Monday Night Open Thread

In case anyone is wondering why I haven't been blogging the past week, here's the answer: I just found out I have to move again. My two year lease is up Oct. 7 and the owners notified me last week they want to sell rather than renew my lease.

It shouldn't be as bad as last time since I have 6 weeks instead of 3 to find a new home, and I have less to move since I put so much in storage last time, but it's still very stressful. [More...]

It doesn't help that Denver's rental market has risen dramatically -- more than three times the national average and to second in the nation. Rent increases are in the double-digits.

I went to see a possible place on Saturday morning that had been on the market one day. By Saturday afternoon, the owner had received four acceptable applications. She's now deciding who to choose. What I haven't figured out is how there can be so many people in Denver willing to pay $4,000. plus a month for rent. I wouldn't pay that much on principle, but trying to find something suitable for less is challenging, to say the least.

So with my computer constantly tuned to Zillow, Trulia and Craig's list (which update in real time) I have had little time for the news and even less time to write about it.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome. (You can expect to see more of these until I find a new place to live, and then I will be back to blogging as usual.)

< Saturday Open Thread | The "Top Secret" EGhazi E-mails >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Forget about literacy tests to vote. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:50:31 AM EST
    How about literacy tests to be allowed to run. Cue Ozzy's "Crazy Train." How stupid are these guys? Trump comes out against birthright citizenship, and Walker is jumping on that train. I think Santorum and Rand Paul are onboard to some degree as well. Don't these guys get that as POTUS, they don't have the power to end birthright citizenship? It's like, duh, in the Constitution. They all just loves them some Constitution except when they don't. Morons, the whole lot of them.

    Thinking (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:54:22 AM EST
    about subjects and deep reasoning are not hallmarks of conservatives or their voters. So they love this kind of stuff.

    The Other One... (none / 0) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:54:27 AM EST
    ...is still thinking they can add an Marriage Amendment.  The real question is do they believe it or is it just another empty political promise ?

    Things move fast (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:56:00 AM EST
    Jeb Bush (none / 0) (#44)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:09:44 AM EST
    "There are like 10 things I would change in the Constitution with a magic wand,"

    That magic wand being Supreme Court nominees?


    All d**kheads think their wand is magic. (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 06:29:12 PM EST
    Jebya: Shrinking into the past...

    In way more ways (none / 0) (#140)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 06:32:06 PM EST
    than just politics, Mr. Natural.   ;-)

    And people believe that the changes can be made (none / 0) (#148)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 09:25:26 PM EST
    On the first day. Woe de me. I was talking to a neighbor and she was saying maybe it would be nice to have a businessman in the WH as he would know how to fix the economy. I explained about the Trump businesses and how you can not just change the Constitution overnight. She said, well that is why a President has to be a lawyer like Hillary, who knows about the Constitution. Crazy reasoning but heading in the right direction. I always thought everyone had to study the Constitution in History classes. I also had one Business Law semester and my instructor had been a clerk for Justice Kennedy. Very interesting but it does not qualify me for the WH. I am totally perplexed at how this fool is fooling so many people, although, it seems that the people I know who are so enamored with the Trumpster are not even registered to vote. Might be the saving factor.

    Well (none / 0) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 04:29:36 AM EST
    if you live around a lot of tea partiers like me it's really easy. They like everything dumbed down like The Donald. Put all the Hispanics in box cars and send them back to Mexico is something that appeals to them. It doesn't matter that it's a logistical hell or completely unworkable. Most of these voters have existed on a diet of Fox News and talk radio. So thinking is not encouraged.

    It's true... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:17:28 AM EST
    There really is a soulmate for everybody...just look at these two sweethearts.

    I Was Waiting... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:21:17 AM EST
    ...for the punchline.

    Oh man Scott... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:23:04 AM EST
    it's like a perfect storm of punchlines, I couldn't decide on just one.

    Yes... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:53:18 AM EST
    ...but I meant the story itself which seems more like Onion material than reality.

    GZ painting confederate flags is just too stupid to be true...


    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:04:38 PM EST
    I think it all fits him to a "T."  

    The painting, the mindset, the racism: if I'd read the story with the name redacted, I think I could have guessed it was George.  Whether it was his experience or he was always going to be drawn to this sort of thing, to me he just seems perfectly suited to it.

    And no, I don't hate him... I think he is a profoundly sad and pathetic person who seems destined to live exactly the kind of life he's living.


    If asked, I never would have thought (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:52:00 PM EST
    Mr. Z would use the phrase "double entendre."

    Or that he would get... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 02:07:14 PM EST
    100,000 grand for one of his paintings...what's the most one of John Wayne Gacy's paintings ever sold for?

    The case for Trump (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:37:49 AM EST
    as a Republican "moderate", by Josh Barro NYtimes, August 18,  provides not only twists and insights into Trump, but also,  his fanatical supporters.

     If Barro is anything close to being right, he reveals the shallowness of Trump's fanatical supporter's anger at "government."  Trump is positing not a general, inherent failure of government. but a very specific one.  "Our leaders are stupid, our politicians are stupid."  Obama is bad, I will be good.

    Shouting (this is important)  not necessarily that government should be smaller and dragged into, and strangled in the bathtub, but that somebody terrific should run that government, namely Trump.  

     Not the usual winger idea that citizens know better what to do and how to spend their money, because the government lacks the  local knowledge that governments have.  

    So, it follows, If the wingers beef is not the government, but that Trump is smarter and wiser than anyone that came before him. That is the answer,  and that is what is needed.  It is the leaders not the government.

    And does anything Trump says indicate a smaller government--he seems rather imperialistic to me.  Top down, and hands down.  All the wingers want is for the president to talk tough, insult and make demands, send more and more boots on the ground "where ever and whenever", add a trillion or so more to the Pentagon budget and the world will fall in line.  The more simplistic the better. To understand.  America will be great again,  War abroad, war on women at home, and terrific governmental programs.  No Obamacare, replaced with Trump's "Terrific-care."

    Bruce Barlett (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:43:10 AM EST
    on Reagan and why Donald is connecting-

    But he skillfully kept his right flank protected by using thundering conservative rhetoric, even as he violated his own stated principles on a regular basis.

    Federal District Judge, James (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:00:55 PM EST
    Bunning, stayed his decision of last week ordering a clerk to issue marriage licenses despite her Godly objections pending an appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court.  

    Ms. Kim Davis has refused to grant a marriage license to anyone in Rowan, KY county. Governor Beshear ordered her to issue the licenses or resign.  Clerk Davis told the judge that after consulting with God, she decided she could not comply with her clerkly duties.

    She may have also consulted with her likely voters.   Stays of Court are not uncommon to maintain the status quo pending an appeal. In this case, it seems that the delay enables the continuation of an unlawful policy.  Hopefully, the Sixth Circuit will rule in a timely manner, since the stay prevents all couples in the County from obtaining a marriage license.  A good way to turn ire toward  same sex couples who will be blamed by some for the inconvenience caused to others.    

    Very disappointing. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:22:25 PM EST
    As much as I'm against the criminalization of nearly everything, I was soooo looking forward to seeing this religious nutball in handcuffs being led away to the pokey.

    It is a curious ruling by (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 03:44:00 PM EST
    Judge David Bunning.  The motion to stay the Court's injunction filed by the clerk was denied on the merits, and then the order denying the clerk's motion to stay was temporarily stayed pending review of the clerk's motion to stay by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    From the order: " after considering the record , the controlling law and the parties arguments, the Court concluded that a stay pending appeal is not warranted.   However, in recognition of the Constitutional issues involved, and realizing that emotions are running high on both sides of the debate, the Court finds it appropriate to temporarily stay THIS ORDER (caps mine) pending review by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Looks to me, that the emotions part outweighed the clerk's arguments, and, of course, the controlling law.  


    That's an appropriately cautious (none / 0) (#150)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:04:59 PM EST
    temporary ruling. It allows the Sixth Circuit to decide the stay question, as in the end it would anyway, without a risk of pingponging from stay, to no stay, back to stay. My guess is, this temporary stay will last less than a week. The Clerk doesn't have a leg to stand on.

    RIP, Batman (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 03:02:07 PM EST
    The Batmobile pulled into a gas station Sunday night and, as usual, the children who spotted it gawked.

    Lenny B. Robinson was used to that. The Maryland man, better known as the Route 29 Batman, had for years dressed as the Caped Crusader and driven his custom-made car to deliver moments of happiness and distraction to hundreds of sick children at area hospitals.

    His costume stored in the Batmobile but his alter ego never entirely switched off, Robinson gave the kids at the gas station some superhero paraphernalia before driving off.

    Minutes later, Robinson pulled over with engine trouble on an unlit stretch of Interstate 70 near Hagerstown, Md., police said. The people he had just met parked behind him, turning their emergency lights on.

    His car was stopped in the median but still "partially in the fast lane" when he got out to check the engine, according to state police. Around 10:30 p.m., a Toyota Camry slammed into the Batmobile, propelling the steel-framed hunk of black metal into his body. Robinson, 51, died at the scene. His funeral is scheduled for Wednesday in Owings Mill, Md.

    The Washington Post

    (That's not very far from where I live in Western Maryland.)

    I hope that he had a lot of fun... (none / 0) (#115)
    by desertswine on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 03:22:34 PM EST
    delivering all that joy.

    I hope so, too (none / 0) (#117)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 03:39:51 PM EST
    And I'm sure that he was a bright spot in the lives of the sick children he visited.

    I Was Reading About That Guy... (none / 0) (#120)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 03:47:11 PM EST
    ...the other day and they said he spend $25k of his own money on the kids and keeping up the appearances.

    He was also know to the cops who would let him go for not having plates on his bat car.  Just seemed like one of those people that made lives around him much more enjoyable.


    That Should Read... (none / 0) (#168)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:48:10 AM EST
    ...$25k per year...

