when they're uninsured.

    Anne, FWIW (none / 0) (#182)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 05:21:52 PM EST
    I've been through the "it's not time yet" situation many, many times. Yet, there is a mechanism called, "Prior Authorization" that works to circumvent, or, override the standard dispensing protocols inherent in all these plans.
    And, to be perfectly honest, I can't recall (but, one time in 40 years) when my doctor wasn't able to get the off-line, meds/procedure approved.

    I realize it's dangerous to overlay, or compare,  one's experience vs someone else's. But, reading the story you've told here is very reminiscent to the many experiences I've had. I'm talking about more than 40 years of bureaucracy, both private insurance, the VA, and subsidized (Medicare.)

    Now, there is no doubt that the companies factor in, plan for, a certain percentage of clients simply giving up, and walking away. The frustration of debating life & death situations with profit maximizing entities is, sometimes, unbearable. But, that's exactly when the patient, or caregiver, needs to adopt a calm, systematic, "game-on" attitude, and, in my case anyway, it's proven to be most effective.

    Good luck.


    The Patience of Job, etc. (none / 0) (#27)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 04:31:18 PM EST
    Applause for you, Howdy, because you didn't give up.  I don't know how you were able to keep with it, but the fact that you did--hopefully--may do more in the long run to help others who wouldn't have your determination.  By that I mean: If the competent person with whom you finally spoke and received reinstatement offers suggestion for that office's improvement, the next healthcare consumer might have a fairer shake from the beginning.  Perhaps, your letter will spur that positive improvement (especially, if the abrupt and disrespectful person from your earlier encounter gets feedback like a reprimand.)

    huh (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by sj on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 05:03:24 PM EST
    I guess I just assumed that the "competent person" with whom he finally spoke was the person pulling the strings all along. He did seem to know who Howdy had been speaking to, and have ready access to the bills that required payment. And he was able to resolve it all in about 15 minutes.

    I don't think it was just luck of the draw.

    Maybe I'm wrong.


    I don't think (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 05:18:06 PM EST
    you are wrong.

    This isn't about consumer (3.67 / 3) (#95)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 09:32:57 AM EST
    perseverance, although that was clearly a factor in Howdy's case, and it's not about incompetence, it's about the calculated efforts of insurance companies to continue their practice of saying "no" to those individuals who are eating into their bottom line.  Cancel their coverage, deny them approval of needed medical treatment, make it so difficult for people to make use of the insurance they are paying for that they give up.

    The other tactic - one of them - is the "oh, we never got the records we asked you to send," even though you have proof that you sent them and that someone on the other end either signed for them, or their fax machine confirmed receipt.  If you remember, people dealing with mortgage lenders and banks went through the same thing trying to keep their homes out of foreclosure by refinancing - months and months of "we never got your paperwork," and "we have no record of your contact with us," all in an effort to prevent the relief people were seeking.

    For someone who claims to be so experienced in the ways of bureaucracy, you can exhibit a cluelessness that is really kind of breathtaking.  Yes, Howdy gets kudos for hanging in there, but why should he even have to be subjected to the kind of tactics that were used on him?  They gave in because they were forced to - and I don't believe for one minute that will make them stop doing it to anyone else; they count on people just giving up and taking "no" for an answer - especially sick people who don't have the physical or mental wherewithal to pursue it to the right conclusion.

    Wake up, christine, please.


    I had (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 04:34:07 PM EST
    a friend who fought with BCBS of GA for literally months over the same thing. She kept paying and they kept cancelling her policy. This went on for six months and finally they reinstated her. Fortunately for her I don't think she had any medical bills during that time or not much if she did.

    This was probably in 2006 or 2007 so it was a while ago but apparently this kind of thing is typical in insurance. If they don't get the money within five days of the due date this is what they do and it is a nightmare to get it fixed.


    Doesn't really explain (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 05:33:10 PM EST
    the letter,  which I fortunately kept,  clearly telling me I could wait past what was the deadline.

    I don't think one single step of that was incompetence.  I think it was business as usual.   I think the goal is to wear people down.

    Many people might not have kept the letter.  After all, why would it be important?  


    Yeah, So Believable... (none / 0) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 04:46:16 PM EST
    ...that my company has a full time person whose only job is to resolve employee insurance issues.

    Although I have never had to speak with her, several people in the department have and she knows who to call and what to say to get it done.

    I am shocked to here that they can so easily drop someone.  When my friend got dropped from his auto insurance, it was a whole thing, with certified letters.  For human beings 'Oh yeah, we dropped you last week, have a nice day.'


    Good work Howdy (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 08:14:33 PM EST
    And I am happy the problem has been resolved in your favor.

    But the real villain, as Robert Reich notes in this article....


    The Supreme Court's recent blessing of Obamacare has precipitated a rush among the nation's biggest health insurers to consolidate into two or three behemoths.

    The result will be good for their shareholders and executives but bad for the rest of us -- who will pay through the nose for the health insurance we need.


    We used Health Spring as our supplemental health care  provider for years. No problems and affordable. Two years ago CIGNA purchased them. Our premiums went up 300% and it is now very very hard to get anything done.

    And it is going to get worse.


    Ummm... (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 08:52:08 AM EST
    ...that is no way is related to Captain's issue.

    His issue was customer service and internal processes, not competition because of mergers or ACA.

    I would say nice try, but it wasn't, it was actually pretty pathetic, but not unexpected.


    Oh please, Scott (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 10:18:37 AM EST
    read Reich's article and what Anne wrote.

    Reich's point was that Obamacare is driving the mergers that increase prices and reduce the service.

    As someone who has managed a customer service group for a large corporation I can testify under oath that the corporation sets the guidelines and the tone. i.e. If the boss wants service denied or resisted the worker bees catch on real quick. Plus the mergers always reduce people while increasing the number of customers.

    So my  comment was directly related to Howdy's problems.

    Why don't you try joining the conversation instead of launching into personal attacks??


    Really... (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 11:15:15 AM EST
    Why bother Jim, it's not like you read it, you are simply doing what you do, blog clogging:
    The problem isn't Obamacare. The real problem is that the current patchwork of state insurance regulations, insurance commissioners and federal regulators can't stop the tidal wave of mergers, or limit the economic and political power of the emerging giants.

    I guess ACA is to blame for banks, cable companies, gas companies, and just about every other industry merging competitors out of business.


    Of course Obamacare is the driver. (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 04:27:33 PM EST
    The big health insurers have money to make these acquisitions because their Medicare businesses have been growing and Obamacare is bringing in hundreds of thousands of new customers.They've also been cutting payrolls and squeezing more work out of their employees.

    You can't have it both ways. Either Obamacare has brought in the new customers or else all the claims of hundreds of thousands of people having coverage now for the first time is false. Your choice. Of course that's what Reich says. That I agree changes nothing.

    This is also why their stock values have skyrocketed. A few months ago, the Standard & Poor's 500 Managed Health Care Index hit its highest level in more than 20 years. Since 2010, the biggest for-profit insurers have outperformed the entire S&P 500.

    Of course, new customers who will pay the high prices because they are subsidized by the tax payers are the biggest boon to the healthcare industry since Medicare.

    Insurers are seeking rate hikes of 20 percent to 40 percent for next year because they think they already have enough economic and political clout to get them.

    At what point will the whole thing collapse? Greed is such a wonderful thing.

    That's not what they're telling federal and state regulators, of course. They say rate increases are necessary because people enrolling in Obamacare are sicker than they expected,and they're losing money.


    Insuring people with existing diseases is expensive. Probably not as much as the corps want us to believe but common sense must follow.

    Finally, this is a pitch by Reich for a single payer system. I have long said we need one.

    That you put blind political loyalty over people is expected.


    The real villain is the insurance industry, (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 10:44:15 AM EST
    that will resist and develop workarounds for the financial costs of requiring its companies to provide coverage for specific conditions and services to anyone and everyone who signs up.

    You can try blaming the ACA, but the reality is that if the Republican version, proposed some years ago, had been implemented, it would not have changed the behavior of the insurance industry one iota.  This isn't happening because the ACA is a plan proposed by and under a Democratic administration, jim, it's happening because the insurance industry just wants to make money, and they are going to do that come hell, high water or any political party's efforts to make insurance affordable and accessible to everyone.


    As a proponent of a single payer system (none / 0) (#169)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 04:29:47 PM EST
    I really don't care what the Repub plan may or may not have done.

    But....and this is a big BUT.....if Obamacare didn't bring in all these new customers nothing else would follow.


    Coral... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 04:19:30 PM EST
    ... I hope there is no vig.  LOST BET

    I don't think it's a good idea for me to bet against something I want in that like fantasy football, I was cheering, a bit, for the wrong outcome so that I would win.

    Well played.

    Uppity African Americans (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 08:54:26 AM EST
    I am starting to feel uncomfortable with all the praise being heaped on Whites for taking down the Confederate battle flag.

    Yes, I am glad they did it.  But why so much praise for doing what should never have happened in the first place (in the 1960s) and what should have been done long ago?  Courageous whites making difficult decisions?????

    The corollary is about the families of the victims of the Charleston shooting.  What those families did at the bond hearing in saying they forgave the shooter was moving and consistent with their Christian beliefs.  And, they have had a profound impact on Whites in coming to terms with the racist Confederacy.  But why did it take the murder of African Americans for these White Southerners to do the right thing?  

