Wednesday Open Thread

My good news is I found a new house. The flip side is I have to move in about 3 weeks. There's a lot to do between now and then.

Our last open thread is full, here's a new one, all topics welcome.

< The "Top Secret" EGhazi E-mails | Clinton and EGhazi: Did William Roebuck Violate 18 USC 1924? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Bad Lip Reading (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 05:21:32 PM EST
    This was cute (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 05:34:20 PM EST
    Made me smile because they really could have been saying those lines. Or anything else for that matter. Heh. Thanks.

    ha! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by leap on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 05:49:53 PM EST
    That has to be their best one yet. The break from the previous clown show did them good. I don't know how they do it.

    It's really hard to lampoon something ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:46:18 PM EST
    ... that's actually its own best parody, but the folks at BLR somehow managed to pull it off. I saw this earlier, but it's definitely worth a second and even third look and laugh. Thanks.

    Congratulations (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 09:00:03 PM EST
    Jeralyn on finding a new home so quickly.

    Yeah, that was pretty fast. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:10:22 AM EST
    Now comes the hard part for her. We just moved in late June, and after being in one place for over 20 years, I had pretty much forgotten how much of a drag it was to pack up and change quarters. Still, this move was worth it. Hopefully, Jeralyn will be in her new place for a while.

    ... this week on PBS, "Bridging the Divide: Tom Bradley and the Politics of Race," about the first African-American to be elected mayor of a white-majority city in U.S. history. That his election would occur in Los Angeles, which was then one of the most racially polarized municipalities in the entire country, is one of the truly amazing political dramas of our time. Check it out.


    War on Women, NYC Edition... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:30:25 AM EST
    de Blasio and Cuomo put aside their feud to make war on the painted ladies of Times Square together.

    I don't remember anybody breaking Naked Cowboy's balls like this.

    Mr. Mayor, Mr. Governor...surely you have better things to do fellas, c'mon man.

    I had (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:54:23 AM EST
    the same reaction.

    How about cleaning up the filthy rat-infested subways instead?

    When politicians choose these kinds of issues with which to regale us, all I can think is that they are completely clueless and impotent.


    ... filthy, rat-infested LaGuardia? That has to be the most wretchedly maintained U.S. airport I'd ever seen, when we transited through there a few years ago. It was awful, and I'll never fly in or out of there again, if I can possibly help it. And I still think it should be renamed after Lou Reed, once they finally get around to renovating the place. Actually, renovations aren't good enough. They should just blow the place up, and start again from scratch.

    Once the Disney Store arrived (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:38:40 AM EST
    it was all going to be downhill.

    I mourn to wonderful seedy old square I took a cab directly to from the airport in the early 70s.  But admittedly, that me.


    Me too... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:46:26 AM EST
    we're in the degenerate minority there my friend.

    Painted ladies selling pictures is a far cry from the old days though...besides, it's established law that women can be topless, same as men, and that panhandling is legal too.  Bill & Andy are playing the "show me the criminal, I'll find the crime" game and that's far more offensive than anything these hard-working ladies are doing.

    Segue...did you hear next up for David Simon after "Show Me A Hero" is a period piece based in 1970's Times Square?  Sign me up!


    I DID SEE THAT (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:48:43 AM EST
    a little pee came outta me

    I was too young too enjoy it... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:02:02 AM EST
    but I have distinct memories of going with my parents to the Port Authority Bus Station to pick up my grandmother in the early 80's...we'd be walking down the street and my moms would try to literally cover my eyes with one hand and clutch her purse for dear life with the other.

    And one trip there was a guy standing on the corner saying "you want it, I got it" over and over.  I asked my pops "what's he got Dad?" and he said "Nothing you want, lets go find grandma."  

    By the time I was old enough to venture on my own the sex and drugs were gone, replaced by arrests and summonses.  That sick f*ck Rudy's fascist S&M kinks had taken over.


    I was 20 in 1971 (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:08:57 AM EST
    the 70s was my decade.  And the square was a part of that.  For me at the time it was like a Disneyland created just for me.

    It was certainly not like being in what I understood as the U.S.    I first arrived in NY on my way back from my hippy backpack in Europe trip.   It was a taste of the old world.  


    It was a different planet than Queens... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:14:49 AM EST
    never mind Topeka!

    Say what you will, but the place was unique, now it's cookie-cutter, and the Bill & Andy show seem determined to keep it that way...lame.

    Surely the European tourists don't mind, they don't fear breasts...it must be the domestic tourists pissing and moaning.  And stuck up locals.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:23:13 AM EST

    Every city in the world has a flashy strip mall.   There was only one Times Square.  There will never be another.  I would have preserved every pimp and empty bottle as a national treasure.

    I really am so excited about the project you mentioned.   It was a special place for me.  Seductive and terrifying.   I can't be the only one.


    Turned 20 in 1997.... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:26:58 AM EST
    I feel robbed, cheated, bamboozled!

    President Carter is about to give us (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:01:29 AM EST
    The full run down.

    Melanoma (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:10:23 AM EST
    Liver and brain. Four very small spots on his brain. They still aren't sure where the cancer originated.

    He is going to cut back dramatically on his commitments. Sounds like fundraising traveling is off the table, but will continue to send letters and attend board meetings at Emory and the Carter Center.


    Did not know (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:17:36 AM EST
    one could have Melanoma of the liver and brain.

    Very sad.


    They will continue to scan him (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:32:45 AM EST
    Searching for another site that it started from. He said developing an internal melanoma verses outer skin is very rare, about 4-6% of melanoma cases.

    Melanoma is treated differently (none / 0) (#83)
    by fishcamp on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:49:57 AM EST
    When it's on the inside, according to a doctor on MSNBC this morning.   They now have new drugs that break down a
    Shield around the cancer cell, and let the body's natural healing take over.  It's also much easier on the system than radiation and chemo.