    Was really sad to read that last night (none / 0) (#127)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 04:29:53 PM EST
    Seemed like a really good guy - sad way to go.

    Earth overshoot day (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 04:15:37 PM EST
    seems like it comes earlier every year.   Oh, wait.  That's because it does.

    Humans have, in fewer than eight months, already used up one year's worth of the planet's resources. This is based on an analysis of the demand that the human population is putting on the Earth, through various actions such as pumping carbon into the atmosphere and scouring the sea of fish, and the rate at which the planet can replenish these resources.

    In what's come to be known as "Earth overshoot day," we've reached the point at which everything else we do this year will be unsustainable six days earlier than we did last year. As it stands, we are on target to consume the equivalent of 1.6 planets over the course of the year. For most of human history we've managed to live within the planet's limits, but since around 1970 we moved into the red. Back then, humanity reached overshoot day in the last few days of December, but ever since we've been hitting it earlier and earlier.

    "Humanity's carbon footprint alone more than doubled since the early 1970s, when the world went into ecological overshoot. It remains the fastest growing component of the widening gap between the ecological footprint and the planet's biocapacity," explains Mathis Wackernagel, president of Global Footprint Network, who calculates Earth overshoot day each year. "The global agreement to phase out fossil fuels that is being discussed around the world ahead of the Climate Summit in Paris would significantly help curb the ecological footprint's consistent growth and eventually shrink the footprint."

    Alex, What is... (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:44:44 AM EST
    ...the reason I don't have/want kids.

    Someone is going to have to pay the piper real soon.


    The only thing we will never run out of (none / 0) (#201)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 01:15:46 PM EST
    is self serving, short sighted, greed and idiocy.

    John Oliver on televangelism (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 05:25:15 PM EST
    My husband phoned the number (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:19:22 PM EST
    Giggled for 3 mins listening to Oliver on the other end. Said he's sending money.  What am I supposed to say? Oliver is exposing televangelists telling their worshippers to send their healthcare dollars to God's chosen televangelists...but no magical healing follows. You die of the cancer that brung ya, with no evil poisonous modern day treatment. Horrible unreality.

    I can't think about it to much (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 07:01:57 AM EST
    my blood pressure goes way up.  What they are doing is so clearly criminal.  It's a disgrace they are allowed to do it.

    It's so obviously targeted to old poor stupid people I can't even take my usual position that if they are stupid enough to do it they deserve to be fleeced.

    Oliver does a good job of having a laugh but saying, look, this is really not funny.


    But you die in a state of grace. (none / 0) (#160)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 07:29:41 AM EST
    Cause all the money you gave is going to make sure the lock of off the pearly gates. I used to tune into Tilton just the entertainment of it. He would go on forever speaking gibberish.

    Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption (none / 0) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:11:09 AM EST
    reminded me of the Firesign Theater bit about The Powerhouse Church of the Presumptuous Assumption of the Blinding Light

    It's it going to be alright?!?


    Hillary opposes Arctic Drilling (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 08:29:48 PM EST
    Works for me.

    The corpse flower .... (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by magster on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:46:31 PM EST
    at the Denver Botanical Gardens started blooming just tonight. Might take a long lunch to go check/sniff it out. Love me some decaying flesh smell!

    Still, how often in one's life does one get to check out a freakish tropical bloom?

    Taking (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:28:44 AM EST
    sj's advice and donating. Honestly the Internets have gotten so bad that any day I'm expecting someone to show up with a bros before hos shirt or someone screaming iron my shirt b*tch. Misogyny is running rampant.

    Curious re what Judith Miller does these days? (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 09:41:37 AM EST
    Michael Bar-Zohar in Conversation with Judith Miller: Inside the Death-Defying Missions of the Israeli Special Forces
    Sun, Nov 15, 2015, 5 pm
    Top Israeli espionage expert Michael Bar-Zohar is joined by Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Judith Miller for a riveting look inside the most daring and white-knuckle missions of the Israeli Special Forces, as told in his new book, No Mission Is Impossible.
     [92nd St. Y, NY, NY.]

    Donald Trump, constitutional scholar, (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by caseyOR on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 11:14:47 AM EST
    informed FOX News' Bill O'Reilly, another constitutional brainiac, that the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution is, in fact, unconstitutional and will not stand up in court.

    Now, I am not a constitutional scholar. I did, however, take a civics class in grade school and a U.S. Government class my senior year of high school.(Both classes were required at the time.) As a result I feel confident in asserting that all amendments to the Constitution are, in fact, constitutional because they are now part of the constitution.

    Lawyers and scholars, please feel free to chime in if I am wrong about this.

    I suppose it is possible that Trump's military school did not teach either civics or U.S. Government. Still, the man surely has a multitude of lawyers on his payroll with whom he can consult. Isn't constitutional law taught in law school?

    He's not actually claiming (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 11:49:57 AM EST
     the 14th amendment is unconstitutional. He's claiming Section 1's language

     ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.")

      does not prohibit Congress from enacting a law that excludes children born on U.S. soil to an illegal immigrant from citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA. the "theory" is based on the assertion children born to illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA. It's extrapolated from exclusion of the children of foreign diplomat's children born in the USA from citizenship. IOW, if Congress can exclude those children born in the USA from citizenship it can also constitutionally exclude children of illegal immigants. That's a dubious proposition but not the same as saying "the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional."

       Now, in terms of deportations of people in the USA when such a law was enacted, the questions would include whether Congress could retroactively strip citizenship from people who are citizens under current law which is even a far more dubious proposition.



    I have not heard him say (none / 0) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 11:58:44 AM EST
    anything about congress passing a law.  Are you getting that from reading his plan (which I have not) or are you assuming that is his plan.
    Because what I heard is that he thinks he currently has some kind of legal standing to do this.   Right  now..  Test it right now, Bill said.  We are going to test it replied Donald.

    The "test" (none / 0) (#191)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 12:02:09 PM EST
     would be that if Congress enacted such a law, it would be immediately challenged as unconstitutional and ultimately the Supreme Court would have to decide the issue.



    My point is (none / 0) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 12:05:05 PM EST
    no one has said anything about a new law except you.

    He thinks he can do this with no new laws.


    I Was Woindering... (none / 0) (#190)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 11:59:40 AM EST
    ...because if the 14th was declared unconstitutional wouldn't all the citizens that fall under it be non-citizens.  IOW wouldn't it unravel a million citizenships ?

    Well, the first post in this sub-thread (none / 0) (#193)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 12:07:18 PM EST
     was entirely correct insofar as Amendments to the Constitution are part of the Constituion and, by definition can't be unconstitutional.

      The issue is what is the meaning of the clause and how far does it go in prohibiting congress from restricting citizenship.


    So a Marriage Amendment... (none / 0) (#194)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 12:09:10 PM EST
    ...could not be declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS ?

    That may be the issue with you (none / 0) (#195)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 12:11:02 PM EST
    but it's not Dinalds.   He never mentioned congress.  He plans, apparently, to go to court and challenge the existing law.

    Saw that (none / 0) (#182)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 11:21:52 AM EST
    worth a link

    So surreal.  Not only because OReilly was the one being reasonable but the skill of his deflection and deception.


    Oh, (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 11:49:02 AM EST
    man. I found that whole exchange extremely hysterical. It was like O'Reilly was blowing his own self up and undercutting everything he has been telling his viewers for years. Hispanics are the devil to O'Reilly until Trump is actually trying to put O'Reilly's plans into action and now Trump is the problem. ROTFLMAO.

    Show Me A Hero (none / 0) (#197)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 12:35:39 PM EST
    the HBO series about the disastrous effort to put low income housing in Yonkers NY in the 80s.

    I couldn't help thinking about it watching that interview.   First Donald was there, right?   What happened there is that some government officials tried to explain to the raving white mob that all legal avenues had been closed.  They had no choice.  This was the law.  And we're destroyed for it.  They didn't want to hear that.  They wanted to hear they were fighting back.  It didn't matter that it was pointless hopeless and destructive.  You are supposed to be fighting back.

    That's exactly what Donald is doing it seemed to me.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#198)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 12:42:12 PM EST
    I agree. It's what they want to hear regardless of whether it's workable or not. They really don't care. They want someone to voice their frustration and that's about it.

    Sign of the Apocalypse (4.50 / 2) (#17)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 09:59:39 AM EST
    South Snohomish, WA Little League Softball throws a game to prevent another team from advancing in the Little League Softball World Series.

    (And it may bite them is the a$$ before the day is done)

    Amen... (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:30:59 AM EST
    Makes good bulletin board motivation material for the team they took a dive to play.

    It might be good tournament strategy, but it's f*ckin' Little League where good sportsmanship should rule the day.  Bad form by the Coach, teaching his players how to shoot angles and find loopholes instead of simply playing their best and having fun.


    I have mixed feelings (none / 0) (#41)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:02:37 AM EST
      The goal is to win the tournament.

     I don't think I would have a problem if a coach chose to "rest" his best players for a game the team did not need to win. Putting  the backup position players and the last pitcher in the rotation on the field for the game would could even be considered "good form" if the coach then let every player in the game do their best to win the game.

      I do have a problem with making players underperform  because that is disrespectful to the other team and your own players.

      It is perhaps a matter of degrees, but sometimes degrees matter.


    Is it? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:09:50 AM EST
    For high school and up I'd be inclined to agree, the goal is to win within the rules.

    But Little League?  I thought the goals of Little League are to have fun, learn the game, learn good sportsmanship and fair play, and everybody plays (or should play) at least a half a game...with winning and losing not being that important at all.

    Giving the subs a start would be fine, even laudable, but throwing a game is beyond the pale.  I feel bad for all the kids who were party to it, and taught all the wrong lessons.  Play to win, sure, but not at all costs.