    White America can act out of magnificence and generosity when Blacks are forgiving and non-threatening. But, God forbid, African Americans are assertive about their rights.....

    There is nothing that White America fears more than angry Blacks.  It goes back to the fear of a slave revolt among White America....It is a longstanding American theme.  Susan Faludi has written of this.

    I really see the flag thing (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 09:01:05 AM EST
    as the bright shiny object being used to distract from the real issues of the persistent hate that feeds sick minds and results in things like that horrible shooting. I guess the media has declared the 'healing process' in effect. I can't watch it anymore.

    Well (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 09:14:38 AM EST
    first of all the forgiveness and the nonviolence is why MLK was so successful. I'm really not so sure people are afraid of the "angry black man" anymore outside of people like Jim.

    Secondly Nikki Haley is not white. She is Indian which she tries to run from. If anyone should have been able to understand all this it is Nikki Haley. It's not like Indians are welcomed by whites in SC. Her family are/were Sikhs which are an oppressed minority in India and the same group of people that were murdered by the white supremacist in Wisconsin.


    Many say Malcolm X made MLK possible (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 04:31:30 PM EST
    I think if an African American had gone into a White Church, it would be different.  No trips to Burger King for the accused.  Not so sure about forgiveness at the bond hearing...

    Depends (none / 0) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 04:49:17 PM EST
    on the police department I would imagine.

    Nikki Haley (none / 0) (#173)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 04:35:39 PM EST
    had this opportunity drop in her lap.

    This was not a tough call.  


    No (none / 0) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 04:52:45 PM EST
    what happened and I'm convinced of this is that Haley was forced to do this by higher ups in the GOP. I mean right after the shooting she was defending the confederate flag but then all of a sudden she does a 180 on the issue. And then all the  other states falling in line? Priebus must have told all of them they have to get rid of all the confederate garbage if they are going to have any chance at the presidency in 2016 but the damage was already done. They've been defending it too long to have any immediate effect. Probably helps down the line though.

    Not all that heartening (none / 0) (#181)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 05:19:25 PM EST
    if she had to be told what to do....

    Well (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 05:29:55 PM EST
    it was kind of obvious by her behavior. A friend of mine who ran for office said it's really about the optics and the optics are really bad for the GOP to have a confederate flag hanging around.

    Of course, this all has created yet another problem for the GOP and they seem to be rewarding the people like Trump who are saying what they want to hear. I'm waiting for The Donald to come to the defense of the confederate flag any day now.


    Overall, we're a pretty good country (none / 0) (#121)
    by McBain on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 11:28:35 AM EST
    We're not nearly as racist as many people seem to think.

    So, I don't even know what that means. (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 03:09:21 PM EST
    Am I supposed to infer that some level of racism is to be expected, and is normal, and whatever level of it you think we have is not as bad as "some people" are making it out to be?

    Can you "average" something like racism?  Does the fact that I don't believe I've ever been discriminated against because of my race make the blatant racism someone else has experienced less significant?

    I think some of us move in circles where we don't experience it, don't see it, don't feel it, don't practice it - but that doesn't negate or cancel out the very real racism that's clearly still out there.

    This Confederate flag thing has been an eye-opener.  I am simply appalled at how desperately people are clinging - with pride, no less - to the flag of what was a rogue nation that formed for the express purpose of maintaining the slave culture.  I don't see anyone fighting to fly the Union Jack, do you?  Trying to preserve the heritage of what was, for many colonists, their mother country?  Do you see the swastika being flown with pride on the grounds of German government buildings?

    I don't understand people who can minimize the racism we still have here by using a weird form of comparative analysis.


    This isn't the 1960s (2.00 / 1) (#195)
    by McBain on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 06:14:49 PM EST
    We're not perfect but we've come a long way since then.

    Am I supposed to infer that some level of racism is to be expected

    Yes.  There will always be some from all races.  Hopefully, things will continue improve.

    I don't understand people who can minimize the racism we still have here by using a weird form of comparative analysis.

    And I don't understand why people focus on the exception all the time instead of the norm.  You are far more likely to observe a random act of kindness in our country than you are an act of racist cruelty.


    What Does it That Even Mean ? (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 04:02:55 PM EST
    You don't think we are, but you think un-named others believe we are ?  

    What is the metric, prison population, wages, unemployed, poverty, education, what metric would suggest the US is being misrepresented about racial inequality ?

    The way I read, I am part of the 'we' and part of the 'many people'.  We are a racist county, we don't lynch people in the streets, but if you want to know about ones socioeconomic status, race would be the most reliable variable.  The vast majority or power and wealth is controlled very unproportionately to the population demographics.

    And in case you have been sleeping, 9 people were murdered because of one thing, their race.  The idea that we aren't racist nation is shocking for me to read.  The idea that racism in America is dead or dying is absurd.  The KKK openly operated in many states, same with other white supremacy groups.

    We aren't 1960 Mississippi, but that hardly means everyone here is afforded the same rights and opportunities.  Christ we have a presidential candidate being denounced by an entire community and county over his racist rants that a good portion of the county agrees with.

    Yeah, we aren't as racist as we appear to be...


    This is fun, what's the name of this game? (none / 0) (#148)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 02:29:57 PM EST
    "We're not nearly as racist as many people seem to think."
    O.K. How about, "we're a lot more racist than some people think."

    Or, "many racists truly believe they're not racist."

    And, "A lot of racists are so delusional as to think the Blacks are really the racists."

    Also, "By definition, to be racist is to be mentally impaired." So, should we incarcerate convicted racists to mental institutions?"

    Keep it going, this is great!


    If you think we are more racist than most (1.00 / 1) (#153)
    by McBain on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 02:53:32 PM EST
    countries and if you think only white people can be racists, the game you're playing is denial.

    You know something, McBain? (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 05:47:41 PM EST
    I'm about as Liberal as one can be. And, probably more tolerant than a majority here. And, while I don't post anywhere near as much as the average TL commenter, I consider the times that I do post a distinct privilege. So, to have someone like you effectively urinate on that privilege is something I would not tolerate (thankfully, I don't have that authority.)

    The cognitive dissonance displayed in your comment #153, as a response to my comment #148 is deFacto proof that the level of discourse here is above your ability to interact.

    Whether you can't keep up, or, won't keep up, the damage to the site is the same. If you can't keep up, go get some additional education, possibly some sort of therapy. Believe me, you would be welcomed back with open arms once you're able to interact on, at least, a minimally mature, basis.

    However, if you won't keep up, well, then just get the hell outta here.


    Boo Hoo (1.00 / 1) (#196)
    by McBain on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 06:20:37 PM EST
    My opinion is different than yours. Get over it. I happen to think the obsession of race in the media is overblown.  You don't.  We disagree.  Big deal.  Maybe you're the one who needs therapy if you can't handle that.  

    And what game are you playing? (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 05:50:07 PM EST
    McBain: "If you think we are more racist than most countries and if you think only white people can be racists, the game you're playing is denial."

    You seem to be ignoring the primary and most obvious difference here, which is that that there are one helluva lot more Archie Bunkers in the country, both in raw numbers and per capita, than there are George Jeffersons. To therefore equate the two as somehow being co-equal and thus self-canceling, is simply nonsensical.

    From the standpoint of history, there are no black equivalents of the KKK or the Conservative Citizens' Council, I don't care how hard some people here and elsewhere try to spin small groups of malcontents like the New Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam as such. Further, there've been no black communities in this country that I know of which imposed restrictive covenants upon their homeowners to preclude them from selling to white people.

    And while some would point to black-on-black crime as somehow symptomatic of a race being out of control, because 90% of blacks are killed by other blacks, I would simply note that 83% of white murder victims were killed by other whites. Further, it's worth pointing out that 36% of white murder victims who were killed by other whites are women, which is a much higher rate than is found in the black community. So, who's really out of control here?

    Look, the ongoing social disasters that are racism and violence in this country have longstanding, complicated and frequently intertwining roots. But the beginning of our journey toward seeking any real answers or solutions is to first and forthrightly admit that we actually have a problem -- which you're obviously not doing here, when you continue to grasp for any reason to excuse your own inaction.

    So, rather than accuse others here of being in denial, I would respectfully suggest that you first pull your own head out of your a$$, and pay much closer attention to what you're actually saying. Because in that regard, your own games are getting really old and stale.



    How can you forget the (none / 0) (#191)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 06:05:33 PM EST
    two members of the New Black Panther Party that were a menacing presence at the polls a few years ago?

    This was evidence of a large scale effort to intimidate white voters....The Bush administration refused to prosecute them because they are biased or something.


    It's (none / 0) (#193)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 06:11:08 PM EST
    obviously the false equivalence gambit, they always think they are so smart when they employ it. It's a refuge for the intellectually defeated, my Mom taught me that when I was 8 years old.

    Nope, she objects to calling people (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 09:50:00 AM EST
    illegal, period.

    you may not call people (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 07, 2015 at 08:48:10 PM PST
    illegal here. Either use another term or comment elsehwere. Comments I see using that term will be deleted.

    Well, you got me there (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 10:03:23 AM EST
    I didn't see that post so she is welcome to delete.

    It is her blog.

    Let me see, I guess the felon who had been deported 5 times would be a "person who has entered the country without permission of the authorities"......

    Kinda wordy but accurate.