    I worry about melanoma after 40 years at 8,000'  and higher.  The ski gondola drops you off at 12,000.  Then to move here and fish in the sun is really asking for it.  They have much better sun screen lotions now, better than baby oil with iodine mixed in, like we used to use.


    Most current melanoma treatments (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 11:32:11 AM EST
    only extend life for a few months at best.  There is no true successful "cure" for melanoma once it's metastasized to organs.  The 5 year survival rate is 16%.  And keep "early detection bias" in mind when you read that 16% number.  He'll most likely have better access to the more promising-looking clinical trials than the rest of us SOBs, so the docs may stumble onto something that works for him.  But in reality, if it's in his brain, he won't make 5 years.

    He's a goner, unfortunately.  At least he's giving us all a decent amount of time to get used to it.  Thank you, Jimmy, for that.

    (Source: My research while waiting to find out my melanoma diagnosis.  I was a Stage 0 (thankfully)).


    *small clarification (none / 0) (#89)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 11:34:10 AM EST
    *"Early detection bias", is aka "lead time bias".

    Very sorry to hear this (none / 0) (#99)
    by fishcamp on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:40:23 PM EST
    Teresa.  Good luck.

    I worry about 15 years (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:55:14 AM EST
    in SoCal

    My California issued (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by fishcamp on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 11:07:28 AM EST
    Cameraman's Union card will probably give me butt cancer, since I carried it in my wallet for 15 years.

    Melanoma is the worst form of skin cancer. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:04:58 PM EST
    If it's not checked, it can metastasize very quickly in your internal organs, your brain, even your bones. That's why they treated mine so aggressively last year, because it had already spread from my neck into some soft tissue and lymph nodes in my right shoulder region.

    Shine On You Crazy Diamond... (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 11:37:22 AM EST
    Bernie takes another reporter to journalism school...

    "What I said is that corporate media talks about all kinds of issues except the most important issues, okay?" Sanders said sternly. "And time after time, I'm being asked to criticize Hillary Clinton. That's the sport that you guys like."

    "The issue I want to be talking about," he said, "is the collapse of the American middle class. Are you guys gonna write about that?"

    "I am not going to get into the game of sitting around and criticizing Hillary Clinton," Sanders said.

    Sick burn Bernie.

    Not to worry...the media will find some (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 11:41:00 AM EST
    unpleasant way to pay him back for not being appropriately cooperative in their Let's Get Clinton game.

    They'll probably just not cover him at all, the lesson being, "say what we want you to say or you're dead to us."

    Glad he's not playing along, but they're not going to let him get away with that.


    I'm hoping... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 11:45:54 AM EST
    Bernie keeps polling strong and gaining ground, making it harder for the media to ignore him as they'd much prefer to do.

    He's gotten more coverage so far than I'd imagined he would...and he's making the most of it.  


    In other news (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 04:38:21 PM EST
    (Sigh!) Well, that's what happens ... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 05:56:45 PM EST
    ... when you allow pandas to lounge about all day, doing nothing but eating bamboo shoots and engaging in casual sex. I suppose the liberal elite now expects the rest of society to continue supporting these lazy panda a$$es with more government-subsidized bamboo shoots, and no doubt their anchor baby offspring will grow up to be just as dependent upon public handouts as their parents.



    Donald's Nuremberg rally in Mobile (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 08:58:38 AM EST
    tonight is supposed to be covered by MSNBC.   And probably everyone else .

    On Friday evening in Mobile, AL, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he expects to participate in a rally promoting his presidential candidacy that will have at least 30,000 people in attendance.

    Btw it's mo-BEAL.

    Cheney didn't need to offer rationales... (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 01:07:29 PM EST
    Not with the New York Times acting as his propaganda ministry.

    You're not scoring, btw.

    Anne Coulter (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 06:30:20 PM EST
    is now going against Carly Fiorina saying she hates her as much as 1000 white hot suns. Carly seems to be starting to get the full sexism treatment since she moved out of the kiddie table from the GOP. But no mention from any of those idiots that her real problem is her tenure at HP.

    MSNBC (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 06:46:41 PM EST
    is covering both town halls in split screen.  Donald and Jeb!

    Jeb is small with no sound.  

    Every cable news network (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 06:56:06 PM EST
    is taking Donald's  town hall live and completely ignoring Jeb!

    What was Jeb thinking?


    Trump has a lot of energy, (none / 0) (#7)
    by fishcamp on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 07:03:08 PM EST
    But enough is enough.  I'm going back to tennis channel.

    Thor (none / 0) (#9)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 07:45:14 PM EST
    Too early to watch Town Halls and debates for me.

    NY  METS, Thor on the mound

    Finally I actually am watching Mets games again


    Tough loss... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 07:51:45 AM EST
    Bullpen flounders again...we need to find a steady 7th inning guy.  No mas Robles, no mas Torres, no mas Parnell...por favor Terry!

    Maybe the new guy Verrett can be the bridge to Clippard & Familia.


    Great win for the O's, and for (none / 0) (#36)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 07:59:58 AM EST
    Henry Urrutia, whose personal story is pretty darned amazing.

    Classy of the Mets fan who caught the home-run ball - it was Henry's first major league home run - to give it to him after the game.

    I think the Orioles now lead the league in walk-off home runs.


    There's a reason we're not Yankee fans... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:16:06 AM EST
    better class of people Anne;)

    It was a sad day (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:18:56 AM EST
    In the JB and BF's house as BF is a huge Mets fan (and the Nats won, picking up ground).

    (But since I am a Tigers fan, and they had a HUGE win over the Cubbies, my part of the house was happy).

    But I did find myself yelling at the TV during the 9th inning because Familia couldn't get a ball across the plate if his life depended on it last night).


    But (none / 0) (#44)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:35:26 AM EST
    Our newest pitcher, Daniel Morris, the "guy who lives in a van down by the river", hit his first home run becoming the first AL pitcher to homer in his first plate appearance since Esteban Yan (2000) and the first AL pitcher to EVER homer at Wrigley Field.