    It's little league, but (none / 0) (#58)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:46:54 AM EST
      it's the national tournament not the local regular season. These teams are the all-star teams that have already  made it pretty deep into the tournament.  I have no problem with the goal being to win within the rules and for the coaches and players to consider it very important. 11 years old is plenty old enough to focus on completion and winning.

      Even the benchwarmers on these teams were among the best players in their local leagues, so it's not as if resting the best players means some no talent scrub is being sacrificed (which is probably why despite using benchwarmers the coach had to order his players to but every at bat in order to ensure a loss).


    Understood... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:57:46 AM EST
    Back in my Little League days, I played on the All-Star teams in the Williamsport qualifiers, it may not have been the rule like the regular season I don't know, but my coaches still let every player in the dugout play at least half a game.  Which I think was pretty cool of them, even if it cost us a game or two.

    I agree reasonable people can draw the line differently, but I'd hope we'd all agree that bunting every at bat bullsh*t is over all reasonable lines.  Makes a mockery of the game, never mind good sportsmanship.  


    I wholeheartedly agree (none / 0) (#74)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:29:52 PM EST
     that having the players bunt every at-bat (or in any way deliberately underperform) is wrong.

      Back when I played LL (1969-72) we  didn't just lack  a rule that everyone played, even  during the regular season. The way it worked then we also had tryouts and a "draft" and many kids weren't even chosen to be on a team. The  kids made it only if their Dad, or a friend of their Dad, was a coach.

       That probably was too  hardcore for that age group.   On the other hand, I think the scales have tipped too far the other way.



    If you're talking about... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 01:13:45 PM EST
    "participation" trophies and sh*t like that, I'm right there with ya there Bud.  I don't think that does any good for the kids.  

    I remember the try-outs and drafts (87-91), but everybody got picked for a team, with the draft meant to try and maintain competitive parity.  And everybody got a trophy, with the 1st place team getting big ones and everybody else getting little ones.  Getting the little trophy somehow felt worse than getting no trophy at all, because even a ten year old knew it was a bullsh*t trophy.


    Speaking of... (none / 0) (#91)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 01:42:25 PM EST
    James Harrison took away his kids' participation trophies because they didn't 'earn' them.

    The last person we need telling others they have to earn it is the guy is superior in athleticism to nearly every person alive.  Yeah, we get it, your kids didn't earn anything by practicing every day, learning the play book, and playing as hard as they could.  So please go snatch the only thing they have to remind them of all their hard work.  

    It clearly states what it is, it's not like they are giving everyone 1st places trophies or the kids aren't taking them to school and saying, "Look at me, I participated."

    They are going to give them something, why not a trophy.  I would add that the pic of the trophies Harrison objected to aren't even really trophies.

    I don't know why I commented, it's so stupid on so many levels including the fact that there was no such thing when I played sports and that I don't have kids.  I just thought it was a bit heartless of him to return the awards.


    A LOT of things about (none / 0) (#106)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 02:47:19 PM EST
      organized youth sports are all about the parents not the kids. That's not new. It was like that when I was a kid and probably from the inception of organized leagues.

      What is different, I think, is that so many kids only play in organized contexts now. When I was a kid we'd all ride our bikes to the park and play without any adults around. Whatever season it was we'd just pick up teams and play. No uniforms, no fancy equipment, no coaches, no refs or umpires, just playing for fun.

     Today, you go by the park and if it's not an organized game or practice it's empty. I think that kids today miss out on not only on just playing for fun but just playing and interacting without adults controlling everything.


    A really good coach would have mixed in some (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:45:23 PM EST
    fly balls/caught stealing/ and strike out swingings.  

    Yeah Oculus... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 01:15:34 PM EST
    if you're gonna throw a game, at least try to make it look good! lol

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 01:45:02 PM EST
    ...explaining to 12 year olds if you are going to cheat, do it in a way that makes it appear that you aren't cheating, is clearly the lesson they should should be teaching our youth.

    In other words... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 01:59:44 PM EST
    anything worth doing is worth doing right!

    I'm joking


    Sorry (none / 0) (#97)
    by Amiss on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 02:04:45 PM EST
    That so teaches these young impressionable kids the wrong lessons and leads them down the wrong path period. How would you feel if this was in a political office? Guess it's okay with you to win at all costs. No thank you.

    I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#103)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 02:17:29 PM EST
    Oculus was being facetious.

    Not even high school... (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 05:32:36 PM EST
    Earlier this year some HS girls BB coach tried to lose one...instead TSAAA stepped in and he lost his job and the school lost any chance..

    When I was coaching my rule was that if you came to practice you got to play, some. And with the loose sub rules that should be no problem for any coach.


    I Agree... (none / 0) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:18:23 AM EST
    ...plus it would give players, who might not get much time on the field, a chance to participate.  It what the pros do and not considered unsportsmanlike.

    This bunting on every pitch should get the coaches banned because, as kdog mentioned, sportsmanship should rule the day.


    I heard about this on the radio this (none / 0) (#25)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:19:50 AM EST
    morning; as I understand it, the coaches figured out that if they lost, they'd still be in the tournament, but would have a more beatable opponent than they would if they were to play to win their remaining games.

    Apparently, though, when they sat all their best players, and everyone who came up to bat attempted to bunt, it raised some suspicions about what was going on.

    I guess the question is - and the one that was a topic on the radio show I was listening to - was this a fair strategy?  If the goal was to win the tournament, was it wrong for them to take the path they thought would increase their chances of doing so?

    Callers, and the show's hosts, felt that the team that won that game should not be knocked out, and should be allowed to play on.  Consensus seemed to be that the coaches should be sent packing, and possibly banned, on the basis that the strategy was the antithesis of good sportsmanship.

    Haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it, and maybe I need to know more, but maybe the real problem lies in structuring a tournament where losing a game is a better strategy for winning the championship than winning would be.


    The LL Rules Committee (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:31:23 AM EST
    has given the U.S. West softball team from Washington the game they did their best to avoid. The rules committee decided the team from Washington broke the rules by trying to lose and have forced them into a one game playoff against the team from Iowa that U.S. West was hoping to avoid. The winner advances to the semis.

    The game starts in 30 minutes. No matter the outcome it's not a group of 11-12 year old girls that should take the blame, but it's likely that rooting interests will be pulling for the team from Iowa to knock out the team that bagged it yesterday.


    Glad to hear this - I think it's the (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:43:11 AM EST
    fairest way to handle it.  Meanwhile...I imagine there's some rip-roaring good "discussion" taking place among the Washington team's players, coaches and parents...not to mention the rest of the teams.

    If karma is the bee-yotch she has been known to be, Iowa will bounce the Washington team out of contention, and go on to win it all.

    The lesson of good sportsmanship may be lost, though, if Washington beats Iowa!


    Going into the bottom of the 3rd (none / 0) (#66)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:05:24 PM EST
    Iowa leads Washington 3-2.
    (Washington is the home team)

    For those that believe in karma (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:59:19 PM EST
    Washington loses on purpose yesterday and loses today to get knocked from the LL Softball World Series. There are adult coaches that have some explaining to do to the 11-12 year old girls from Snohomish, Washington.

    Personally, (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 05:25:54 PM EST
    It should be a no-brainer. The lesson should be, "are you the best team out there, and, do you deserve to be the champs?"

    If, "yes," then it ought to be, "bring'm on,"

    How can losing intentionally ever be right? And, don't give me that crap that it's the "smart" move, or, the correct, "strategic" decision. This isn't WW2, where ultimate victory is all that counts. This is a sports contest, and if you have to lose in order to "win" then you don't belong in the contest. You're either willing to take on any, and, all comers, or, you should be in the stands watching the game.

    This is just "game theory" run-a-muck.


    The earth just moved. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 05:34:16 PM EST
    You are exactly right.

    Little League Softball Team... (none / 0) (#163)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:27:30 AM EST
    ...that allegedly threw World Series game loses in playoff


    The Little League Softball World Series team that was accused of throwing its pool-play finale in order to get a better semifinal matchup just got a summer-school lesson in karma.

    Central Iowa defeats South Snohomish 3-2 in Pool B play-in game to advance to Little League Softball World Series semifinals.

    Shaun King (1.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 12:23:23 PM EST
    From the Daily Mail:

    Black Lives Matter organizer and Oprah scholarship recipient who claims he has been the victim of a hate crime 'revealed to be white'

    Shaun King, an author and writer who is one of the leading voices speaking out against police brutality on social media, has claimed he is mixed

    A report now claims he is white, citing a police report that labels him as white and claiming his parents on his birth certificate are both white

    King applied for and then accepted an Oprah scholarship to Morehouse College, which are only given to black men

    He also called the vicious attack he suffered in high school a hate crime that was motivated by race

    Boy, you are so right (none / 0) (#1)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 10:56:36 PM EST
    about the rental market going bananas!

    Even here in Nashville (I've been debating whether to rent, or, buy) the rental prices just take your breath away. $4000 a month is crazy high anywhere, but, down here in little, ole, Nashville? They're getting $4000 for a lousy little "ranch" type house, 3 tiny bedroom, 1-1/2 baths, and, a carport. For a 2500 sq.ft. house, similar to what I left in New York, and, was paying about $2500 a month for the mortgage, they're advertising them for $6000/ month rent!

    I asked the same question you did; where are people getting the money to pay 4-5-6 thousand a month for just rent? Don't they eat, or, need clothes once in a while?

    This I do know; Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, and, other TBTF Banks, after foreclosing on thousands of delinquent borrowers (that they knew were incapable of meeting their rent obligations) sent their agents out, nationwide, and bought up lots of foreclosed houses, 1-2-3-4 thousand at a time for the purpose of renting them out.

    I don't want to get into this topic too deeply now, but, suffice to say that if the public knew how much worse the financial disaster was than what's already been exposed there might really be blood flowing in the streets.