    Funny how the rules aren't for you, (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 10:07:02 AM EST
    Despite a direct reply to your post in the open thread that you somehow overlooked.

    That Post is You in a Nutshell... (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 10:45:08 AM EST
    ...factually wrong, and the evidence proving it is simply ignored again and again.  

    Like today is the day you learned the term 'illegal' is not allowed to describe a human being at Talk Left.


    "undocumented" is just one word, (4.75 / 4) (#110)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 10:18:29 AM EST
    and accurately describes someone's immigration status.

    Only 5 extra letters; I think you can handle that.


    Omar Sharif passed away today (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by McBain on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 11:37:09 AM EST
    He was 83.  Sharif was known for his roles in Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago and, his best film, Top Secret.

    I was in high school (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 12:03:52 PM EST
    When I saw Doctor Zhivago, and immediately developed a crush on Omar Sharif.
    Rest in peace, Michel Demitri Shalhoub (his given name).

    My great-aunt was a bridge player (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 12:52:41 PM EST
    and was well-to-do, she told us that Omar was very well-regarded in those circles.

    She said he retired from serious competition because his memory wasn't as reliable as when he was younger.  He did continue to play it recreationally, IIRC, until recent years.

    He was a great actor.


    Same here (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 01:54:50 PM EST
    just seeing his name, brings back the crush from that time. (I was younger) Back when I lived in SF, my girlfriends and I decided to have a rainy day movie slumber day at my house, that was the movie of choice. Pretty funny when a guy friend dropped by to find  all us girls snuggled on my bed swooning over Omar . . . .

    Zorba, when I saw Dr Zhivago, (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 02:30:45 PM EST
    I immediately had a crush on Julie Christy.

    What is Doctor Zhivago ? (none / 0) (#136)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 01:22:14 PM EST
    My mom had a Doctor Zhivago album, and I remember thinking this is the weirdest GD music I have ever listed to, and not the good weird.

    I know it's a movie, but she didn't have any other movie albums.  And from time to time I hear someone mention it, so there has got to be more than just a movie, no ?


    A novel by (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 01:51:16 PM EST
    Boris Pasternak.

    Well, it sure as heck (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 02:34:44 PM EST
    surprised me that someone had not heard of Boris Pasternak's novel.
    Maybe I'm too old.

    Here ya go, Scott (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 05:55:05 PM EST
    The tune you remember is called ... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 02:28:40 PM EST
    ScottW714: "I know it's a movie, but she didn't have any other movie albums.  And from time to time I hear someone mention it, so there has got to be more than just a movie, no?"

    ... "Lara's Theme," variations of which provide the primary score for "Dr. Zhivago," David Lean's epic film about the Russian Revolution and civil war, set in the period of 1916-1922. The film is based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning 1957 novel of the same name by Russian poet and author Boris Pasternak (1890-1960).

    Pasternak had been an early and enthusiastic supporter of the Communist Party until the appalling excesses of Josef Stalin's regime led to his disillusionment. Predictably, because "Dr. Zhivago" offered a unsanctioned and independent view of the Revolution, his novel was first refused publication in the Soviet Union, and was later banned altogether in that country after it got published in Italy.

    Not surprisingly, therefore, the fact that Pasternak won a Pulitzer Prize for his work is reported to have personally enraged then-Premier Nikita Khrushchev. The author, who was still living in the USSR at the time, was compelled by the Kremlin authorities to publicly decline the honor. It wasn't until Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev reversed Krushchev's directive 30 years later, long after Pasternak's death, that the author's descendants were finally allowed to accept the award posthumously in his name.

    My grandmother had a Christmas music box, and when you cranked it up, a 10-in. decorated tree would turn slowly on top as "Lara's Theme" played. Now THAT was creepy!



    What few people know (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 03:15:39 PM EST
    Is that, while Omar Sharif was, indeed, from Egypt, he was born to a Melkite Greek Catholic (Byzantine Catholic) family of Syrian-Lebanese descent.
    He converted to Islam to marry his Egyptian wife, who was an actress.

    One personal film favorite of mine ... (none / 0) (#192)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 06:08:38 PM EST
    ... was the 1974 thriller "Juggernaut," in which Sharif played the harried captain of a British passenger liner which was being effectively held hostage in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean by an unknown and unseen blackmailer back in Britain, who had earlier planted seven large chemical bombs throughout the vessel and now threatened to kill her crew and passengers unless his steep ransom demands were met.

    Sharif also starred opposite Peter (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 05:53:43 PM EST
    O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia and played the handsome, but unfaithful Nickie Arnstein to Streisand's Fanny Brice in Funny Girl. My favorite song from Funny Girl is the poignant "My Man" sung by Striesand to explain/understand her love for Arnstein.

    "Lawrence of Arabia" is ... (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 06:24:28 PM EST
    ... without a doubt a true masterpiece of moviemaking, and one of the best war movies ever made. Further, Omar Sharif's first appearance in that film, fast approaching on camelback out of the distant horizon, arguably constitutes the greatest single wide-screen shot in the history of cinema:

    "This is my well."


    What, you've never read Russian authors??? (none / 0) (#150)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 02:31:22 PM EST
    Boris Pasternak, the author of the novel "Doctor Zhivago" was a Nobel Prize for Literature winner in the 1950's, who was forced to decline it by the Soviet government.
    Do yourself a favor and read it.
    I read the novel in high school, even before I saw the movie.

    No, you can't. (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 12:42:10 PM EST
    And, that is proven every time Jim, "The Ringmaster," proclaims, "it's Showtime," cracks his whip, tosses you a sardine, and watches you go for it like the best trained seal at Sea World.

    Jim, my boy, I thought no one could do it better than Ann Coulter, but, you sure give her a run for the money. Congratulations, buddy, you refine your craft to ever loftier heights with every pejorative hurled at you.

    ::shrug:: (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by sj on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 02:12:24 PM EST
    In jim's blog clogging efforts he has the perfect playmate in M88 who must. absolutely. respond. to everything. He simply cannot allow anyone else to speak last.

    Watch: it will be a miracle if he lets this comment go.


    et al (1.00 / 1) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 04:59:36 PM EST
    I see that what all of you want is a coffee klatch where you can fuss about movies, Hillary, Bernie and  TV series.

    So sad. We use to have some commentators on the Left who could make a point, take a point and in general have an interesting discourse.

    BTW - Mordiggian writes:

    he could've been a threat when he didn't do anything aggressively in the first place. And I didn't deny there was a second man there.

    One more time. They have a video of the suspect continuing to walk towards the officer while the officer was telling him to stop.

    NYShooter - Always happy to oblige and I am always glad to help a fellow Tennessean, even if he is a transplant and didn't even know what "sides" were. Now, if I could just get some of Coulter's money...

    Donald writes:

    This week's vote in the South Carolina legislature to exile the Confederate battle flag from the Capitol grounds ought to dispel everyone of that particular notion.

    Too bad the Democrats couldn't dig up the ex-KKK member and Senator from W VA and give him a chance to declare he won't use the N word...

    I mean we know that resigning, which is what Forrest did, isn't enough.

    Nothing like a group baptism to refresh the soul...


    And thus, Open Threads are clogged ... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 01:37:27 PM EST
    ... with nonsense, because Jim's propensity to move the goal posts whenever his line of argument has been effectively refuted.

    If only the commenters who (5.00 / 5) (#138)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 01:47:27 PM EST
    cannot let a single comment of jim's go sans reply, the open threads wouldn't be clogged.  

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#154)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 02:59:19 PM EST
    And in that regard, I'm afraid I must also plead guilty as charged. But to be fair, it's sometimes really hard to let his BS stand unchallenged, especially his most egregiously erroneous and bigoted statements.

    Speaking for myself only, I think that our general failure as liberals and progressives to affirmatively counter and aggressively respond to right-wing misinformation and propaganda, is one of the primary reasons why such bunk often gets accepted eventually in the public consciousness in the first place, as though it were actual fact when it is most assuredly not.

    One needs only to look to the GOP's "swiftboating" of John Kerry during the 2004 presidential race, to note that aforementioned failure's corrosive effects. Thus, when we repeatedly decline to engage, we're actually standing above it all on a remarkably rickety platform, and at our own obvious political peril.

    That the GOP was wrong in its facts and Kerry was right is immaterial. Kerry lost the election because of his campaign's failure to counter the swiftboating and other bullschitt thrown his way. In the end, what did it matter that he was right? By declining to engage, the damage inflicted upon his reputation proved both effective and ultimately fatal.



    So the purpose of replies to jim's (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 03:20:20 PM EST
    commenys is to make sure the world-at-large is not misled by them?  

    Ha (none / 0) (#161)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 03:22:22 PM EST
    Donald, while I agree that it is (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 03:30:18 PM EST
    often difficult to ignore his BS, it hardly rises to the level of liberals ignoring the general right-wing propaganda on a national scale, such as the "swiftboating" of John Kerry.
    Much as I like this blog, we are not exactly on the front pages of national newspapers or the leads in the national TV news.
    Applied Behavioral Analysis 101 would say that purposeful ignoring of certain behaviors that an attention-seeking individual engages in (so as to get a rise out of other people) can be an effective way of extinguishing that behavior.  At the very least, it ceases to be a reward for that person's actions.
    Namaste, my brother.