    Oh yeah, he also broke one of the brand new video scoreboards during batting practice.  Sorry Wrigley Field!


    That was two nights ago... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:50:10 AM EST
    Mets held on to that one, last night Robles coughed up the lead and Torres served up the walk-off.

    We fare much better when our starters go 7 plus, which luckily is quite common with our superb staff of starters.


    8 (none / 0) (#156)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 05:09:54 PM EST
    Starters need to go 8, or into the 8th. Not yet sold on Clippard.
    Metsies beating up on bad teams, need to improve against good teams.
    Still, they finally got me to check in on them almost every night

    Jebya is small even with sound. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 07:41:37 PM EST
    lol.  Especially with sound.

    Family Values Activist Josh Duggar had... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:33:56 PM EST
    ... a paid Ashley Madison account.

    In 2013, conservative reality TV star Josh Duggar--of TLC's 19 Kids and Counting fame--was named the executive director of the Family Research Council, a conservative lobbying group in D.C. which seeks "to champion marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society." During that time, he also maintained a paid account on Ashley Madison, a web site created for the express purpose of cheating on your spouse.

    The article includes the list of what Josh wanted to try.  

    The AM Hacket Materials (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:46:21 AM EST
    I think it's wrong on so many levels for the media to be publishing any of that information.  It's not like it's easy to get to, most people could never find it, but hot damn if the media isn't taking stolen information and exploiting it for profit.

    We seriously need a law for commercial exploitation of hacked information on the internet, because human decency is not cutting it.  They would never publish credit card numbers or addresses.

    It's sl*t shaming for adults who are engaged in legal behavior, which is simply posting.  No one knows who actually cheated, and who trolled and it's no ones business.  

    This is the internet version of 'Cheaters', well... except no proof of cheating and the source is stolen information.

    Now I am not above looking at the story, but my point is I should have to find the stolen information all on my own, not have to worry about my name being posted at work or for my mother to see on page 5.

    FYI, I am not married nor would I ever go to AM, I am a little darker than that.


    I keep shilling for Chris Hayes today (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:59:06 AM EST
    but Chris Hayes did a great segment on this last night can't find a direct link but it will be here.

    He has been talking about it-


    Journalist Chris Hayes took to Twitter to similarly suggest that if Ashley Madison could be hacked, so could many other things we might not feel nearly as smug about.

    The ones who pontificate the most (none / 0) (#20)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 10:53:25 PM EST
    They are usually the ones to watch out for. I was appalled on the Jared case today. I was under the impression he was just involved with his friend on porn sites. Wow, he ends up being the biggest scumbag as he was wanting the kiddies. My heart always goes out for the children and the animals. They can not fend for themselves against abuse. What a jerk he is and his wife is not standing up for him, she is going for the divorce. Good for her. They have 2 kids themselves.

    I'd say the odds are better than even ... (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 06:49:47 PM EST
    ... that Jared Fogle's wife also seeks to change their kids' names, as a direct result of Daddy's new-found infamy.

    I must be getting old (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:34:12 AM EST
    not even interested in what he wanted to try.

    It's pretty tame stuff :) (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:47:37 AM EST
    Ashley Madison costs a fortune though.  He paid almost a 1,000, to have an affair.  What happened to the good ole days? When I could destroy my marriage easily and for free :)?

    The list of things (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:01:31 AM EST
    i want him to try would be way more interesting.

    I Saw it Yesterday... (none / 0) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:26:53 AM EST
    ...and it had things like hugging, teaching someone, someone teaching me, real out there stuff... if are in high school, I guess ?

    To me it's embarrassingly dumb, I would go as far as calling it childish, which when put in perspective is probably spot on.


    Josh Duggar's Thursday Admission: (none / 0) (#120)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:15:59 PM EST
    While I frown on hypocricy (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:56:45 PM EST
    ...THAT is not what I have against this particular individual.

    New reality show pitch lines: (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 07:56:57 PM EST
    "So you think you're a hypocrite?"

    "How have you personally hurt Jesus?"


    I don't get it. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 06:46:00 PM EST
    Haven't these people have already used up their fifteen minutes?

    Socialism, not a scary word anymore! (none / 0) (#13)
    by Politalkix on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 09:42:50 PM EST
    Just as I was telling Captain Howdy a couple of days ago...

    "Younger Americans aren't as set on their political views as their parents or grandparents because socialism means different things to different generations, Michelle Diggles, a senior political analyst at liberal think tank Third Way, told The International Business Times.

    "For older people, socialism is associated with Communism and the Soviet Union and the Cold War," she said.

    "But the oldest Millennials were 8 years old when the Berlin Wall fell. They have never known a world where the Soviet Union exists ... The connotations associated with the word 'socialism' just don't exist with millennials.""

    That works (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 10:18:03 PM EST
    for the future but not now. Only 47% of people will vote for a socialist right now according to Gallup.

    Is that a fact? (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 10:38:26 PM EST

    According (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 05:21:41 AM EST
    to Gallup yes.

    It must be (none / 0) (#25)
    by sj on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:44:16 AM EST
    A poll says so.

    That is still higher (none / 0) (#16)
    by Politalkix on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 10:37:32 PM EST
    than HRC's favorability rating (37%).
    HRC still has a overwhelmingly higher chance than Sanders in winning the Democratic nomination but she does not fare much better than him when pitted against Republican opponents. We have many months to go before actual voting begins and Bernie is trending up and HRC is trending down.

    Just think of all the Democratic candidates who won the nomination easily only to lose in the GE because they could not excite people to vote for them-Mondale, Gore, Kerry.

    Sometimes taking a risk works out better-Bill Clinton, Barack Obama!