    Just to wrap up, the reason why they're able to get these outrageously high rents is quite simple, the old, "supply & demand." After the real estate market collapsed builders were, understandably, reluctant to start new projects. Not knowing how long it would take for the buyers to return to the market they only built enough homes to stay solvent. Demand for new  homes, because of normal demographics, have, historically, remained positive. Only the supply fluctuates, based on the level of builder's confidence in the future.

    So, that's it; we're caught in a classic market squeeze. Landlords have never been mistaken for pastors, they'll gouge every penny the law allows until the supply catches up to the demand. And, since builder's sense of where the market demand will be a few years into the future determines how many homes they'll be building, the unprecedented dysfunction of Congress guarantees that the supply of new homes will remain low, and, high rental prices will become the "new normal."

    Sorry, wish I had better news.

    I guess I live in the right part of the country (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:01:21 AM EST
    (south central PA, 50 miles north of Baltimore). My mortgage payment (after a second re-fi two years ago) is a mere $650 a month (that includes escrow for insurance and taxes). Granted it's a small house. Just a two story semi-attached (PA for a duplex) built in 1905. But it's plenty of room for me, it's solid as a rock (brick) and no much yard for me to mow (I walk with a cane). I know rents are high in Baltimore. My stepdaughter couldn't find an affordable rental, so I bought a mobile home up here in lower York County for $16K to rent to her just for the cost of the loan payment for the $16k and the lot rent (it's costing her $600 a month).

    You're (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 05:54:41 AM EST
    making a great argument that the south is really being screwed over if you could probably rent something for that same price in NY of all places.

    Yes, I noticed in my neighborhood that for some reason the foreclosures never went to a family or an individual. They all went to these megacorps who held onto them and rented them.


    I was shocked (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 07:45:06 AM EST
    to learn what rent was here.   HERE.   The literal middle of nowhere.   I was going to have to spend as much for a house as I had spent in Champaign which is not only an industrial hub but a college town big time.  
    It's weird.  There are many empty houses.  I'm told there are multiple reasons.  Renters here tend to be likely to turn your house into a meth factory or something apparently.   No body rents.   The house I'm living I was being rented when I looked at it but going to be taken off the market when the tenants moved out at the end of the month and allowed to sit empty like many other older houses.  I'm told another thing that happens, which was about to happen to my house, is a neighbor buys it and allows it to stand empty so they don't have renter neighbors cooking meth.

    My first thought was that someone could make a lot of money by buying them up, doing a bit of work and renting them.    But you probably would not make a lot of local friends.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 07:52:09 AM EST
    the meth thing is big here in exurban and rural areas. Apparently one of our neighbors was cooking meth in their garage. I had no idea.

    It makes it very tough (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 07:58:06 AM EST
    on young people.    There are very few apartments.  They are often forced to live with their parents.  

    Otoh I understand.  The people living here were complete low life's.   Not cooking meth but they had let the place go completely to sh!t.  It was amazing.   They only mowed a path to the car.   I had to have my brother in law use the traitor mower on the rest of the acre the first time.


    What's (none / 0) (#109)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    a "traitor" mower?

    Didn't know mowers had loyalties.

    Is it like a gang mower? Must be one big mutha to do a whole acre!


    LOL! (none / 0) (#119)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 03:45:01 PM EST
    I'm sure that Howdy meant a "tractor" mower.  He probably even typed it, but the spell check automatically changed it to "traitor."  D@mn those spell checkers!
    A "tractor mower" is one big honking utility mower attachment that you hook up to the back of your tractor.  It makes "regular" lawn mowers look downright puny by comparison.  ;-)

    Ha (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 03:47:40 PM EST
    yes.  Exactly.

    Aka "bush hog"


    LOL, (none / 0) (#133)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 05:28:30 PM EST
    I thought something like that, but, since it's you,

    lol, you never know.


    They Don't Need to Rent... (none / 0) (#122)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 03:53:16 PM EST
    ...when they can cook meth in a Taco Bell, to "stay high all the time".

    Today's offerings from Zillo: (none / 0) (#124)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 04:13:30 PM EST
    1. For Rent  
    $5,950/mo, 2 bd, 2 ba, 1,450 sqft
    (Better get there fast, before the line gets too long)

    And, check out this "bargain"
    2. For Rent:
    $2,550/mo 1 bd, 1.0 ba, 745 sqft.
    Did you catch that? ONE bedroom, less than 1000 sq. ft.  

    I don't want to over-exaggerate prices in Nashville. Most rentals are between 2, and, 3 thousand a month. But, they're mostly for singles, no children for sure, and, they're pretty much in crummy parts of town. Oh, and, they're mostly condos, also in yuck sections of the city. But, if you're patient, and do your due diligence, you can find something reasonable. Unfortunately, many people don't have the luxury of time, and, circumstances dictate having to find a place to live quickly.

    In trying to figure out this craziness, I think it must be that folks can't come up with the down payment, and closing costs. Doing some math: someone who does have the money for a down payment could buy a moderately priced home, rent it out, and, make three times as much in rent as the mortgage payment would be.

    Does that sound even plausible? I'll find out pretty soon cause I'm definitely going to check this out tomorrow. You know, having dabbled in real estate somewhat in my past I know that there are certain moments (being in the right place, at the right time) when ordinary people have made fortunes.

    For example, at the beginning of the "dot-com" frenzy I had some young, tech-savvy, kids working for me who seemed to be spending an inordinate amount of time playing on their computers. After checking out what was so fascinating on their screens, come to find out, they were coming up with lists of names for companies that were just getting into the Web-Site era. They would submit those names to domain name issuers for a few bucks, then auction them off to companies that hadn't sign-on yet.

    I had one, barely employable guy, who, one day, jumped up from his chair, hooting & hollering like a wild man. He had just sold a name to a bank, something generic like "Your Bank.com" in Boston.............for $80,000! And, to top that, it seems like he could have made 10 times as much if he had been a little more patient. After he made the deal for the 80k, more bids came flooding in, at a lot more money.

    Anyway, that's what I mean about being in the right place at the right time. Didn't some wordsmith say, "I'd rather be lucky than smart," or, something like that?

    Maybe real estate today is one of those times?


    I'd imagine... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 06:29:53 AM EST
    Colorado's civilized marijuana laws are a factor in making Denver the hip place to live right now...further driving up the rents. F#ckin' rich kid hipsters ruin everything;)

    I'd need 5 roommates to make a 4k rent nut...that's nutty.

    kdog, what exactly is a "hipster"? (none / 0) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 01:07:20 PM EST
    I've heard it a lot lately, but I'm not completely sure what it means...

    here's urban dictionary (none / 0) (#84)
    by CST on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 01:13:21 PM EST

    Basically it's a young person, the stereo type is that they wear skinny jeans, listens to music you've never heard of, probably into photography, and knew about that thing "before it was cool".

    Most of the time it's used as a way of saying "get off my lawn" :)


    I would add... (none / 0) (#87)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 01:21:18 PM EST
    they tend to dislike things that are universally loved, eat artisanal cheeses and placenta pate, drink the most obscure beer/wine/spirits, and assorted douchebaggery.  And drive up the rents occupying formerly "bad" neighborhoods.

    Shorter version, like CST said, simple whippersnappers!


    oh man (none / 0) (#90)
    by CST on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 01:30:35 PM EST
    the other day I was at a little get-together at a friends house, and two of my friends were "arguing" about what was worse, yuppies or hippes.

    The one complaining the most about yuppies was wearing a button-down shirt, slacks, and dress shoes.  The hipster-hater was wearing skinny-ish jeans, a plaid shirt, and funky glasses.  I just had to laugh at both of them.


    Self-Loathing at the Dinner Party... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 01:42:32 PM EST
    kinda sounds like the name of a hipster rock band;)

    I Would Add... (none / 0) (#95)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 01:59:44 PM EST
    ...that they constantly go to the trendiest places to complain about lame they are.  Basically, they have to buck trends, aka consensus, it's it's cool they hate it, it lame, they love it.

    Also a goofy 'hipster' hat is required by at least 50% of the group and at least one has to have a Amish beard, not to be confused with the lumberjack beard which is still too trendy for hipsters.

    Males Hipsters

    Female Hipsters

    Scarves are required even when it's like 95 out.

    Hipsters used to be cool, but that is when they were rare, now, the millennia hipsters are just bothersome d-bags.


    Excellent, funny, stuff guys. (none / 0) (#110)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 03:08:30 PM EST

    Hipsters (none / 0) (#113)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 03:16:43 PM EST
    Are people in a generation that think they are the ones bucking trends and really know what's cool and the rest of us are too stupid to have figured it out.  They think everything is ironic.

    "Hipster" has been around since the '40's (see, they weren't even original with their name!)


    Yeah, like around here sometimes.... (none / 0) (#126)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 04:28:07 PM EST
    Coming of age in the 60's, I thought I was the coolest, hipstiest, "with-it" cat around.

    Then, someone here at TL says something like, "Man, I was at the concert last weekend, and "Poopy doo, and the wombats" were wailing!" And, one by one, more commenters pipe in, "Wow, I caught them in the late 80's, too cool!"

    And, you know the rest: 10 more comments by 10 different commenters come poring in, naming tunes, singers, and, bands I never heard of. Talk about feeling left out!

    But, there was one time when this happened, and I wasn't going to be left out. I put on my brave face, and piped in with, "Yeah, I just loved that Sgt. Pepper album."


    Thanks, guys.


    Have you heard of RatDog? (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 01:29:34 AM EST
    Better Yet... (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:38:33 AM EST
    ...Keith Richards on Sgt. Peppers LP.

    Are you calling us hipsters or music snobs ?  Just kidding, I love Sgt Peppers, but not a huge fan of the Beatles.


    Keef is right and wrong imo... (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 12:48:14 PM EST
    it's rubbish as far as the blues/r&b is concerned, but oh what beautiful rubbish!