    I both see and appreciate what you're saying, Zorba. But that said, Jeralyn named her blog "TalkLeft" and not "TalkRight" for a reason. In that respect, we really should not allow a small handful of individuals to deliberately skew its content starboard.

    As far as I can tell, the individual in question has thus far and repeatedly shown no tendency toward being deterred by the reticence of others to engage him. Rather, he comes here several times per day, in an approach I've likened to an online drive-by shooter, and proceeds to pepper the threads with his personal insults and other ugly / fact-free remarks. I've tried to limit my own engagement with him, often to no avail, because he's like a heat-seeking missile.

    Yes, I'll freely admit that the back-and-forth does get somewhat excessive and even occasionally abusive, and there's no doubt that I've sometimes played no small role in that. If anyone is offended by my own derisive put-downs of him, I apologize for having cause them offense. That was never my intent.

    But honestly, I'll not apologize for defending myself and my beliefs in the face of his often withering rhetorical assaults, nor will I hold others to a double-standard account when they seek to do the same. And as long as Jeralyn tolerates both a free-wheeling discussion and our collective presence here, I doubt that it will change any time soon. The answer to free speech, as always, is more free speech.

    Have a wonderful weekend. Aloha.


    took a drive in the country today (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 03:15:32 PM EST
    to check out how high some of the rivers are.

    Not as high as I expected.  This one is supposed to go under the bridge but I've seen it much higher.  I was expecting more with all the rain.  Some local areas got 4 inches yesterday.  yesterday.

    et al (1.00 / 2) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 08:01:44 PM EST
    You had better be praying that another American is not killed by an illegal immigrant has been deported multiple times and is a felon to boot.

    A few more of these an Trump may carry 49 states.

    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 08:56:43 PM EST
    That kind of thing only plays to the fears of the GOP base. And there are not enough of them to win an election. And if the GOP plays that game they might as well fold up shop because they are going to be writing off national elections for quite a while.

    Et al 1 (2.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 10:52:51 PM EST

    You guys are so scared of Trump it's funny.

    Face it.

    You are frightened of giving the electorate a clear choice between politics as usual and some guy who says he's gonna changes...

    After all, it worked for Obama.


    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 06:49:21 AM EST
    LOL. I think Trump should be front and center for the GOP. More Trump would be my statement.

    On a lark polling was done on Trump vs. Hillary and he lost in a 45 state landslide.


    If I Could Vote for Trump in the Primaries... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 09:20:02 AM EST
    ...I would.  The only ones scared of trump are the handful of republicans that still seem to have working brain cells.

    Here's a reality-based analysis (none / 0) (#82)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 08:50:01 AM EST
    of the current situation:

    270 To Win knows that the 2016 presidential election is a long way off, but there are already a number of possible match-ups taking shape. If things were to begin today, Hillary Clinton is predicted to defeat just about every single GOP candidate on the books.

    For those wondering, Hillary Clinton holds an almost insurmountable lead in both North Carolina and Iowa. A lot of work is going to have to be done to close her lead in most states.(Ed)

    It already appears that Hillary Clinton is jumping out into the lead to be the presidential candidate for the Democratic party. Donald Trump and Jeb Bush seem as if they will battle it out for the candidate in the GOP party, and it's going to be interesting to see how the presidential polls change as time goes on.

    An almost insurmountable lead.  We Democrats should be afraid of Donald, based on a few conversations Jim had with some people we know nothing about.

    Got It.


    Scared? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 11:20:01 PM EST
    We're ROTFLOFAO, Jim.  

    Trump against Hillary?

    O please, o,please, o please........


    Scared?!? of TRUMP?!? (none / 0) (#200)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 06:51:45 PM EST
    Hahahahahahah ...

    The only thing scary about Trump is his hair.  PLEASE work to get him nominated, Jim, so we can show the rest of the country how bat$hit crazy the TP/Republicans truly are!  The nominee of the "Family Values" party.  Heh.  He values them so much he has 3 of them!


    Why... (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 09:15:04 AM EST
    ...because old grumpy Fox News Viewers are replacing viagra with Trumps idiocy to get them all excited, too blinded to realize they ain't winning S without the hispanic vote ?

    And Jim, haven't you been warned like a 1000 times about using the 'illegal' reference ?


    He's glad to adhere to Jeralyn's (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 09:30:43 AM EST
    rules here, except when he doesn't.

    Jeralyn has warned you (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by sj on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 02:01:05 PM EST
    about the term illegal. If you continue your annoying and hateful ways I might be tempted to be "hall monitor".

    If I did, maybe nothing would happen. But maybe it would, and the rest of us could catch a break.


    Fire away, sj. A blogger's gotta do what a blogger (2.00 / 1) (#185)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 05:46:46 PM EST
    gotta do.

    FYI, I have emailed her noting my use of the word and asking for her comments and suggestions.

    As for Mordiggian and Scott, I don't remember all those warnings. Perhaps you can provide some links.

    I did find some discussions and suggestions.

    Sept 07


    This isn't a warning (none / 0) (#199)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 06:48:04 PM EST
    But in this post here, she made her feelings clear about the subject, a post on which you yourself commented on

    On the other hand (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 07:16:20 PM PST
    And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
    `I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

    `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

    `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

    `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

    `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

    "Through the Looking Glass," Lewis Carroll

    Reply to This |  1  2  3  4  5

    The point is that for AP to do so is to try and change the culture and the law.

    I just wanna make sure we all know that.

    You really covered yourself with glory on that day.

    Do your own research, Jim.  I didn't use the past tense about any warnings, just that you ignored the latest one she wrote in direct response to a comment of yours.

    If you weren't intelligent enough to realize how Jeralyn felt about the subject when she wrote about it two years ago, what makes you think you paid any attention to any subsequent warnings about it?


    And he'll get the Latino vote (none / 0) (#53)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 08:43:53 PM EST
    like he said he would when he runs.

    I think we've found someone more delusional than your run-of-the-mill social liberal.


    I've already warned him once in the past (none / 0) (#133)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    to check his 'facts' out, so there isn't a question of fixing anything, except pointing out when he tries to move the goalposts in a given discussion.  

    Now, there are 4 others engaging in pinniped behavior besides myself on this thread. If I abstain, let's see what's gonna happen.


    You never abstain (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 01:10:48 PM EST
    You get some perverse joy in feeding the rat just as the rat enjoys trying to bite your hand.

    It doesn't get fed? (none / 0) (#146)
    by sj on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 02:17:05 PM EST
    If I abstain, let's see what's gonna happen.

    You've done what?? (none / 0) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 04:39:39 PM EST
    Do you really think anyone cares that you have warned them?

    This is funny.


    I know you don't, because checking (none / 0) (#201)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 06:51:45 PM EST
    anything you hear or see from Fox News or other tidbits of misinformation is apparently beyond your powers, like when you confidentally asserted that California was losing businesses to other states.

    You're the King of Misinformation around here, Jim.  Keep it up.


    (Sigh!) It's too bad that you don't show ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 02:26:16 AM EST
    ... the same concern for Ruben Garcia Villalpando and Antonio Zambrano Montes, two legal Mexican immigrants who were unarmed when shot to death by law enforcement officers in two separate incidents last February.

    Perhaps you better hope that another person of color is not cavalierly shot to death by white police officers for altogether trivial reasons. Otherwise, your precious Republicans will have alienated non-white citizens to the extent that they won't be seeing the inside of the White House for the rest of your lifetime, even with 70% of the white vote -- unless, of course, they get a ticket for the official tour.

    Now, please excuse me, but I've got a Confederate battle flag to burn on Nathan Bedford Forrest's grave, before they dig him up.



    et al in the morning (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 07:25:05 AM EST
    Hmmmm, it occurs to me if you believe that Trump would hurt the Repubs you'd be saying nothing. I mean, why try and run him off???????

    And while it is hard for me to believe Trump will get the nomination he is, like Bernie, fun to watch and is pulling their respective parties away from the middle.

    Donald, nice try at reframing the argument. But, the facts are that there is a video and an investigation on going. From your link:

    After several minutes of patrol, he returned to his vehicle and reported a false alarm. Then he saw a Toyota pickup on the west side of the business. Clark turned on his emergency lights, police said.

    The motorist did not stop but drove out of the parking lot and onto the southbound service road of Texas 121.

    Clark turned on his siren and let dispatchers know that he was pursuing the pickup. Police said the Toyota driver got on the freeway at a "high rate of speed" and was seen "weaving through and around" heavy traffic and even driving on the shoulder.

    When the pickup stopped on an outside shoulder of southbound Texas 121 near the Cheek Sparger Road exit just inside Euless, Clark called to the driver to put his hands outside the Toyota, according to police.

    García "gets out of the car with his hands up and stands outside his car, while Officer Clark commands him to stop. Officer Clark gives him further commands to not move," Grapevine police spokesman Robert Eberling wrote in a news release about he incident.

    But García walked toward Clark even though he was repeatedly told to stop, Eberling said. The dash-cam video shows García raising his hands "and/or placing them on his head" while continuing to walk toward Clark's front bumper.

    ROE's for everyone interfacing with the police.

    1. Don't flee at a high rate of speed.

    2. Don't walk towards them when told repeatedly to stop.

    Who exactly (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 07:48:52 AM EST
    is trying to run him off? I wish him all the success in the world, every point he gains in the polls is an indicator of just how insane the Republican base has become, every word he speaks stretches the GOP a little thinner.