    McGovern. (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 10:39:33 PM EST
    The McGovern comparison (none / 0) (#19)
    by Politalkix on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 10:50:28 PM EST
    is not valid anymore. The country is polarized a lot more than it was in 1972 and demographics have changed. Red states and blue states are more firmly established now than they were in the 1970s. As a useful exercise please check out states that Jimmy Carter won in 1976 when politics was not so polarized. Nobody can win with margins like Reagan did in 1984, Nixon in 1972 and Johnson in 1964.

    Your 2nd par. listed nominees who (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 11:01:25 PM EST
    won the party's nomination but couldn't scour up votes in the general election. No mention of polarization.

    "more polarized than in 1972" ????????? (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 08:31:36 AM EST
    I'm surprised anyone allowed that massive rewrite of history slide by.

    1972 did see one incident of one Vietnam veteran being spat upon by an ungrateful civilian.  It was at the RNC Convention.  The spitter was a Republican.

    August 23, 1972: Three parapalegic Vietnam war veterans, including Ron Kovic (See Also July 15, 1976) disrupt Richard Nixon's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in Miami with shouts of "Stop the bombing! Stop the killing!" They are roughly ejected from the hall by plainclothes policemen. On their way out, a spectator spits in the eye onf one of the veterans

    George McGovern also benefited from ... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:57:33 AM EST
    ... two things in 1972 -- an unusually crowded and competitive Democratic field, and the now-quaint concept of a winner-take-all primary system. For example, he took only 43% of the primary vote in California, but it gave him all the narrow plurality he needed to win the first-ballot pledges of the entirety of that state's 271 members-strong convention delegation.

    In fact, more Democrats overall actually voted for Sen. Hubert Humphrey during the '72 primaries, than for any other Democratic candidate that year. Yet because of the vastly disproportionate means by which delegates were chosen and pledged throughout the country, Humphrey finished a very distant and disappointing fifth in the delegate count at the convention, behind McGovern, Henry "Scoop" Jackson, George Wallace, and Shirley Chisolm.

    That's in large part why McGovern subsequently proved to be such a terribly weak national candidate in the November '72 general election, because only 25% of Democratic voters had actually supported his candidacy in the primaries.

    In the chaotic aftermath of the 1968 mess, McGovern had led the effort to pledge delegates to winner-take-all Democratic primaries and not surprisingly, he proved to be the main beneficiary of that reform. That did not sit very well with either blue-collar Democratic voters or the marginalized establishment, and most of them ended up sitting that election out, which eventually led to Richard Nixon's landslide.

    Thankfully, it doesn't work that way any more.


    So what? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 05:25:48 AM EST
    People don't vote based on that kind of thing as all politicians have bad ones.

    Who was excited about Obama in 2012? But you're positing that someone who 53% of the country already won't vote for is better?


    My guess is (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 05:34:33 AM EST
    Most millenials don't actually understand what true socialism is, except that it is the latest thing that is "cool".

    And a little bit more history that doesn't exactly jive with your thesis about who us liked.


    Me thinks... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 07:58:39 AM EST
    older folks are more confused about what socialism is than the kiddies...they benefit most directly from socialism (social security, medicare) yet think it's some horrible thing they only do in other countries.

    The relentless Cold War propaganda, much like the Drug War propaganda, polluted their critical thought process.


    Excuse me Dog, (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:33:44 PM EST
    But you are painting with a very broad brush.  I am an old "Baby Boomer," but I know exactly what socialism is, and I approve.
    I was also an anti-Vietnam protester, a Civil Rights protester, and working for the Feminist movement, probably before you were even a gleam in your parents' eyes, or at least when you were a tiny baby.

    The truth (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:08:30 AM EST
    is probably not a lot of people know exactly what it is. Younger people might thing Obamacare is socialism.

    But the problem is that the word evokes negative emotional responses from apparently the majority of people here in the US. There's a reason why it's bandied around so much and used as a negative.


    I think in a lot of ways with the internet (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by CST on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:02:18 AM EST
    The world is a lot smaller and people are exposed to more people in other countries, especially if those people can speak English (see - reddit).

    Socialism = Scandanavia and Western Europe among a lot of the younger crowd, not exactly fear inducing.


    Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:19:39 AM EST
    But how many people (of all ages)actually understand the nuances and types of Socialism?  Or think that just because socialism exists in Scandinavia and Western Europe (with much, much, more homogeneous and smaller populations) that it could work the same way, or at all, in the United States?

    It's kinda like when conservatives call liberals fascists. It sounds good, butist people who either embrace the socialist moniker or despise it, don't really understand it, but it's in vogue.


    Aspects of socialism exist here too (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by CST on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:35:06 AM EST
    I think people are not all quite as ignorant as all that.  I think younger people are ready to try something different because the current system is failing them miserably.

    I also agree that the pace of change is slow, and younger people don't win federal elections on their own.

    But I wouldn't jump so hard on the naive bandwagon.  And that's also not to say that people aren't naive, just that I would say in some ways it can be a good thing because they aren't burdened as much by the past.  Knowledge of history is important but holding onto it too hard is also a problem.


    This board of commentors (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:22:07 AM EST
    Being a huge exception to the population at large by virtue of being well-read political junkies.

    This board of commentors (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:25:57 AM EST
    Being a huge exception to the population at large by virtue of being well-read political junkies.

    well-read political junkies (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:38:02 PM EST
    or as people used to say, well educated.

    Plus the Simple Fact... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:40:52 AM EST
    ...that all government is socialism.  They take in funds and apply them to projects that benefit many, but in a way that doesn't benefit the contributor directly, only indirectly.  Everything the government does and owns is the public's, the idea that it is some evil form of government is absurd.

    Capitalism relates to the private sector, not the government.  Republicans know this and it's why they want to privatize everything, so at some point, the certain services will only available to the people who can afford it.  But even then, they want socialism when it comes to spreading the absurd costs of things like wars and personnel security.

    Want to go to the capitalist park, bring a credit card, need to drive somewhere, get ready for a charge at every land ownership change along the route with road conditions having no uniformity.  Street light out, get a big ladder or call someone.  Need help, better get ready to pay a cop, a fireman, or a mercenary.  Speaking of, the military would not exist, idiots like Donald Trump would buy bombs as use them as they see fit because no one could personally afford the force it would take to stop private hands form getting nuclear weapons.