    As far as Beatles albums go, Sgt. Pepper is well behind the White Album, Revolver, and Abbey Road imo.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#187)
    by sj on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 11:53:45 AM EST
    that was a lovely little interview.

    for you (none / 0) (#128)
    by CST on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 04:31:50 PM EST
    LOL!! (none / 0) (#134)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 05:30:55 PM EST
    Too funny!

    Too true.


    "assorted douchebaggery" :-) (none / 0) (#111)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 03:10:41 PM EST
    You forgot some ugly style of facial hair. (none / 0) (#154)
    by magster on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:50:16 PM EST
    Seems like it would be cheaper to buy. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 07:30:32 AM EST
    You'd be able to buy quite a lot of house for what you're willing to pay in rent.

    But I know you've said you're just not interested in owning, so, I guess you keep looking.

    Makes me think I need to ask my brother-in-law if he's charging enough rent on the house he owns in Boulder...

    In order to buy (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CST on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 09:46:07 AM EST
    You gotta come up with a downpayment.  Which can be hard to do when rent is that high - especially if you have student loans.

    It's not like houses are cheap either.  At least not around here.


    Plus... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:48:54 AM EST
    ...ownership is way more work than renting.  I miss calling up and saying the sink isn't draining or my light bulb is the hall is out.  

    With a home, you got to call a guy and the cost is not shared.  But those rents are insane.

    Used to be if you were a saver, you could rent and save the difference so after say 10 years, have an asset like a house, but in cash.  But not when rent is at those levels.  

    I must be losing my mind because I could have sworn the pics of Jeralyn's new place were posted like 6 months ago.  2 years, jesus my brain is becoming defective when it comes to the minutiae of other people's lives.


    I've been doing the math lately (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by CST on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:26:45 PM EST
    A mortgage would be cheaper than rent.  And you are at least building an asset.

    But just getting your foot in the door - a 1-2br condo on the cheap side of town, nothing remotely fancy, is about 250-300,000, that's the floor.  They have programs for first-time home buyers where you don't have to pay 20% down, but you are paying more for your mortgage, and really, it's a big risk - a lot of those are what led to forclosure.  But coming up with $50-$60,000 cash after rent and student loans just to buy a 1-2br condo is a seriously tall order.  And heaven forbid you have a family and need something bigger than that.


    I'm sure his tenants... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 08:00:23 AM EST
    would rather you didn't Anne;)

    Sh*t by all rights I should tell the sweetest little old landlady in the world to raise our rent...we get such a steal, 25 hundo for a 3 bedroom 1 1/2 bath with laundry room and finished basement on a half acre in the ghetto 'burbs.  Though we do all the maintenance and landscaping ourselves for that steep discount. And we can smoke like chimneys and have pets...you can't find a deal like that anywhere today.

    If she ever decides to sell, I'll have to get serious about finding that hermit cave to live in.


    The little condo (none / 0) (#55)
    by sj on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:38:23 AM EST
    I rent out near Governors Park is seriously under market right now. I'm renting it to someone who is practically family so I am just raising the rent a little bit when the lease renews (which reminds me...)

    But it's crazy. My son is interested in a new apartment but what he could get for $1100 a couple of years ago is now $1400 and up.



    Interesting news (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 08:35:40 AM EST
    oathkeepers to arm and protect blacks inFerguson-

    The gun-loving Oath Keepers plan to arm 50 black demonstrators with AR-15 rifles in Ferguson, Missouri, and basically dare police to shoot them.

    The leader of the group's local chapter told Red Dirt Report that the event would likely be held before the end of this month to protest an order last week by law enforcement officers to Oath Keepers to put away their rifles while in city limits.

    "Every person we talked to said if they carried they'd be shot by police," said Sam Andrews, head of the Oath Keepers chapter in St. Louis County. "That's the reason we're going to hold this event, and it will be a legal demonstration. I'm sick and tired of law enforcement who doesn't think they have to abide by the law. They're narcissistic and that guy (the county police chief) discredited my men."

    He said other Oath Keepers members would surround the black demonstrators as protection.


    What could go wrong?

    I don't know what... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 09:19:54 AM EST
    to make of those oathkeeper people... solidarity with the Ferguson protesters is not what I expected.  

    Maybe a unified disdain for the law and law enforcement can bring about some racial/political healing, be nice if we could do it without playing Rambo though.


    Yeah, I would beware of righties offering (none / 0) (#129)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 04:32:43 PM EST
    weapons if I were a protester. Sounds like a sting operation to me. Is James O'Keefe involved?

    I Would Imagine... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:51:46 AM EST
    ...50 black folks walking down the street with assault rifles just might have the open carry idiots wanting a law or two repealed.

    But it will be nice for them to experience what we experience when we see them openly carrying.


    I'm with them in spirit. (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:06:27 AM EST
    But I agree. It's a powder keg of possible trouble. But they have a point. Why should a bunch of white guys in military gear be able to walk down the street with long guns unempeded, but a local black man tries the same thing, and you just know he's going to be surrounded by thugs with badges, all pointing there guns at him. The law, however misguided, should apply equally to everyone.

    Sorry to keep talking about Donald (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 09:15:09 AM EST
    but it's truly fascinating.   The "coverage" is sometimes the best part.  Case in point- HuffPo.  Weeks ago they sniffed they were moving coverage of Donald to the "entertainment" section and since have run a series of the most laughably clueless bits of twaddle you will ever ever read.

    For example-

    Relax, America, Donald Trump is Not Really Running for President

    Conventional Wisdom
    So don't worry, America. Trump will find a reason to pull out of the race - eventually. For now, he'll milk his new-found notoriety and influence for all its worth. If he can carry a sizable enough chunk of Republican supporters to the National Convention, he'll give 'em all a rousing, rambling and bombastic speech, drawing record numbers of viewers for the event, and then earnestly endorse the more serious candidate.

    The hilarious part is they are attempting to present conventional wisdom,  which must be a daring new goal for a website, which is in fact no longer conventional wisdom.   No one with a brain believes this anymore.
    HuffPo please, I was never a fan but there was a time when you were not a complete joke.

    Watching Rachel Maddow talk about the latest (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 08:17:25 PM EST
    polls...she makes it even more interesting, as usual, I forgot how much I enjoy her happy warrior style.

    But the point is it occurs to me how lackluster those other 17 candidates are...if I were a GOP voter maybe I'd be a Trumper too. He policies are only a smidgen crazier than some of  the rest, after all. This is what the GOP had brought itself to by their own policies and cheapening of the process, and disrespect of  governing and government. I have been hoping he would go away so it would 'get real', but now I see it is real and this is where we are. Fascinating.


    I saw that too (none / 0) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 08:37:44 PM EST
    so right about the other 16.  After watching Donald they are like black & white or salt free.  

    Or (the new bane of my existence) (none / 0) (#147)
    by sj on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 09:04:01 PM EST



    i honestly (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 09:01:53 PM EST
    can totally see why Donald has supporters. It's not rocket science. Like you say look at the others.

    The conspriacy (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 09:32:57 AM EST
    theories are running rampant this election season.

    I Have Four News Apps... (none / 0) (#13)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 09:41:49 AM EST
    ...on my phone.  I would say that close to 50% of the stories are Trump related, even my mostly science app is running Trump stories.  It's amazing, nothing to date has ever come close as far as being able to endure that sort of coverage.

    Even today, Donald Trump is taunting Roger Ailes with, `Ask Him Who Won' and last week he took credit for Megyn Kelly's extraordinary long 10 day vacation.

    How is anyone suppose to ignore it when those aren't even the best Trumps stories out there, his revelations on his military advisers and his statement about taking the oilfields back, are far more important.  It's never ending and almost hard to keep up with.

    Funny, but killing the race.  It's not about politics or policy, it's about Trump w/o a doubt, and no one is even trying to pretend anything different.

    The idea that anyone could predict this is funny, everyone has egg on their face.


    What makes me laugh (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 09:49:16 AM EST
    as a cable news observer is that all the people, ALL the people who have been wrong about Trumps fortunes at every possible opportunity are releatedly turned to again and again for predictions about what happens next.

    Bottom line IMO
    Trump is running for president.  The nations most voracious attention addict has gotten a real taste for the attention he will get as a candidate, i.e. I AM BATMAN, and there is not a logical reason on earth why he would stop.
    Who the f@ck knows where it goes but as Hunter always said, buy the ticket.  Take the ride.


    You Mean Like the Market... (none / 0) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:19:03 AM EST
    ...and Iraq and everything else they have 'experts' making predictions who continuously get it wrong, but are the first ones called to forecast the future ?

    No one has gotten it right about Trump, but Trump.

    So... I think you mentioned something about putting up a Trump sign in your yard, how is that coming along ?


    Are you kidding (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:32:00 AM EST
    im there.  It wil make the neighbors even more confused and I am in complete agreement with Bruce Bartlett who I quoted in the last thread.
    Trump is a gift from God.  Not just for democrats but also for moderate republicans.

    The Moderate Republican's Case for Trump
    Only Trump can make the GOP sane again--by losing in a landslide to Hillary Clinton.


    Since Trump typically... (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:37:54 AM EST
    collects a fee from a property owner to put his name on their property, you might want to speak to an attorney about any potential exposure to litigation due to the yard sign Howdy...you know how petty and lawsuit happy this Trump motherf8cker is;)

    I find the last paragraph interesting (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:49:40 AM EST
    Although the far right's mythology paints the Reagan years as the triumph of their ideas, the truth is that he governed very much in the moderate tradition of postwar Republican presidents. Reagan raised taxes 11 times, gave amnesty to illegal aliens, pulled American troops out of the Middle East, supported environmental regulations, raised the debt limit and appointed many moderates to key positions, including on the Supreme Court. But he skillfully kept his right flank protected by using thundering conservative rhetoric, even as he violated his own stated principles on a regular basis.

    What Reagan did was take a meat ax (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 05:22:40 PM EST
    to the FIT, which is what most people look at, and nibbled around the edges by increasing the cigarette tax, FICA and gasoline...