    His candidacy has elevated the humor value of the clown car by an order of magnitude. I for one am looking forward to Aug. 6th on Fox, it's must see TV with Trump no doubt grabbing the spotlight.

    Long may you run Donald, long may you run.


    When you write/say all these (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 08:10:51 AM EST
    negative things about him you are trying to shut him down.

    I mean, you don't say bad things about a football player you want your school to recruit do you???

    Now, since he, according to some around here, represents the GOP base then they aren't being stretched, they are being consolidated.. and based on my conversations with non-political types, he is scoring points outside the base and adding people to the base. This reminds me of Reagan who was the master of "Democrats for Reagan."

    Now I don't want to over do that. It is still way to early and the current generation of Repub leaders have become far too fat and comfortable in their "opposition party" niche. That's why they hate him. And you want Bush Again to run because no one really wants another Bush.

    Look around you. Trump points out how jobs are being lost to China and Mexico. People see that. Trump points out our politicians are stupid and can't negotiate. People see that. Trump says he knows how and has the results and people see that.


    Jim (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 08:27:04 AM EST
    the people trying to shut Trump down are THE REPUBLICANS. Democrats are saying talk more! Talk more! Let's give The Donald a bigger microphone. LOL.

    By Jim's standard (none / 0) (#79)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 08:33:52 AM EST
    this must make this fellow a secret agent for the Democrats:

    GOP Chief Reince Priebus Calls Donald Trump to Tell Him to 'Tone It Down'

    Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus called presidential candidate Donald Trump and asked him to pull back his rhetoric on immigration, a source familiar with the conversation told NBC News on Wednesday.

    The source, who asked not to be identified, said Priebus made the request to "tone it down" during an almost hour-long conversation covering a wide range of issues when he returned an earlier call from Trump.

    Go Donald, Go! (none / 0) (#77)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 08:24:00 AM EST
    Yeah, The Donald is going to be shut down because of some comments on a Left-Wing blog, so if we do want him to run, we Lefties should remain quiet.

    He's also adding people to the base with his Latino vote remark, Jim.  Unfortunately, it's the base of the Democratic Party.  That's going to count against him more than a few of your disgruntled friends tying onions to their belts and going down to vote for him next year.

    Thanks for allowing me to explain it to you.


    You (none / 0) (#92)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 09:18:14 AM EST
    obviously do not understand the concept of mockery. Yes he is consolidating the base into the cuckoo's nest he wears on top of his head.

    Yes, Jim, your logic is perfectly correct (none / 0) (#75)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 07:57:51 AM EST
    except for the part where we remain silent because the Republicans always listen to what we Far Lefties say around here otherwise.

    As for your tips, I have one for any cops reading this blog:  Don't be a jackass against the people who pay your salaries,  i. e. The civilians you're suppose to be serving and protecting.

    Thank you.


    Your welcome (2.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 08:46:49 AM EST
    But the point is not IF they listen. What you are doing is demonstrating your fear of Trump running by joining with the DC Repubs, who don't want their boat rocked, in denigrating him. If you really thought he was not a threat you would be silent.

    As for the police, the people do pay them to:

    1. Investigate burglar alarms.

    2. Pursue people who flee the scene.

    3. Stop and try to arrest the people fleeing the scene.

    And we do have a video showing the man ignoring the commands to stop and walking towards the officer.

    And if you disobey him, he has (none / 0) (#83)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 08:52:02 AM EST
    The right to shoot you to death.  Judge, jury and executioner if you don't obey a cop.

    Yes, if he tells you to stop (1.00 / 1) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 09:39:43 AM EST
    walking towards him and you continue to walk towards him he has the right to shoot you. And since he is trained to shoot at the body mass the result can be fatal.

    I assume you have never engaged in pursuit of a suspect and have no first hand knowledge of how hyper that makes you and you have never tried to arrest a person who doesn't want to be cuffed.

    But, based on your comments, you seem to think that the cop should just stand there and wait for the person to whip out a concealed knife, or other weapon, and be killed.


    Yes, if he tells you to stop (1.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 09:39:43 AM EST
    walking towards him and you continue to walk towards him he has the right to shoot you. And since he is trained to shoot at the body mass the result can be fatal.

    I assume you have never engaged in pursuit of a suspect and have no first hand knowledge of how hyper that makes you and you have never tried to arrest a person who doesn't want to be cuffed.

    But, based on your comments, you seem to think that the cop should just stand there and wait for the person to whip out a concealed knife, or other weapon, and be killed.


    Deadly force should only be used (none / 0) (#99)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 09:42:14 AM EST
    in proportional response he the threat.  An unarmed man can be dealt with short of shooting him dead.

    But thanks for telling us your opinion again.


    And can you tell me exactly how (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 09:48:16 AM EST
    you can know the man is unarmed???

    Fact is, you can't.


    I dunno, by giving a verbal warning (none / 0) (#103)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 09:51:17 AM EST
    Instead of just pulling out their gun and blazing away first.

    Please please please read (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 09:58:10 AM EST
    Donald's link before posting...

    He was given multiple commands to stop.

    Plus, there was a second suspect there.

    Have you ever seen a couple of men take one down and beat him severely??

    I have, and it happens very fast.


    According to the link (none / 0) (#107)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 10:05:06 AM EST
    only one man was walking towards him when he was shot, not two men closing in on the officer to administer a beating or worse, as per your own distortion of the facts.

    Quit making things up that are easy to check Jim.

    In fact, you should quit.........


    There was a second man there (2.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 10:19:25 AM EST
    who could have easily joined the attack.

    I mean speaking of facts...


    Yaw'l have a nice now, you hear!! My game awaits!!


    You made the bald statement (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 10:34:45 AM EST
    that two men can easily overpower and severely injure one man, and then you try to CYA by pointing out that he could've been a threat when he didn't do anything aggressively in the first place. And I didn't deny there was a second man there.

    And if you want to play the cornpone philosopher at the cracker barrel making fun of all the eggheads who don't have things figured out the way he has, from his experience and Southern heritage, I'll play along this time.

    Bless your heart.


    You forgot to add (none / 0) (#117)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 10:59:34 AM EST
    "Well, I never!  Aren't you special?"     ;-)

    I'm praying you nominate him (none / 0) (#198)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 06:31:49 PM EST
    Please, please, PUH-LEEEEZZZE get him nominated, Jim.  I would LOVE for you to get him nominated!  And since you like a good wager, why not put some money on your 49-states theory!  Any amount you want!

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Only the wingnuts in Tennessee and a few bat$hit red states would go for the Donald ...


    And (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 03:02:30 PM EST
    the flag is coming down tomorrow.

    In other news-

    Donald Trump will end up running as an independent. (That's actually an opinion.  Not news)

    I just want him to run away... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 03:13:16 PM EST
    If I never had to see his pouty little mouth or hear the bloviating egoism that emanates from it, it would be too soon.

    I have this wish (none / 0) (#5)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 03:22:02 PM EST
    that the road kill masquerading as hair on his head will re-animate, become zombie road kill, and.........use your imagination for the result.   ;-)

    Sadly, or not really, come to think of it, (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 03:22:36 PM EST
    I do not believe that will happen.   I think it is his ego that will not allow that to happen.  He will become increasingly radioactive to the party and increasingly popular with the base.   They will do what they need to do to disassociate with him and he will run as an independent, insuring a democratic victory as vengeance.

    Just my opinion


    I Like the Guy... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 03:50:03 PM EST
    ...he is single-handedly giving the election to D's.

    Washington Post:

    The head of the Republican National Committee, responding to demands from increasingly worried party leaders, spent nearly an hour Wednesday on the phone with Donald Trump, urging the presidential candidate to tone down his inflammatory comments about immigration that have infuriated a key election constituency.

    The call from Chairman Reince Priebus, described by donors and consultants briefed on the conversation and confirmed by the RNC, underscores the extent to which Trump has gone from an embarrassment to a cause for serious alarm among top Republicans in Washington and nationwide.


    Donald Trump is pushing back against reports that Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus voiced concerns to him about the billionaire's tone when talking about undocumented immigrants during a Wednesday phone call.

    Trump instead told CNN on Thursday the call had a "congratulatory" tone -- but conceded that Priebus suggested he "tone it down a little bit."

    "He did say, 'you know, you could keep it down a little bit, but you can't change your personality and I understand that.' It was really a nice call, a congratulatory call," Trump told CNN.

    Trump said Priebus congratulated him on his surge in the polls, telling Trump that he's "literally not seen anything like this."

    The RNC declined comment on Thursday on Trump's version of events.

    Sounds to me like Priebus told him to tone it down and Trump heard, 'We love you'.


    Could you imagine... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 03:56:41 PM EST
    that Trump was Hillary Clinton's Manchurian Candidate all along?  It would make a great movie!

    You could almost call it (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 04:10:53 PM EST
    Perot like!!

    Sure is something unusual here :) (none / 0) (#20)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 04:16:08 PM EST
    In many ways, kdog, the why-is-he-doing-this & what-is-really-his-game has become an almost fun summer guessing game.  Not quite as interesting as a cryptoquip; but, The Man Known As The Hairpiece is a way to make chatter at a summer stand-up cocktail party.

    One theory, imo, is that he is the Repub candidates' lightning rod to allow them to look less crazy by comparison.  What are the odds on any Why Trump theory?  One little peculiar thing today is that Donald Trump is the leader in a new poll of Repubs, followed by Jeb and Rand at 4 points behind (Economist/YouGov poll.)