    Never mind, nuclear/rocket technology would not exist without the deep pockets of a socialist government.  And once you start pooling money to benefit many, you are right back to socialism.


    It is of course ironic (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:44:07 AM EST
    that the people most likely to be hostile to the idea of socialism are the very ones benefiting most from the concept.

    But you know, keep yer government hands off my Medicare.


    Hands off my medicare.. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:01:54 PM EST
    and off our colossal totalitarian-socialist military establishment.

    True - all gov't is socialism (none / 0) (#96)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:22:21 PM EST
    but it is funded largely by the fruits of capitalist endeavors - at least in this country.

    While I'm not advocating for it, we all must admit the role it plays in the current society.

    Further, are people truly ready to see taxes raised?  Large increases on the rich will not fund everything.


    Capitaism begins it's own undoing (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:35:08 PM EST
    when it degenerates into the relative few taking final credit for something that couldn't have resulted without the blood, sweat, and toil of many.

    While I agree with that (none / 0) (#101)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:50:21 PM EST
    ain't getting undone anytime soon.  Too many Gen X'ers laying on a 401k retirement.

    Easy fix... (none / 0) (#103)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:03:02 PM EST
    allow a cash-out for the full amount with no tax penalty.

    I'm a Gen X'er who has never contributed to a 401k, but I have about 7k in an account because of some profit sharing scheme my employer did a few years back.  I'd love to cash out today but I'd get killed in taxes and penalties, while it kills me that some grafter has my 7 grand to gamble with.  I'm trapped in 401k hell!


    Come On Kdog... (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:26:22 PM EST
    ...you can secure your $7k in a virtually iron tight investment, like bonds, in which no grifter can gamble away.  You won't earn jack, but it will be there is 20 years.

    The notion that your money isn't safe is funny, but not as funny as the comment about 401k's.  

    Yeah, I am a Gen X'er with a huge 401k, therefore I must think capitalism is the greatest thing since the wheel ?  That is not an argument, it's silly blather that doesn't make any sense.

    All people with 401k's do not have the same political/socio/economic points of view.  I like capitalism, I do not like what we have currently, where we, you and me, flip the bill for the military that ensures these conglomerates can safely buy and move cheap products in places they could never if they had to bore the costs of security.

    Let Walmart pay the actual costs of doing business on the other side of the planet and American wages won't seem so high.  I for one am tired of subsidizing their security so they can move jobs out of the United States.  

    I used Walmart, but all companies who do business in places that normally would be far too dangerous for them to make a profit.


    Nobody said capitalism is the greatest thing (none / 0) (#112)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:45:27 PM EST
    in the world.  Understanding how things work does not necessarily mean advocating for how things work.

    If you have a huge 401k it should follow you'd be invested in a system that allows that 401k to flourish.  Otherwise why have a 401k?  Take your money after each paycheck and put it under your mattress.

    Really not looking to argue the virtues of capitalism or any ism for that matter.  I was merely making a point about how socialism while a good thing derives it's benefits from cash generated by capitalism.  As you point out, vice-versa.  The reality is they go hand in hand.


    Or, alternatively... (none / 0) (#114)
    by sj on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:55:39 PM EST
    Otherwise why have a 401k?  Take your money after each paycheck and put it under your mattress.
    ... put a little more Socialism into Social Security and provide a Socialistic guaranteed income.

    (Then I could use that money in my 401K -- which is NOT enough to keep me out of the streets for my entire retired life -- to replace the roof of my home.  Just saying.)


    Oh I got it... (none / 0) (#116)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:00:50 PM EST
    in the "safe" column of "investment" choices, but it's not safety I'm on about (though you're right I would feel safer with it under the mattress or invested in a couple lbs. of weed), it's principle....it's supposedly my money but I can't take complete ownership for 30 years unless I pay a 50% vig? I'm cool with that under the public Social Security model, much less so under the private 401k model.

    But I'm glad my eccentricities amuse you! I get that a lot;)

    Though I guess my real beef is with my boss for doing the profit sharing within the 401k plan instead of cash in hand...the mutual fund guy must have given him a kickback.

    I was responding to what I though Vic's point was, that we can't adopt more socialist policies because Gen X'ers are too invested in 401k's...if that's the only issue, let them cash out the 401k with no penalty, that should alleviate any concerns.  Or they can keep rolling with the grifters and hope the market isn't crashing when they need the money.

    FWIW, I'm a practical capitalist too (ideally I'd be an anarcho-syndicalist;) ...most countries we consider socialist are also capitalist...no one is seriously talking communism to my knowledge, absent the US Communist Party and some college kids on Tumblr.  

    Lastly, right there with you about subsidizing a military that benefits corporations infinitely more than citizens.


    I don't know where you're getting (none / 0) (#118)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:08:28 PM EST
    this 50% number from, kdog, unless you're saying that the combined federal and NY income tax is 50%.

    You haven't paid any taxes on that money, so when you take it out, and if you're not doing it under one of the hardship exemptions, and you're younger than 59 1/2, you're going to report whatever you withdraw as ordinary income, and get hit with a 10% penalty.

    I know you're averse to the whole concept, but as someone who's looking to retire in the next three years, who is eyeing the reality of living without the income from my job, I wish I had started at your age to put money away for retirement.  


    Interesting... (none / 0) (#123)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:31:10 PM EST
    I so loathe the whole thing I haven't really looked into it...I heard from someone who cashed out they only got half after taxes and penalties, maybe they exaggerated the hit.

    Taxes are reasonable, but the penalty is stupid imo...penalized for withdrawing your own money?
    I don't think I could cash out anyway unless I claim hardship, get fired, or quit...I'm still at the same job, though the profit sharing has stopped.  