    During his administration, the top income tax rate decreased from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1986.



    Reagan raised a lot of taxes (none / 0) (#137)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 05:50:48 PM EST

    The first part of that path entails raising higher revenues. Everyone remembers Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture-a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984. A decade later, when a serious recession and higher spending began to upend the fiscal outlook again, the first President Bush similarly raised taxes on higher-income people in 1991; Bill Clinton doubled down and raised them again in 1993.

    Presidents facing the prospect that unending deficits will undo their economic legacies also cut spending in the only places that make a big difference, starting with defense. Reagan is remembered, again, for his defense buildup-but his big increases in Pentagon spending ended by 1985. Similarly, the first President Bush increased the military to fight the first Gulf War. But before he left office Pentagon spending was slowing sharply with the end of the Cold War, and Clinton followed by cashing in on the peace dividend.



    Nothing less (none / 0) (#139)
    by FlJoe on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 06:31:52 PM EST
    then asymmetrical class warfare, his cuts undeniably favored the wealthy, his hikes fell mostly on the middle class. Whats with the hike on business anyway, isn't that a dreaded "job killer"? No wage stagnation for the CEO's, so I guess it's no harm no foul to the Reganites.

    Maybe that's a good thing (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by sj on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:43:30 AM EST
    Funny, but killing the race.  
    Election "season" is way too long, imo. This is taking the wind out of the sails from Very Serious Reporters who think they can manipulate and drive the race.

    And I hate that it's even called a "race".


    One other thing (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 09:54:18 AM EST
    interesting point made this morning.

    It quite possible that Trumos numbers are being understated.   Possibly by a lot.  Because polls are screening people who have participated in the past.  And it's very likely Donald, like Arnold and Jessie is drawing in lots of people who are not on the call lists.


    Keep in mind (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:04:36 AM EST
    that a lot of Trump support is from people that may not even be registered to vote (and/or less likely to make the trek to a caucus)

    True (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:09:50 AM EST
    but fortunately for white people it's still pretty easy to register and from what Ive seen of Trump supporters, the might really enjoy a good cacus.  Turn it into a WWF event.

    Hope Bernie's numbers... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:13:57 AM EST
    are understated as well, as he is drawing mucho support from those who have passed on participating in elections in the past as well.

    They'll face the same problems in closed primary states, where sincere supporters will be shut out from the polls unless they sign up with Brand R or Brand D respectively.

    I'm contemplating doing just that to Vote Bernie in the NY closed primary, haven't made up my mind yet if his slim chances justify sullying my name like that.


    I think you are right (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:15:05 AM EST
    and thank you for making my point.

    Are you sure (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:47:10 AM EST
    about that? To me they mostly seem like disappointed Obama supporters.

    Anecdotal... (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:03:03 AM EST
    but my best friend who is in his mid thirties, and who has proudly stated he has never voted in his life, is now registered as a Democrat to vote for Bernie.

    I would think disappointed Obama supporters would be more in Clinton's wheelhouse, "experience" and all that, while Bernie draws more from the formerly apolitical and independents.


    The polls (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:30:11 AM EST
    show most of his support coming from upper income white people, pretty much the same that supported Obama in 2008. So no, it's pretty much the same anti-Clinton group from 2008.

    The point is (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:36:02 AM EST
    the polls may be missing the depth of his support.

    Yes (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:23:26 PM EST
    that is entirely possible and you'd only know that until months from now.

    That's what started this subthread... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:37:56 AM EST
    Howdy & I's point that the polls may be underestimating the support of Trump and Sanders.  Sanders supporters who are polled may be mostly upper-income liberal whites, but my street sense tells me the lion share of his support is coming from low income people who don't get polled.  

    And I wouldn't assume the majority of Obama's and/or Sanders support is about being anti-Clinton...it's not always all about Clinton.


    I'm guessing you haven't been (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by sj on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:03:22 PM EST
    to a rally then. I just recently reviewed the 350 view I recorded when I went, and the age range is all over the lot, income range was clearly all over lot. As for racial diversity, it represented Denver. Denver is a pretty white city if you consider Hispanic ethnicity to be racially white. And I do, I guess, even though I self-identify as being brown.

    But then again, maybe all the brown and black folks just decided to sit up front.

    You live and assert by polls. As if that were the only yardstick to matter. pfffftttt....

    I think at this point -- August of 2015 for an election in November 2016 -- the conversation is the important thing. Not who is leading.

    But in general, you are mostly just talking out of your a$$ about Sanders' candidacy based on your feelings about Kos commenters. But you do it with such self-assurance and authority...


    No (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:24:55 PM EST
    I'm going by polling.

    Ah... (3.00 / 2) (#75)
    by sj on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:34:17 PM EST
    no thinking required then. Just parroting.

    No (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:43:51 PM EST
    you can look at the demographic breakdowns in the polling but I don't know why I'm even answering you at this point. Even trying to be nice or discuss facts seems to make you mad.

    You don't discuss facts (1.00 / 1) (#88)
    by sj on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 01:25:34 PM EST
    You think your conclusions about what will happen in the future are facts.

    You think that DKos commenters accurately representing a candidates supporters is a fact.

    You think poll results are facts.

    You don't discuss facts. You parrot stuff. In the most insulting way possible.


    Okay, to clarify (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by sj on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 01:28:54 PM EST
    A poll result actually is a fact. What it is saying depends on who is polled and how. Not to mention what. But you only focus on the reported "who".

    Amiss (none / 0) (#112)
    by sj on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 03:14:13 PM EST
    You don't think a poll result is a fact?

    Or...they could be people who support (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:47:48 AM EST
    the platform on which Sanders is running and see someone they can finally vote for.

    I suppose there were/are people who believed Obama's Hope and Change message would translate to the kinds of things Sanders is being specific about, but I think there is at least some energy and interest among Democrats and liberals in having a candidate who doesn't just represent the low standard of better-than-the-crazy-guy under the stairs.

    Not that it's any great surprise, given many of your other comments, but I think you do Sanders - and the cause of a more progressive and rational future - a great disservice by belittling his candidacy; without him in the race, I don't think you get a more liberal Clinton - you'd just get someone comfortable in the right-ish middle because of the obvious lunacy of the Republican field.

    Not to worry, though - as soon as Clinton knocks Sanders out, she'll be sounding like a very moderate and sane Rockefeller Republican.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:20:22 PM EST
    Or, it's just exciting to go hear someone new.  Bernie got a few good rallies with lots of pump up about the size of his crowds (remember Obana rallies that got to the point of having way over-inflated numbers??).

    He would be great to see and to listen to - I would love to go to a Bernie rally.  But after all the fun and excitement wear off, the questions have to be - can he actually get all these same people out to vote for him in January and later in March when he may have a string of losses behind him, or, if he does win the nomination,  can he win a general election?

    I dunno.

    But because he's from the the most uniformly liberal place in America , it's been easy to speak his mind.  But when he has to get down in the weeds, when the press and Clinton's opposition team start actually checking his math, so to speak, are the details going to hold muster? (He already got his first Four Pinnochio designation (and in an update, some disagreed and said it was maybe a "One Pinnochio", the point remains - what happens when he has to start talking specifics that can be challenged? Can he have real answers for that?))


    meanwhile (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by CST on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    some of us are just sitting here wondering when Bernie became new :)

    I think a bigger question about his math is less "how do you pay for it" and more "where are the votes".

    Most of his proposals are pretty standard fare for western europe.  I know that we aren't western europe, but it's not unreasonable to think that similar things could be accomplished here.  The missing item is not potential tax dollars - it's potential votes.

    Because we could definitely theoretically raise taxes high enough to pay for this stuff.  But not with this congress, and probably not with the next one either.

    So my bigger question for Bernie would be - what's plan B?  And how do we use plan B to eventually get to plan A?


    That would (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 01:09:12 PM EST
    be an interesting question to ask during a debate by a moderator.

    I wonder if even losing three presidential races in a row or winning in a 45 state blow out would chastise the tea partiers?

    A friend of mine says the problem with the right in America is they always believe they are right. No matter how many times their policies fail they are still right. If they lose a presidential election it has nothing to do with their ideas and everything to do with things like evangelicals not showing up or they had a bad candidate etc.


    If he (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:26:08 PM EST
    came here I might go see him.

    You should go (none / 0) (#94)
    by sj on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 01:51:08 PM EST
    Whoever you decide to support. One doesn't go to such to thing to see who will win. And thinking about it with that mindset is, it seems to me, the same mindset that thinks a movie should be Exactly. Like. The. Book.

    Or a concert should be Exactly. Like. The. Recording.

    That's nuts. Those are all different types of things and should be appreciated for what they are.

    I mean, seriously, this just sucks the air right out of any potentiality:

    ... the point remains - what happens when he has to start talking specifics that can be challenged? Can he have real answers for that?))
    What the heck is wrong with waiting to see? Personally, at this point -- over year before the election -- I want to see how the conversation is affected.

    This, this is like discouraging your child from trying something because they might fail. Of course they might fail. So what? Do you really want to keep harping on that before they even try? What a discouraging way to live.

    It just makes my shoulders droop. And I mean that literally.

    Changing the subject a bit, I have an idle thought: I wonder how much of an influence Representative/Senator Sanders had in keeping the area liberal in spite of the money being spent everywhere to claw public opinion over to the right. Impossible to measure, I'm sure.


    Not to Point Out the Obvious... (none / 0) (#98)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 02:05:38 PM EST
    ...but the first 'election' in Iowa is in 5 months, which is still way out there, but right now that is the prize/hurdle.

    At this point (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 02:12:31 PM EST
    everybody is probably ready to vote after discussing it so much. Kind of unfair though that NH and IA get so much attention by all the candidates and so many states get zero.

    Isn't that exactly what I said? (none / 0) (#104)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 02:29:03 PM EST
    ... the point remains - what happens when he has to start talking specifics that can be challenged? Can he have real answers for that?))