    I don't buy (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 04:36:35 PM EST
    into any of those theories. I think it's all about his ego.

    The irony is he seems to have the magic touch with the GOP base who loves him for what he is saying.


    He adores $$$$ and so do the supporters (none / 0) (#36)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 05:21:05 PM EST
    Of course, the Trump supporters don't have the $$$$ that he has ... but, that certainly doesn't stop them from worshipping him as the avatar of $$$$.  Since he knows the greed cycle quite well, he repeats his purported net worth and the $$$$ he has acquired as often as possible.

    Trump knows how to play the would-be avaricious supporters; and, he knows how to play the press and it's love for showy glitz.

    Yet ... while I agree that his ego is the centerpiece here, it does appear that his "game" is something else.  


    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 05:28:16 PM EST
    i think it's simple.  He believes he can and should be president.  Why should he not?  Do you remember last cycle when every single candidate, including Mitt,  climbed  over each to kiss his ring and his a$$?   When his endorsement was considered vital?

    He does.  

    He will not be president.  IMO he will not be the republican nominee.  I don't think that will stop the Trump train.  


    Agree that he will not be the nominee (none / 0) (#40)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 05:50:43 PM EST
    For now, he is the show.  And, as the show, he gives a bit of cover to others running alongside him in that party.

    I do think tho that even Trump understands his more than long odds ... so, is the game the show and more PR and another TV show with yet more $$$$?


    I (none / 0) (#45)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 06:44:33 PM EST
    don't think the Republicans set him up as a lightning rod, although thanks to the media and the clueless populace it might have that effect. He certainly is no puppet of the GOP.

    I have been trying to figure out his game for weeks now and frankly I am baffled. As a political junkie and Monty Python fan it's rather entertaining but not too enlightening.


    Why be baffled? (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 11:50:51 AM EST
    The guy's business acumen may be suspect, but the value of his brand, the name, "Trump," is a successful, proven, and valuable commodity.

    Take two high rise buildings, both located on prime real estate in any major city in the U.S. One is given the name, let's say, "Cedar Gardens," the other, "The Trump Executive." Guess which commands super premium, value added rents?

    Someone here stated the well known truism recently that, "in show business, any publicity is good publicity."

    The Donald has taken that slogan to the Next Level.

    He may be a jerk, but, he's certainly not a stupid jerk.


    I am not baffled (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 12:03:20 PM EST
    by his success, I am baffled by his political game. A craven, no morals, real estate hustler should have no problem making tons of money in this day an age.

    If he really wants to win and thinks he can do it I don't understand why he would be using such inflammatory language at this point in the race. If he is only bluffing then why take the hits on his brand, which is obviously so important to him?


    O.K. Thanks for the clarification (none / 0) (#152)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 02:42:10 PM EST
    At this point, I don't think we know enough about D.T. to determine if his inflammatory language is part of a predetermined strategy, or just a racist moron not able to control himself.

    Either way, it helped propel him to become "The leader of the pack."

    Only time will tell how politically savvy he is, and how/if the tone of his comments change when addressing different groups.


    That's what I (none / 0) (#178)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 04:54:55 PM EST
    am saying, I can pretty much understand the thinking  and motivations of all the rest of them. You can probably include "ego" in all of them, even Bernie.

    Bush and Clinton feel entitled, a family tradition, as does Rand(without the legacy), there are the grifters such as Huckabee and Walker and a bunch of pious culture warriors.

    I think Bernie and Lindsey are probably the least ego driven in the field, they seem to know they are longshots and just wanting to put their ideas on the table, probably their last chance in this particular format. Rubio is probably a GOP "project", VP material certainly, an acceptable stand in for the Jeb! faction if he fizzles, probably a 2020 front runner already.

    The most ego driven has to be Cruz, Trump and Christie. They  are all certain that the are smarter then everyone else and are not shy about telling everyone. They, along with Walker are bullies, going after the same  voters.

    What I don't understand is Trump has so much more to lose, he has an empire, they have dreams(and sugar daddys). With his name recognition and own money he was practically guaranteed a seat at the main table, why play the xenophobe card early? I expected Trump to be a smarter player then that, or am I missing something?


    Well, his shock-mouth (none / 0) (#183)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 05:26:39 PM EST
    did propel him from "not in contention" to "front-runner" overnight.

    That's something, no?


    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 03:27:44 PM EST
    Trump is more likely going to win the GOP nomination. Did you see him leading in the polls in NC???

    No, I suspect (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Palli on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 10:09:41 PM EST
    Jeb is in the game to amass all the dark money possible so the nomination process can be controlled in the back room- probably an unholy alliance between fractions of Bushes and Kochs. I don't even think Jeb! will be nominee, too much baggage to unpack.

    North Carolina (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 03:30:11 PM EST
    does not win you a nomination.

    I'll bet you 100 grand (none / 0) (#11)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 03:33:18 PM EST
     he is not the nominee.

    I didn't (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 03:46:59 PM EST
    say that he was going TO BE the nominee. I said he was more LIKELY to be the nominee than run as an independent at this point in time.

    Oh, OK (none / 0) (#13)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 03:49:33 PM EST
      well I won't bet anything on whether he runs as an independent. That would require trying to get inside his head and I can't imagine a more frightening place.

    What odds are you giving? (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 07:48:20 PM EST
    And who will hold the money?

    Goodby and good riddance to the flag. (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 03:28:13 PM EST
    Something I just read: In 1860 in South Carolina the population of black slaves outnumbered the population of whites (~402,500 vs ~300,500)

    I'm not (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 03:50:09 PM EST
    sure what the percentages were in the early to mid 1900's but I do know there was a big migration of blacks out of the south starting in the 1940's and beyond. The great irony of Jim Crow is that it tried to keep blacks in the south so they would have someone they could pay little money to to pick crops. The ones who left had to leave in the middle of the night and sneak out of the state.

    Earlier than that (none / 0) (#17)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 04:06:20 PM EST
      The Great Miigration is generally considered to have begun with WWI, even before our entry. There was a slowdown  during the Depression because the jobs in the North dried up but between 1916 and 1929:

    The first large movement of blacks occurred during World War I, when 454,000 black southerners moved north.  In the 1920s, another 800,000 blacks left the south, followed by 398,000 blacks in the 1930s.  Between 1940 and 1960 over 3,348,000 blacks left the south for northern and western cities. - See more at: http://www.blackpast.org/aah/great-migration-1915-1960#sthash.J4A3SGWk.dpuf


    Another fact: (none / 0) (#59)
    by Palli on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 10:14:09 PM EST
    SC did not have any Confederate Black soldiers until 2 months before Appomattox, when in desperation the law was changed so there could conscript the slave class to fight.
    Wish the GOP Reps would do their research before bloating at the podium.

    What Donald Trump says and does is ... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 05:01:07 PM EST
    ... immaterial to me and therefore none of my concern. The guy is a nasty and self-absorbed piece of work, an attention wh0re and Grade-A a$$wipe who's long been nothing but pure sideshow, and who's simply too full of himself to realize otherwise.

    That combed-over jackass is never going to be president. And I'm more than happy to tell all those low-info numbnutz who'd even consider supporting and / or voting for him, that they must have silly putty rather than grey matter in their thick, Cro-Magnon era skulls.

    The true shame of it all is that Trump is so effin repulsive and so far over the top in his bigotry and prejudice, he actually makes the other occupants of the GOP clown car sound sane and reasonable in direct comparison. And that does none of us who really ARE sane and reasonable any good whatsoever.

    I now find myself either changing the channel or turning off the TV altogether, whenever Trump's the subject of discussion on any of the cable news programs or even "The Daily Show."

    Frankly, it really reflects even more poorly upon our media -- if that's at all possible -- that they've lately allowed this carny barker to suck up all the oxygen in their room, particularly when our country is facing so many other, far more important issues that require some serious air time and analysis.

    There, I feel much better now that I've vented my spleen over Trump. That's the last I'll say on the subject.



    Media (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 05:21:58 PM EST
    Not sure how they ignore the fact he is leading, by a good margin, in some polls.
    Seriously,  the guy is losing business and gaining supporters by the hour.

    Why would they ignore that.

    I appreciate you don't like him.  Who does.  Do I want him to stay in the race?   As an independent if necessary?



    The media loves Donald Trump because ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 07:03:04 PM EST
    ... they're generally lazy basturds nowadays who prefer stenography to actual reporting. Trump is a relentless self-promoter who seeks them out for publicity's sake, not unlike the Kardashians, therefore the media don't have to do much if any work in that respect. Trust me, Cap'n, six months from now, this toupeed babooze will be mostly a political afterthought.

    Over the long haul of the presidential nominating process, today's popularity polls are essentially meaningless. For all of Jeb! Bush's perceived faults and shortcomings right now, which are admittedly considerable, he's still the nominal favorite for the GOP nomination due to the simple fact that he's the Republican establishment's darling -- and it shows.

    As you'll note in today's campaign finance reports linked above, while his GOP rivals are busy crisscrossing the eastern half of the country between Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, each trying to out-bluster and out-crazy the others, Jeb! has quietly raised almost half-again as much money as Hillary Clinton has thus far, $103 million to her own $69 million take.