    Wouldn't surprise me to be kicking myself when I get to your age, I hear ya, I'm crazy not stupid...though if I get hit by a bus, I'll be a genius! If ya die with more than a couple dollars in your pocket, and left joy on the table, you're a loser in the game of life imo.

    At least that's what I tell my moms, if she leaves any inheritance I will find her beyond the grave and kick her in the arse, she should spend that sh*t and enjoy her golden years to the fullest.  But she don't listen to me!


    The Vig is Actually 10%... (none / 0) (#121)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:26:41 PM EST
    ...plus the income taxes, which you would owe anyways.  They will hit you upfront with taxes like a bonus, but you would get that tax back when you do your return and if you time it right, say December, you will have the additional taxes back by February.

    One could argue, not me, that social security is more or less the same thing without the option to withdrawal.

    The other option is you can borrow against it, it is an asset, and I believe you can borrow up to half.  Obviously, there will be payments.

    The rule of seven-ten.  
    If you earn 7%, your investment will double every 10 years, or in 7 years your investment will double if you get 10%.  

    So if you get the easily attainable 7%, in 30 years you would have $56k.


    I did look into the borrowing... (none / 0) (#126)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:36:28 PM EST
    to get at least half out of their greasy gambling hands...but the 401k administrator wants to charge $150 to loan you half your own money.  I ain't given them mother*ckers $150, that was the dealbreaker.

    Of course, in 30 years (none / 0) (#132)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:58:25 PM EST
     that $56K will likely have far less "buying power" than that amount does today.

      KDog, that, honestly may not be enough money to make it worthwhile but you could rollover the money into a self-directed  401 (k) without penalty (Assuming it's not a Roth IRA). There would be fees involved in transferring and setting it up but you would then be able to direct how the money is invested.


    Not exactly my point but close to it (none / 0) (#128)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:47:10 PM EST
    The "system" as it were is designed so that we have a vested interest in one way or another to keep it going.  401K's were an example.

    Another example - cheap stuff.  We lament the loss of manufacturing jobs but cannot get around our addiction to cheap(er) stuff.  If companies paid workers in Indonesia or China what we would expect goods would cost us significantly more - thus cutting into one's bottom line, thus cutting into one's ability to spend more, and so on, and so on.  Even if you kept those jobs here and paid American workers more, gotta contend w/the earnings, um, er, 401K.

    I tell my wife we are living in the midst of the most fabulous pyramid scheme ever.  /snk


    Speaking for Me Only... (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:26:24 PM EST
    ...I despise cheap stuff.

    I come from a blue collar background and I have no problem paying more for goods or taxes, or the other option, not buying a bunch of cr@p I don't need.  

    The problem I run into, it's not just cheap goods, it's practically everything we buy.  Try to find US made anything, say tennis shoes.  Only one brand, New Balance, which I believe manufactures 10% of their shoes in the US.  But they don't fit my feet and while I don't mind paying more, I am not paying for custom made shoes.

    My point, with most goods there isn't even a choice, it's foreign made and that sucks.

    My last two cars, both foreign made, but assembles here in the US, yet if I buy American it's assembled in Mexico or Canada.

    I was reading the other day, much of our shrimp comes from Vietnam, the crab at my local market, Russian.  It's almost unfathomable that even our food supply is becoming an imported good.

    Not trying to argue, but damn, we can't buy American in most cases even if we want to.

    It's a pyramid scheme created by capitalism the government has allowed to go unfettered.  The government IMO is suppose to step in when the self interest of the individual outweighs the self interest of the country.  Cheap goods being a great example, the government should be levying tariffs to ensure a persons desire for cheap goods doesn't end up with our biggest product being financial services.

    It's a giant spiral, the more good jobs we lose, the more people need, not want, cheap goods.  I am lucky enough to have some options, like not shopping at Walmart, but many don't, and I understand that, but at some level we are all willingly participating in our own demise.


    I was going to say much the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:50:24 PM EST
    I have never had a problem paying what many of my friends say is too much for what I feel is better than cheap junk. I'd rather have 1 pair of good shoes than 5 that fall apart in a year.  That said, my New Balances have started to break down where the sole comes apart from the upper..what's up with that? cheap foreign glue?

    I agree the spiral is so far wound now I don't know what the answer is. There were days when people accepted the fact there was only going to be one TV in the house. And a phone on the wall and that was it. We have so much more stuff now that we take for granted, young people would feel positively deprived if they grew up like we did. But maybe we should go more in that direction.  


    I got ya... (none / 0) (#130)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:57:05 PM EST
    it certainly is a complicated case Maude, lotta ins, lotta outs.  

    Change is hard when we're all so "invested" in the status quo, radical change almost impossible absent a disaster/total collapse.  If I got to really thinking about how much I personally feed the beast I'd probably jump off a bridge...even thinking about a little brings pangs of guilt.


    Add another example... (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:59:12 PM EST
    immigration...if the people up in arms about immigrants were forced to pay what it would cost for a head of lettuce picked by an American citizen they'd beg President Trump to "tear down that wall!".

    I Was Just Reading.... (none / 0) (#147)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 04:20:19 PM EST
    ...about all that organic fruit/vegetables we buy.

    Our need for no chemicals in our diet is only adding to the already rampant exploitation to migrant workers, who are doing what chemicals used to.

    You can't even be a humane consumer if you want to be.

    Shrimp from Vietnam, uses slave labor.

    Whole Foods Acting Like Walmart.


    Food (none / 0) (#148)
    by CST on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 04:26:00 PM EST
    Is the one I feel I have most control over, because of the recent expansion of "local" food markets, etc...  If I'm being honest, I just assume those people are treating their employees better, if only because we don't have a ton of migrant workers here to exploit.

    Clothing is in second place, in that there are options that advertise themselves as such (again, I don't do my research as well as I should) - but it tends to be higher quality as well which makes me feel a bit less like I'm wasting money.

    Technology, IMO, is the hardest one.