    Yes, we're all waiting to see. We're waiting for the conversation to start.  But, strategically, this isn't the time, because most people really aren't that tuned in - because it's too early.

    I don't know why you'd be deflated by these questions - they are perfectly  legitimate ones to ask of any candidate.  Sure, Bernie is exciting now because he's saying things you and many people personally agree with. And he's new to the Presidential politics scene (and of course, the press loves him and are giving him favorable coverage). But we all know saying something and getting it done are two different things.  

    I'm certainly not saying Hillary should be anointed, but I do see lots of the personality of cult in Sanders' supporters that was so annoying in 2008 with the Obama supporters.  The only difference is in the man running - in 2008, Obana lapped it up, while Sanders seems unfazed by it and is much more serious.

    And Vermont has always liberal (and libertarian) tendencies.  It was the first state to abolish slavery, it was a pioneer in land use, gay rights, school funding, and health care, it abolished the death penalty in the 60's, it allows prison inmates to vote, etc.

    It is also has roughly the same population as Washington, DC, but its residents are 95% white with 91% of them being high school graduates and more than a third having a Bachelor's degree, and a slightly higher than average household income.  So, it's a tiny population of people who are educated, have more money, and are better educated than most of the rest of the country.  It's much easier to get people to agree when most of them are alike and have the same experiences.  And while you mentioned that you saw diversity at his rally in Denver, that hasn't been true of many of his rallies so far - it's been mostly white liberals who have so far jumped on the bandwagon.

    I welcome the conversation.  I also think Hillary is staying a bit lower for now because you don't want to hit your peak too soon - a lesson she learned in 2008.  I don't think there will be an actual conversation, one where both Clinton and Sanders are going to have to answer questions and step away from sound bites, until after Christmas.  Most people don't want to tune in.


    I wouldn't say the press loves him (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by CST on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 02:50:31 PM EST
    If anything the traditional press completely ignores him.  That was not the case with Obama.

    And Vermont is ranked 25th in per capita income, which is smack in the middle.  In networth it's slightly below U.S. average (not sure rank).  It's not exactly overrun with people that "have more money" than the rest of the country.  But yes, everything else is more or less true.

    I get the sense sometimes that people see New England and assume that means rich, and it's really not the case, especially when talking about northern/rural New England.


    A couple of points (not all of which ... (none / 0) (#116)
    by sj on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 03:35:06 PM EST
    ...apply to you)

    One, the conversation I am talking about isn't between Hillary and Bernie. It is the national conversation. And that is always going on. Granted, it's often focused on trivial stuff. But not always.

    Two, I didn't say he created the liberal political environment in Vermont. My idle thought was wondering how much he contributed to its continued strength. So all the history has nothing to do with what I wondered.

    Three. I didn't say I was deflated, I meant to indicate that it is exhausting having Eeyore around all the time. That's as true in real life as it is in virtual life.

    Four. Right now the candidate isn't being asked. "People" are being dismissive before the candidate that even happens. I am content to wait until the candidates actually are asked without trying to use conjecture to dilute any messages. I would much rather listen to what they are all saying (and not saying) right now. I think what they are saying (and not saying) right now is important. I do, and I would like it to be heard and discussed on its own merits. Without being dismissed or shouted down because... Republicans.

    Five. Talk about the proposals. Not how the press coverage is going to be slanted. It's fair to ask how something will be paid for. But then going on and on about the Republicans will never allow it is pointless. They don't want anything that benefits the middle class. We might feel "entitled" or something. So what? We (liberals and moderates) need to stop cutting our own Achilles heel.

    Six. Stop judging a candidate by his or her supporters.

    Seven. You should go to a rally. I would really, really like to know how diverse the audience is in a location as diverse as DC and Baltimore.

    Okay so that was way more than a couple of points.

    One more thing, I wish the candidates would be asked for more detailed stuff. It's not all about the position papers. They will make mistakes and then regroup. What's wrong with that?


    Regarding Point No. 2: (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 08:59:39 PM EST
    sj: "I didn't say he created the liberal political environment in Vermont. My idle thought was wondering how much he contributed to its continued strength. So all the history has nothing to do with what I wondered."

    I'd offer that Bernie Sanders' successful tenure as mayor of Burlington, Vermont's largest city, probably played a big part in making liberalism fashionable in the state, because he showed that it worked. His policies helped revitalize Burlington and lift it off the mat in the post-industrial 1980s, to the point where he ultimately even had buy-in from initially skeptical Republican businessmen. And the ruling liberal coalition he left behind is still in power.

    Okay, I'm outa here again and back into wedding mode. I've been airport shuttle driver today, picking up people. My sister and her family arrived from L.A. late this morning, my brother and his wife came in on another flight from L.A. early this afternoon, and my mother- and father-in-law are arriving late this afternoon from Houston, right in the middle of Honolulu's rush hour. Once I drop them off at the hotel, I'm going back to pick up my aunt and two cousins, who are also coming in from L.A.

    Aloha, everyone.


    Donald, that sounds like (none / 0) (#161)
    by fishcamp on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 07:35:44 AM EST
    four trips to the airport...horrors.  I've made it a rule, no more than two trips to the airport in one day.  You're going to need a bigger pitcher of margaritas.  

    Best to your family (none / 0) (#186)
    by sj on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 11:52:15 AM EST
    during this happy time.
    Okay, I'm outa here again and back into wedding mode.

    Oy (none / 0) (#60)
    by sj on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:52:00 AM EST
    And you had been doing so well at not being knee-jerk. Knew it wouldn't last, though.

    Donation trigger is reactivating.


    You should (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:26:39 PM EST
    donate regardless of what I say or don't say.

    Oh, I'll donate regardless (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by sj on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:35:17 PM EST
    The amount and frequency are largely up to you.

    But that (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:11:23 AM EST
    unfortunately plays against him because those same people are now going to have to have hurdles to jump in many states to vote.

    As I said (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:14:25 AM EST
    they are white.  Hurdles not so much.

    Well (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:31:52 AM EST
    all I can speak of is Georgia and it's a big hurdle for everyone who is not already registered.

    Carly Fiorina would bring (none / 0) (#100)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 02:11:32 PM EST
    her business experience to the presidency.  "I come from a world outside of politics, where track records and accomplishments count," says the Republican contender.  

    Yes, track records and accomplishments.  They do count. How about a little track record and accomplishment in government?  That counts, too.  But, I digress (as she does).

     In an article by business columnist, Andrew Ross Sorkin, entitled "Fiorina's Track Record: Not So Sterling," it is reported that her track record includes questions about her business tenure at Lucent, followed by answers from her tenure at Hewlett-Packard.

    As CEO at HP, her accomplishments may be highlighted by her being fired outright.  Not only on her watch, but owing to her "maverick" (where did we hear that before?) management style, HP stock proceeded to drop by half. And, 30,000 employees were laid off.

    Her decision to acquire Compaq achieved "growth," if you think of inflating revenue as growth.   However, the trick to business success, that seemed to evade Ms. Fiorina, was to grow profitability.  

    Mr. Ross Sorkin reports that Fiorina explains that "I was fired in a boardroom brawl."  But, Ross Sorkin believes she is only half right--It was a brawl, but the company was unquestionably damaged.  So, Fiorina will run the USA like HP?  Better go back to Econ 101 and bone-up on the difference between assets and liabilities.  You're welcome, Carly.

    HP stock (none / 0) (#102)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 02:17:08 PM EST
    went up 7% the day she was fired. Investors everywhere were happy to see her gone.

    Well (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 02:31:42 PM EST
    I'm glad they're finally examining some other candidates other than Hillary.

    I Will Say This... (none / 0) (#114)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 03:22:13 PM EST
    ...personally, she made out like a bandit, if you compare her performance to the money she walked away with, $21M, she definitely did some amazing things, just too bad it was for herself and her personnel wealth.

    Not sure how that applies to running a country...


    Yes, "grifters" (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 03:55:41 PM EST
    using the Bain/Romney model.  Trump brags about using bankruptcy laws, four times, and besides, he says,  those lenders are not "angels."   None of this, of course, applies to homeowners who are under water.  It is a bad mark to have gone into foreclosure. or to walk away.

    Bankruptcy is only acceptable for high rollers.  Wonder what Trump's and the Trumpette's policies (such as they are) will be for Greece. Well,  I wonder what Trump's policy will be, the Trmpette's will just be...what Trump said.


    George Zimmerman's New Cause (none / 0) (#141)
    by RickyJim on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 06:53:59 PM EST
    Since the Zimmerman forum seems to have been taken down, I'll post this here.  I'm amused that the 1 star reviews of the video are still up.

    Islamic leaders call for... (none / 0) (#149)
    by desertswine on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 09:34:21 PM EST
    phasing out fossil fuels.
    "Excessive pollution from fossil fuels threatens to destroy the gifts bestowed on us by God, whom we know as Allah -- gifts such as a functioning climate, healthy air to breathe, regular seasons, and living oceans."

    "What will future generations say of us, who leave them a degraded planet as our legacy? How will we face our Lord and Creator?" the authors added.

    I read that, but,.... (none / 0) (#153)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:38:43 PM EST
    did I miss something?

    I would have thought that the journalists who wrote the story would have included some reference to the leaders of those Islamic States that do so much oil extraction & distribution.

    Like, what does Saudi Arabia's King Salman Al Saud think about rejecting this "Gift from Allah?"

    I mean, I certainly don't mean to mock this idea; I think it's wonderful. But, from a journalistic point of view, it only tells half the story.