    In a post-Citizen's United political world, that considerable fundraising advantage endows Jeb! with the singular ability to outlast everyone else in the GOP field -- including The Donald, if need be.

    And I can assure you, the odds of that ever needing to be are likely somewhere between very slim and none at all. In terms of social policy development, Republicans may indeed well be as collectively crazed as a conclave of deviant Catholic clergy at a Boy Scout jamboree. But the one thing they're not is politically suicidal.

    This week's vote in the South Carolina legislature to exile the Confederate battle flag from the Capitol grounds ought to dispel everyone of that particular notion.

    Okay, now that's the last I'll say about Trump. Aloha.


    I too think Jeb Bush (none / 0) (#3)
    by CST on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 03:04:18 PM EST
    Is out of touch.  But if there's one thing more annoying than out of touch Republicans, it's the obsession with "gotcha" moments by the media leading up to the presidential campaign.

    Someone wake me up in 2017.

    Jeb Bush (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 03:29:21 PM EST
    what is wrong with him? He seems to be having nothing going for him. The Donald is polling better than he is in some states. LOL

    Jeb (none / 0) (#25)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 04:29:17 PM EST
    seems rather unenthusiastic to me. I always expected him to have a bunker mentality type of campaign but I expected at least some kind of splash in the weeks following his launch, instead he allowed Trump to steal his thunder.

    well (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 04:37:33 PM EST
    Trump stole everyone's thunder in the GOP because his statements are exactly what Republicans say every day all the time.

    He certainly (none / 0) (#41)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 06:06:21 PM EST
    turned the dog whistle into a fog horn.

    Seems to Me... (none / 0) (#87)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 09:06:57 AM EST
    ...like is letting the other R's burn the place to the ground and waiting to see who the actual competition will be.  

    He is raising more money than Hillary($760,000 a day), so he is doing something right and I have to wonder if Trump isn't help fill his pockets by scaring the he11 out republicans with sense.

    Hillary is raising $555,555 a day.

    Here's a look at how they fare head to head. Combining the totals from the campaigns and outside groups supporting the candidates, the Bush corner has raised about $114 million, compared with just less than $70 million for Clinton.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 09:17:17 AM EST
    but the daily thing for Jeb is shorter than for Hillary.

    The problem is Jeb thinks money is going to solve all his problems. It is not. At some point the money is going to reach saturation and it's going to produce diminishing returns.

    Bernie raised more money than Jeb since he declared.


    My Point Was... (none / 0) (#96)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 09:38:32 AM EST
    ...and response was more about Jeb being busy, maybe not out working crowds, but he is definitely working someone.

    Christie is in the same boat IMO, just sitting back and letting the heard thin.  They both have reserved spots in the debate regardless what happens, so why fill the coffers.


    Democratic state lawmakers will soon introduce legislation that would force Gov. Chris Christie to resign from office because he is running for president, NJ Advance Media has learned.

    Christie has been out of state for more than a third of his second term and more than half of this year.

    I have quit watching for now (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 12:20:54 AM EST
    Very odd for me, I'm a news junkie.  Can't do it right now because it is no longer news, just button pushing for viewers.

    A defense of the (none / 0) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 06:13:08 PM EST
    indefensible: Donald Trump.   An egotistical, sensitivity-challenged, lout.  Something out of 'Birth of a Nation." And, rich, although there is quibbling as to the number of his $billions.  Not a real candidate, just a showboater. Vanity hair.

    No one abides him. Except the Republican base and Ted Cruz who "salutes" him and all the other clown car occupants who can't find words to condemn him.  They would use different words to say something similar. Indeed, Trump has by their lights brought to the fore this troubling matter of immigration (we don't want any).  Just,   2016 Republicanism unadulterated.

    Trump is treated to around-the-clock, 24/7 media scrutiny and commentary analyzing outlandish statements.  He says what he says, and says it again, in case it was missed.  Fits into Trump's plan, free media attention--for the first saying and again on the doubling down.  Sure beats eating fried butter sticks in Iowa.

    No media flurries to help us understand just what Trump really means.  No need, he was clear.  Embarrassing to Republicans  only in that he let the tea out of the bag.

    Now, take a look at another contender.  The "smart" Bush. "..people need to work longer hours and through their productivity, gain more income for their families, that's the only way we're going to get out of this rut we are in."  Says Jeb.  Really/

    Of course, the next day Jeb, perhaps on the advice of his smarter brother, decided that he needed to clarify what he meant. So he told us what we heard.  He was talking about part-time workers.

    Sure, but he did not mention employers who avoid having to pay benefits.  It must be the workers.  Or, another shot at it was that he meant more jobs, but how do you make sense out of longer hours for those who are not now working.  

    But, some of the media went into overtime (pun intended) to bail him out. Jeb is too invested in to fail.  Who else can drive the clown car?  And, when Jeb proffered a solution to social security by extending retirement age in stages, from 65 to 68 to 70, neither ridicule, nor correction was registered that the age was raised from 65 to 68 in 1983. Reagan beat him to it.  And, of course, no mention in all this of his opposition to federal minimum wage, just longer hours.  On the plus side, Jeb only took a day on this one, an improvement over his serial answers over the course of a week on Iraq (Rubio never did understand the question).

    Donald Trump has to go, so that the other can stay and have a chance.  Jeb, Walker (do away with weekends), Jindal (get rid of the SC to save money), Christie (a bridge he wants to sell you), et al.  Let's give them the Trump treatment and see how they fare.  They may make Trump look good.  And, that is really bad.  And, that's my case for The Donald.  

    Hear, hear! (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 06:27:28 PM EST
    Trump is like the escaped id of the Republican Party.

    He is saying what vast numbers of the base has been yearning to hear from a politician for decades.

    Watching TV nooze gets funnier by the day.   Just saw a republican strategist with dark circles under his eyes shouting


    Which tells me they are totally panicked and they know Trump is not Michelle Bachman.
    Or rather he IS Michelle Bachman with a brain and billions of dollars


    Yep (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 07:48:00 PM EST
    the Donald is saying what all the Republicans want to hear.

    And Jeb? Again, a totally overrated candidate if there ever was one. If I had given him money I would be asking for a refund. But a fool and his money are soon parted and apparently Bush has a roster of fools ready to dump money down the drain.

    And it does seem that they are all very scared of him. He even insulted Jeb's wife and all Jeb could offer was some lame response about being offended.

    The GOP establishment must be ready to commit suicide at this point. And Reagan's 11th commandment is coming back to bite them BIG TIME.

    At this point it's anybody's game as to who can win the GOP nomination. I sure would not be putting any money on Jeb because he seems to be falling behind.


    Trump is a (none / 0) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 10:02:58 AM EST
    "natural" outgrowth of a years-long, steady drumbeat of right-wing propaganda.  Propaganda that demonizes certain individuals and groups, rails against taxes because "those people" get their money, and vilifies the person of the President.

    Solutions are seen not only as simplistic, but ridicule is made of complexities.  Diplomacy is for those effete, elitists.  Straight talk is golden.  Military might is the only right.  Nuance, shumance.  

    The high rollers who have invested in the Bushes for years, with great rewards, have invested in still another family member--despite his lack of fire--and smarts. If protection of the investment was not the primal reason, Jeb would be long gone. No other reason for him to still be around.

    Trump is to the Republican establishment as the monster is to Dr Frankenstein.  And, Trump is to the Republican base as Dr. Frankenstein is to the monster.  Trump has stitched together their carefully cultivated  grievances, bigotry, and fear giving the composite, life.   The more Trump is attacked, the more support.  Victimization is innate to the Republican base who see "their American" going away.

    Trump may get the Republican nomination, if he can withstand the onslaughts.  I doubt that he can.  


    Trump (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 10:12:58 AM EST
    is not the only monster the GOP has created, merely the most audacious to date.

    And, of course, never overlook (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 12:25:10 PM EST
    the irresistible, magnetic, attraction of "Star Power."

    During my workdays in N.Y.C. I, sometimes, found myself attending lunch/dinner meetings at some of hottest brand-name restaurants in Manhattan. Occasionally, there would be a table close-by, obviously, occupied by organized crime big shots. Loud, vulgar, publicity whores. And, guess what? I was never surprised to see business executives, connected to some of the most premium "white shoe" companies you could imagine, offering exorbitant "bribes" to the maître d in order get a table as close to the gangsters as possible.

    CEO's, with 7 figure incomes, behaved like 12 year old, star struck, groupies, just to be in the aura of the hoods.  

    Trump has developed that sort of aura for himself, and has been able to monetize it to great, personal wealth benefit.

    Regrettable, but, this is America, where money has no soul.


    I think Donald is more of a symptom (none / 0) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 03:06:39 PM EST
    the disease is the tea party.  That is the monster they created.  Donald is just feeding them what they want to hear.

    So, you think (none / 0) (#160)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 03:22:00 PM EST
    Donald's disgusting statements are pre-planned, and not just emotional adolescent outbursts? You're probably right; I believe that a person can be a blight on humanity, and also, possess a fairly high level of intellect.

    I said in another response that we won't truly know his game plan until we observe him interacting with various, disparate constituencies.

    The weird thing for me to understand is......basically, have you read the list, the really long list, of sponsors, and other supporters that have dropped him over his racist remarks?

    I would like to read, in a respected business journal, an approximate value (in dollars & cents) of this lost business support. It looked staggering to me.