    Kind of short-sighted, dawg. Don't (none / 0) (#175)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:01:47 PM EST
    you hope to retire someday?

    As long as people... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    see and feel the benefits of those increased taxes...universal single payer healthcare, no cost public universities, more parks and better schools, an effective and all-inclusive safety net...I think they'll be cool with the higher taxes.

    I mean what difference does it make if I pay Oxford 40 bucks a week for my employee share for health coverage or pay an extra 40 bucks a week in taxes?  40 bucks is 40 bucks.


    While Your Comment... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:03:11 PM EST
    ...has nothing to do with the thread, I will play.

    Capitalism could not exist without things like standardization, currency, trade agreements, infrastructure, the military, and on and on.  Without socialism/government, we would be in the days before the Julian calendar, before taxes, when it was literally every man/woman for themselves.

    My point wasn't that capitalism and/or the government is good/bad, it was that socialism is the root of our government and most governments.  To hate socialism is to hate the US government and the capitalism it protects.


    Thank you for the clarification (none / 0) (#110)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:32:32 PM EST
    There are those people who resolutley, (none / 0) (#113)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:55:11 PM EST
    passionately believe whatever the person writing the check believes; I think they're called lawyers.

    The rest of us have the luxury of trying to be in the world but not of the world.


    All government is NOT socialism (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:09:52 PM EST
    In the real world as opposed to theory, social structures both exist along a continuum and different and even competing or conflicting structures can (and do) exist simultaneously.

      Obviously, much of governments' activities (including those in "democratic socialist" nations but even more in the majority of more market oriented nations) is directed to not merely protecting but promoting private property rights.

      People in, say,  Sweden are permitted to own more property than they need to consume to meet basic needs and to use their property in many ways that serve only their personal interests. Those people and those activities are protected by the government. For example, Saab is not owned by the government nor administered to serve the common good. Swedes may  own stock in Saab  and may exercise voting rights and sell their stock -- including to foreign interests who might have little concern about  the needs of the Swedish people.

       Sweden is more "socialistic" than most countries and obviously the USA, but even there it is false to say all government is socialist in nature. The aspects of Swedish law and administration which protect the possession and use of private property are by definition, not  socialism in action.


    I kinda (3.50 / 2) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:05:24 AM EST
    think that's Howdy's point above. More of the people who think it is a big deal need to die off. Probably baby boomers and above.

    See my answer to kdog, above (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:38:00 PM EST
    I can make the case that you "young ones" have done less for this country than us Baby Boomers, or at least, many of us Baby Boomers.
    And I highly resent your remark. It's extremely offensive.
    Get back to me when you go out and risk arrest protesting war and discrimination.

    First "death panels." Now this! (none / 0) (#173)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 07:58:35 PM EST
    First "death panels." Now this! (none / 0) (#174)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 07:58:56 PM EST
    A significant die off (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:25:44 AM EST
    of the Red Scare generation is required.

    Yep (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:43:58 AM EST
    and that has not happened yet.

    Agreed, but I think (none / 0) (#88)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 11:32:17 AM EST
    both the young and old need to brush-up on another "ism."   Todays 80-year olds were just toddlers when another entertaining, spellbinder promised to make Deutschland great again. Just a guy with funny looking hair--under his nose.  And, tapped into a specific, historically oppressed group, to serve as scapegoats and a faux-springboard to populism.

    Now, immigration needs reform and is a challenge to do it right and fairly.  But, if Trump's immigration "plan" is anything, it is demagogic authoritarianism,with a preamble of demonization (rapists and murderers).

    Expel 11 million immigrants and their families, letting only the "good one" back in; restrict legal immigration; impose a federal job-verification system that includes everyone applying for a job, including US citizens; Everyone would need federal permission to work.  And, of course, the highlighted jettisoning by hook or crook, of the Constitutional guarantee of citizenship by birth.  The devil is in those anchor babies. There is a replacement: replacement by bloodline and pedigree.  And, then there is that wall--to be build and funded by Mexico through, apparently, by marching into economic land that should really be ours.  

    As for the rest of the Republican line-up, their positions are: what Trump said.  Some see him and raise him:  Take Ben Carson--please.   Ben wants to bomb Arizona with drones.

    The situation Trump and his doppelgangers present to America is serious.  And, scary.


    The resemblance... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:11:31 PM EST
    to the rise of the fascist Charlie Chaplin lookalike is jarring...no doubt.

    Unnerving when sro crowds cheer the violent removal of millions of people, to say the least.  

    Forgive them lord for they know not what they cheer...or do they?

    As for Carson, I see he has not carried over the tenets of the Hippocratic oath to his new "profession"...droning suspected drug cartel members is the furthest thing from "first do no harm", wouldn't you say?  

    Dear Doctor, please help him, he's damaged...


    Yes, surgeons can be (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:29:46 PM EST
    both competent and fools.   It is not uncommon.

    You must (none / 0) (#32)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 06:11:26 AM EST
    realize Hillary is being attacked on an hourly basis by the the press, several times a day by each of the 16 dwarfs all against a general buzz of dislike from the far left. Bernie has seen nothing like it yet.

    Double Karma as North Carolina wins the LLSWS (none / 0) (#14)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 09:45:53 PM EST
    The Little League Softball team from North Carolina, the one that advanced to the semis with help from a tanking team from Washington, just won the Little League Softball World Series.

    Guess the team from Washington made two mistakes: 1) tanking a game, 2) thinking the team from North Carolina was the weakest team.

    In short winner-take-all tourneys, ... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:23:21 AM EST
    ... the team that catches fire at the right moment tends to win the thing. You really can't overlook anybody. I remember about 15 years ago out here during the state high school baseball playoffs, when all the public attention and focus was on three very good teams from Honolulu.

    So everyone was shocked, shocked when the Farmers of tiny Molokai High School seemingly came out of nowhere to win it all. Then, just to prove that year was no fluke, the Farmers proceeded to repeat as state champions the following season. Those surprising back-to-back title runs -- the only two championships in any sport in the school's history -- are still a huge source of community pride for the island's 7,000 residents.