    Well, this seems to have been (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by desertswine on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 11:08:32 PM EST
    a symposium of religious leaders and scientists and not political leaders.  They can call for climate change action but have of course no power to actually do anything to force any action.  Much as, I suppose, the Pope can call for global climate change action but has no power to make anyone do anything, except whatever power his voice may have.

    re gun control laws and crime (none / 0) (#152)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:27:50 PM EST
    As some of you know or have guessed, I live in the Seattle area.  Because of my walks at Greenlake in skimpy undies, and then because of another factor, I have been threatened repeatedly, resulting in my carrying pepper spray and also doing some simple basic open carry experiments of an unloaded airsoft while walking clothed downtown and while clothed on capitol hill Seattle.

    Anyway it has been in the news every few weeks, and then again it is in the news TODAY that there is a crisis, or what is considered to be a crisis, in the increase in foolish unprovoked random assaults on Capitol hill Seattle.  The assaults could be crimes against the lgbt persons; they could be thefts; they could be assault and robbery against ordinary residents and visitors who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Anyway, statistically, crime is way up.  Some people are quite upset, but of course, we don't know for sure how much of the increase in crime is due to increased reporting, but it appears that at least some of the increase in vicious and stupid crimes is actual and not merely the result of greater reporting.

    Anyway, after another of the foolish assaults being in the news, there are news interviews and comments from the chief of police, who says that the warm summer has led to some increase in crime, as well as offenders being released into the community . . .

    Since at least around June 1 I have written a number of emails to the SPD chief and have generally done so by sending an email to two of the spd I know.

    Other than the fact that I walk at Greenlake in undies I am not closely related to the capitol hill communities, other than their area has some very nice exercise classes and persons.  In fact, I have had a mild mental debate as to how much, if much, I should be helping them to be armed.

    I don't know if my emails have percolated up to the top of the SPD hierarchy . . . but in the most recent batch of news interviews and comments, SPD chief O'Toole says, our number one priority is stopping or preventing gun crime or something to that effect.

    If it were me, I would be encouraging all the normal and mostly law-abiding and able-to-be calm folks to carry pepper spray and to open and/or concealed carry and/or open carry an empty holster.

    Anyway, I don't think that the mayor and police chief are behaving wisely by not discussing or encouraing open carry . . .  I've gone to some of the Pride parade and Pride festivals things some years.  I've gone to gather signatures for various initiatives . . . Once I went to post-parade things to greet people, which I think is great fun.

    Unfortunately, in Seattle, some minor fraction of the BLM group is unruly and some fraction of the capitol hill groups are unruly.  There is video of some persons assaulting or beating up a preacher on youtube.  : (

    On one hand, I think this area would have fewer assaults if there was some greater deterrence in the form of 10 to 30% of the population being armed and trained, even if with pepper spray only or with empty holster only.  On the other hand, I am not that happy with the creative violence that some of certain Seattle groups have used for the alleged purpose of making their point in some protests or ripping apart some Christian's flag or banner.

    Anyway, I don't much understand the absence of encouragement to be armed by the SPD chief . . .

    I am somewhat thinking of walking or being present at the next Pride parade with a holster, pepper spray and a sign saying, "Deacons for defence and justice."  Maybe if I get really bored, I will do some walks on Capitol Hill with such a sign and a holster and/or some open carry.  

    I guess I should try to figure out if I have some closer attachments to capitol hill . . . other than my martial arts class and the gals in barre class . . .

    I don't know if I have friends from normal church who live on capitol hill . . . I see that there is a theologically somewhat peculiar somewhat conservative church on capitol hill called calvary on the hill. . .  I wonder what some of them might think of some open carry for helping protect the community.  I don't know if that particular church would regard the community as not worth their carrying for . . .  It is a crazy Calvary Chapel church that at times visits bars, hopefully not as a reincarnation of Mars Hill . . .  My idea of bar visiting is barre visiting.

    Anyway, does anyone wish wisdom have some useful thoughts on capitol hill persons creating greater deterrence by carry and training?

    Maybe Reconstructionist will end up agreeing with me that open carry and training would have a deterrent effect  . . . and maybe he will wonder if capitol hill by doing a bit more ignoring God than they should has been reaping what they are sowing with their defenseless walking.  Daniel Goodman left a bar and was walking on the way. . . assaulted . . . left unconscious and bleeding on the ground till his hair was caked with blood and the SPD chief is hoping to stop "gun violence."

    Oh . . . boy . . .

    Lots of weather we are having (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:45:46 AM EST
    ive been whining about how hot it's been here.  It has.
    This afternoon it will be in the 50s.  That's fifties.  And that's more than 50 degrees cooler than it was a couple of days ago.

    I like it but, weird.

    I am actually (none / 0) (#169)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:51:18 AM EST
    thankful for some of that. For years and years we had almost 100 degrees everyday in August.

    Two Days Ago... (none / 0) (#170)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 09:00:01 AM EST
    ...was the first day we were sub-95 in a month.  A week in 100+ really wears on me.

    Oh same here (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 09:06:09 AM EST
    i have hardly left my house except to walk to the car in a month.  I have Huskies.  They are so happy today.  I can't get them to come inside.  Recently I have had to make them go outside.   They look at me like, no, I'll just poop in here.

    Still.  Weird.  I suppose our only option is yo try to enjoy the upside of changing weather patterns.   Today is a clear upside.


    Well (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 09:08:46 AM EST
    an upside at least until the actual cold front moves through, in a few minutes now, with hail and 60 mile per hour winds.   Ask me later.

    You seem (none / 0) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 09:59:23 AM EST
    to get a lot of hail there.

    I Have a Black Truck... (none / 0) (#176)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 10:26:15 AM EST
    ...and because I don't get here early, it sits outside all day long.  Last week my 'check airbag' light was on when it was 107.  Dealer reset it and no issue, I am sure it's the heat.

    I fortunately go to Galveston every weekend, but last week end to say the water was bath temperature would be in an understatement, it was straight up hot.  Still refreshing.

    My break is coming as I am going to Wisconsin for 10 days to see my family.  90's in the day, but 50's at night, which will be heaven.

    Houston summer is like Wisconsin winter, you live indoors and dread having to go somewhere, so you hurry to car, complain about the heat/cold, and then run to cover of wherever you are going.  The exception being it's much cheaper to heat you home than to cool it.  My AC bills are cardiac inducing.


    really? (none / 0) (#178)
    by CST on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 10:35:24 AM EST
    It's cheaper to heat?

    I don't have AC on full blast or anything during the summertime, but I do have a window unit.  My electric bill never even comes to half what my heating bill is in the winter.  I'm not saying you are wrong at all - I'm more impressed and mildly terrified at how hot it must get.


    It is (none / 0) (#179)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 10:59:48 AM EST
    even here quite a bit farther north.   It's the heat index that kills you.  For a month it's been in the high 100-teens.  I've lived in SoCal so I know what 117 dry feels like. Not the same at all.   My cooling bills are more than my heating bills.

    For Me... (none / 0) (#180)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 11:14:28 AM EST
    ...I never had a gas bill over $40, including when I lived in Wisconsin.  

    My electric bill is $350-400 for about 3 months every summer, gas is maybe $15.  In the winter, my electric is usually around $80 and gas around $35.

    My water heater, oven, and furnace are gas.


    gotcha (none / 0) (#183)
    by CST on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 11:27:11 AM EST
    My heating bill this winter was $350-$400 for the months of Jan-Mar.  And despite all the snow it was actually not as bad as the year before.  The year before was much colder, snow actually means milder temperatures.  Mind you, my apartment is usually no higher than 68/69 in the winter, and despite being an older building had new windows/insulation.  I know that my heating costs are not at all out of the norm for the area, if anything a bit low because I'm stingy and will wear a sweater indoors.

    My electric bill has never been more than $90 - and it only got that high in Feb because one room didn't have heat and needed a space heater.  Usually it's between $30-$40.

    I have gas heat/stove as well.

    I'm really surprised Wisconsin is that cheap to heat.


    In Wisconsin... (none / 0) (#188)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 11:57:14 AM EST
    ...I lived in apartments in complexes, so only one or two exposed walls.  It never occurred to me that heat would be that much, anywhere.

    It's been 20 years and, at least at the pump, gas was about half price of today.


    Free Subway for Life (none / 0) (#175)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 10:07:53 AM EST
    appears to have ended for Jared unless Subway delivers.

    I Read What He Will Plead Guilty to... (none / 0) (#177)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 10:30:31 AM EST
    double damn (none / 0) (#200)
    by sj on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 12:48:58 PM EST
    That's some ugly stuff.

    Can no longer reply directly (none / 0) (#202)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 02:06:21 PM EST

       no, a properly ratified constitutional amendment

    Article V

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

    didn't mean to post yet (none / 0) (#203)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 02:16:03 PM EST
      could not be overturned by the Supreme Court. the court could rule on the interpretation and application of the language.


       Perhaps, I am construing what he said so it makes  sense from a legal/procedural sense and therefore giving him too much credit.

       There are in fact actual lawyers who profess to believe  Amnd 14, § 1, cl. 1 would allow Congress to exclude people born in the USA from automatic citizenship. I don't believe there are any who would even try to argue the 14th does not permit Congress to enact statutes including people born in the USA as citizens.  

    the current statute insofar as relevant (none / 0) (#204)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 02:19:49 PM EST
     top people born in the USA:

    8 USC § 1401

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

     (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;  

     (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property; ....

       (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;...


    Well, I'm not a lawyer (none / 0) (#205)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 02:28:42 PM EST
    and I sure don't play one on this blog.  But it hard for me to get from this-

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

     (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;  

    To this-

      There are in fact actual lawyers who profess to believe  Amnd 14, § 1, cl. 1 would allow Congress to exclude people born in the USA from automatic citizenship.

    I would be interested in the opinions of actual lawyers.

    The Carolina Chocolate Drops lay it down (none / 0) (#206)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 02:44:00 PM EST
    This link (none / 0) (#207)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 02:44:58 PM EST
     partially explains the basis for the claims and has deeper links.



    Reconstructionist (none / 0) (#208)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 03:26:55 PM EST
    Thank you, that answered my question.