    Yes absolutely pre planned (none / 0) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 03:33:33 PM EST
    i don't think he believes half of what he says.   He has said he is, for example, pro choice, he believes in universal healthcare, he is very much against republican attacks of socialsecurity, Medicare and even Medicaid.

    He is playing to an audience.  He IMO is not stupid.  At all.  
    A bloviating arrogant pompous a-hole.  Not stupid.

    As far as his financial losses.  He says the are, in spite of the numbers and breathless reporting, negligible.  I tend to believe him.

    If he runs for president as an independent it will profit him 10 times over what he has lost.


    One other thing about the (none / 0) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 03:48:58 PM EST
    companies dropping him.  I heard someone say that the more that happens, and it does seem to be happening a lot, the more skin he will have in the president game.  
    In other words the more it happens the more likely it is he will run as an independent.

    I'm not (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 12:48:07 PM EST
    so sure anymore that Trump can't withstand the onslaughts. Honestly I thought he would never lead in polling and would be mired in the mid single digits in national polls.

    And those people gave all that money to Jeb's PAC before they even saw what kind of candidate he is. But you're right. The only reason Jeb is still there is because he has money. Without the money he would already be done.


    re contesting a parking ticket (none / 0) (#56)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 09:05:49 PM EST
    There is a block in Seattle in which all the cars on both sides park facing to the west.  The signs on the  north side face the drivers in the cars that park but the signs on the south side of the street face away from all parked cars, because the street has a no entry sign.

    So I parked on the south side of the street and was legally parked per the signs visible to me, but not to a sign facing away from the car.

    The city is trying to go after me for $53.  I had a "pre-trial settlement conference" and the judge did not accept my arg and dismiss the ticket.

    I am scheduled to have a contested hearing 10/1/15.

    I was in fact parked in an area where the sign says I could not be, but the sign was not properly facing the cars as would be normal and as is normal for ever other block in Seattle.

    RCW says that signs are supposed to follow some uniform code.

    Does any wish to offer their thoughts?

    The Horror !!! (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 09:15:54 AM EST
    Sell the car. Get a bike. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 09:19:54 PM EST
    With all those steep hills? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 03:08:24 AM EST
    I used to ride a bike around Seattle when I was attending the University of Washington, and let me tell you, going up Queen Anne, Capitol Hill and First Hill could be a killer because the streets are straight up and down -- and I was a scholarship athlete in great shape. No way could I ever do that now.

    I really wanted to get a moped, but my mother and grandparents balked at that idea because they considered mopeds to be dangerous. They were right, of course. Further, my baseball coach also frowned on his players riding mopeds. So instead, Mom gave me a brand-new 10-speed for Christmas during my freshman year. That was probably the most well-used present she ever gave me.

    My favorite places to ride in the Puget Sound region were three islands -- Vashon, Bainbridge, and Whidbey. I had a teammate and good buddy who was from Vashon Island, and who also loved to ride bikes. We'd take the ferry over there on some weekends in the fall and use his parents' house as our base, and we'd pedal all over the place. I still love that island.

    Those were good times.


    Sure. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 02:28:40 AM EST
    Move to Bend, Oregon.

    Seriously, though, Sec. 47.36.060, RCW, ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 04:30:03 AM EST
    ... does not specify how and where such signs will be located and placed on city streets, and instead leaves that for the WA Dept. of Transportation to determine by rule.

    In that respect, I would refer you to that department's "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition, as Revised." I would also look to the City of Seattle's rules and ordinances governing on-street parking. (You might also want to print this SDOT brochure and keep it in your glove compartment for future reference.)

    Now, all that being said, unless the street in question has clearly been designated as one-way -- which you didn't specify, so I am assuming otherwise -- it sounds as though you were facing in the wrong direction while parking on one side of a two-way street.

    Therefore, while that sign was correctly posted so that approaching drivers in in the eastbound lane could both see and read it, you quite obviously were not, because you were parked while facing due west.

    I don't think it really matters if all the parked cars on both sides of the street were facing the same westerly direction. In many other cities and towns throughout the country, you could've also been cited for parking in the wrong direction, because you'd have posed a potential hazard when you vacated that spot and crossed immediately into a lane of oncoming traffic.

    So, given your description, I think this one's probably on you, and not the City of Seattle. It was your responsibility to check that sign on your side of the street to note its restrictions. Sorry.

    But what you might want to do, in the interest of being a good citizen, is talk to your city councilmembers and urge them to require SDOT to clarify the proper direction in which cars should be parked on city streets, and on that street in particular.

    Otherwise, some judge might rule at some point in the near future that city street signs should henceforth be mounted on both sides of the signpost, for which compliance would entail a rather large outlay of funding and effort.



    It is functionally a one-way street . . . (none / 0) (#70)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 04:59:05 AM EST
    It is functionally one-way for one block of the street.  There is no legal entrance from the West side of the block for cars wishing to enter and move east. . . .

    All cars I have observed that park on that block, on different days, all park facing to the west, using either the south side of the street or the north side of the street and no one is ever cited for an infraction of parking on the wrong side or wrong direction . . .


    "Functionally one-way" is one thing. (none / 0) (#139)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 01:48:21 PM EST
    But unless that street is expressly designated and marked as "One Way" only, then you're quite likely in the wrong here. Perhaps you can somehow convince the judge to rule in the manner which I described above, but that's a long shot at best. I fear that you'll probably be wasting your time by further contesting this citation, so were I you, I'd just say "lesson learned," pay the $53 fine and move on.

    Ex-quarterback... (none / 0) (#60)
    by desertswine on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 10:39:05 PM EST
    Kenny Stabler has passed away.

    That's a shame. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 02:35:52 AM EST
    But from what I understand, Stabler had been suffering terribly from colon cancer. So, in that regard, death could be seen as both a relief and a blessing. I saw him carve up the Minnesota Vikings pretty good in Super Bowl IX at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, CA. For me, he'll always epitomize the Oakland Raiders at their very best.

    :( sad (none / 0) (#145)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 02:15:03 PM EST
    He was and will always be one of my favs. Those were some good football watching years . . .

    Economic propaganda (none / 0) (#66)
    by CityLife on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 02:31:58 AM EST
    It is important to confront this economic propaganda because it sells a social-pathology which rationalizes "wars of choice." See how my teacher manipulated our class: Our Teacher Misled Us about Government Spending & Economic Stimulus

    Best Selleck joke so far (none / 0) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 03:35:34 PM EST
    Magnum PH

    The Brothers Bush, (none / 0) (#166)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 03:55:20 PM EST
    filling the coffers:  Brother George is the subject of some controversy for charging the "Helping the Heros" charity fundraiser for US military veterans severely wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq, $100,000 plus provision of private jet service @$20,000.  Wife Laura, appeared a year earlier at the same charity event at a cost of $50,000.   The controversy is no doubt overplayed since Bush gave the wounded veterans charity a deep discount from his usual and customary charge of $250,000.  

    Brother jeb's intellectual coffers were attempted to be filled in by Rep. Paul Ryan (R. WI), with his take on what Jeb must have meant by "Americans need to work longer hours."  It has to do with part-time work, apparently just Jeb's, um-- awkwardness.  Ryan does have some experience with trying to bail out awkwardness, as Romney's running mate.  Especially, that 47 percent slip up--by a hidden video.  

    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 04:48:33 PM EST
    how on earth does Jeb overcome basically extending the GOP meme that Americans are lazy? I mean that is a deadly soundbite and no matter how many times he tries to explain it away it already plays into the what the GOP has been saying for quite a while now. so we're supposed to believe that THIS PARTICULAR REPUBLICAN doesn't think that Americans are lazy when all the other Republicans have been putting forth this same thing for quite a while now?

    Obama just created (none / 0) (#194)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 06:12:33 PM EST
    more protected land under the antiquities act.....Good deal.

    Detroit Cancer Doc sentenced to 45 years (none / 0) (#202)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 06:51:53 PM EST
    for mass quantities of fraud.

    Federal prosecutors and attorneys for Fata, 50, agreed that 553 patients may have been the victims of medical mistreatment with U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade saying Fata "sized up" patients as potential money makers for himself.

    "Dr. Fata pounced on every opportunity to use a patient's body as a profit center," said McQuade during a news conference after the sentencing. "Dr. Fata did not care for patients: he exploited them as commodities. He over-treated, under-treated and outright lied to patients about whether they had cancer so that he could maximize his own profits."

    Pasternak had written.. (none / 0) (#205)
    by desertswine on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 08:20:22 PM EST
    a book of poems - "The Poems of Dr. Zhivago"

    re the parking ticket (none / 0) (#206)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 11:28:03 PM EST
    Photos and testimony will prove that 100% of the vehicles that park on that side of the street face to the west and that the sign is not oriented as proper,

    " Unless otherwise provided in this Manual, signs should be vertically mounted at right angles to the direction of, and facing, the traffic that they are intended to serve."

    signs are supposed to face the traffic and drivers that they are governing.  It was not done at all in this case.

    I think I've won . . . (none / 0) (#207)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 11:34:07 PM EST
     WAC 468-95 adopts the
    MUTCD and Washington State Modifications to the MUTCD M 24-01 as these standards.

    and p. 43 of the MUTCD . . .

    " Unless otherwise provided in this Manual, signs should be vertically mounted at right angles to the direction of, and facing, the traffic that they are intended to serve."