    That is All Sports... (none / 0) (#71)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:54:50 AM EST
    ...being hot in the playoffs always beats being hot in the season.


    For the third time in five years, a team from Pearland will be in the Little League World Series.

    Since 2003, the Pearland Little League has grown nearly 30 percent from 850 kids and 70 teams to 1,100 kids and 100 teams this season.

    Part of the increase can be attributed to population growth in Pearland, 15 miles south of Houston.

    That qualified Pearland West, along with winners from the seven other U.S. regions and eight international teams, for the 16-team Series field out of roughly 7,000 teams worldwide that began the season.

    The Little League World Series tournament starts today in Williamsport, Pa.


    That sounds like Waipio / Ewa LL on Oahu. (none / 0) (#134)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:05:16 PM EST
    Two teams from that league actually won the whole thing, ten and seven years ago, respectively. Last weekend, they lost to SoCal in the West regional final, 12-10. They've been the dominant league in Little League baseball out here, although Hilo LL will often challenge them.

    My new home town of Hilo has long been a hot bed for baseball, which is still light years ahead of soccer in terms of popularity amongst the local kids. The area's four high schools -- Kamehameha-Keaau, St. Joseph's, Hilo and Waiakea -- are all longtime state powers in the sport. There are baseball fields literally all over town, including one just down the block from our house. And there are two baseball stadiums, Wong Stadium in downtown by the airport, and Vulcan Field up at the UH-Hilo campus.

    Kolten Wong, the current 2nd baseman for the St. Louis Cardinals, started four years at Kamehameha-Keaau, hit .600 (!!!) in his senior season and was named state player of the year in 2008, while leading his Warriors team to a runner-up finish in the state championship tourney. His father Kaha Wong, who's now the head coach at Waiakea HS, was a standout at Hilo HS, and an all-Pac 10 player at USC back when I was at UW.

    Good luck to Pearland, TX in the LLWS.


    One of the many claims that supporters (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 11:53:11 PM EST
    of the hoax that is Man Made Global Warming is that all must be peer reviewed.

    Well, guess what. Along with Dr Jones telling us that he wished MMGW would happen and Dr Schneider saying we need to decide if it is okay to not be honest....we now find that

    Science publishing giant Springer, with over 2900 journals, has announced on its website that 64 articles published in 10 of its journals are being retracted.  Editorial staff found evidence of fake email addresses for peer reviewers.
    No word yet on what type of papers, or if any climate papers are involved


    Anybody wanna make book on a lot of the papers been climate types?

    The Onion nails it (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 05:28:08 AM EST
    The other graphic the deniers prefer (none / 0) (#95)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:18:30 PM EST
    features the Garden of Eden, the wreck of the Ark on Mount Ararat, and the sea monsters that live at the edge of the world.

    Aren't these all in a museum (none / 0) (#100)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:47:29 PM EST
    somewhere in the Deep South?

    The Grand Ole Museum of Climatology (none / 0) (#106)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:23:07 PM EST
    I think it's called..

    I think jim is the caretaker; (none / 0) (#108)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:26:35 PM EST
    it's his job to sweep the flat-earth display.

    The Creation Museum is in Kentucky... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:57:19 PM EST
    The state-of-the-art 75,000-square-foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life, casting its characters and animals in dynamic form and placing them in familiar settings. Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden's Rivers.

    How is That Any Different... (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:28:36 PM EST
    ...than Disney Land, a bunch of made up characters designed to amuse children ?

    "How is That Any Different?" (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 05:02:47 PM EST
    For one thing, Disney doesn't tell its customers that Mickey Mouse, Peter Pan, and, Dumbo are "real."

    They, honestly, say to their customers, young & old, alike, " come to our kingdom, and, enjoy a day of fantasy, fairy tails, and, make believe."

    See the difference?


    Wow (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 07:38:53 AM EST
    global warming really was a hoax AND socialists are mainstream!

    Bless your hearts.  Isn't that special.

    Ha! Really gives me a reason to get out of bed (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:07:09 PM EST
    every day - what new wonders will unfold!

    Hey, I started watching Humans last night - end of episode 2 - holy $%#$!!!!  I am hooked!


    Ha ha ha, Jeb Bush is a low energy person :) (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:20:04 AM EST
    He has a hard time getting things done :) He's not electable.  The Donald is rockin the house.

    He's coming to Mobile too. They received 35,000 RSVPs and have to move the event to a football stadium :) Of Course!

    He needs to stand up straight too (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:47:00 AM EST
    He does that Bushian slump thing. I apologize if it is a physical limitation and not just bad posture.  

    That town hall (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:57:41 AM EST
    was something.   Anyone who knows what a "town hall" generally looks like and watched that and still doesn't get something very unusual is happening is just missing the point.

    I know (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:00:45 AM EST
    the people there looked like they were half asleep as well. LOL.

    Not sure who you watched (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:04:06 AM EST
    but no one at the Trump rally, that's what it was, was sleeping.  They were hooting and cheering and rowdy.  Anyone sleeping was narcoleptic.

    I think she's talking about the Jeb version (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:11:32 AM EST
    I'm talking (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:12:55 AM EST
    about Jeb. I saw clips of Jeb but not The Donald.

    How did you manage that (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:18:07 AM EST
    the only Jeb clips I saw were a tiny picture in picture size image with no sound in a larger full screen image of Trump.  Except for the one moment when Jeb was asked a question about Donald.  Which in itself is hilarious.

    The (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:28:38 AM EST
    internet. I didn't watch the whole thing with Donald vs. Jeb.

    No more heading for the border (none / 0) (#51)
    by ragebot on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:58:11 AM EST
    How many times have we watched a cowboy movie where someone heads South to the Mexican border to escape the law.

    Looks like that is a thing of the past.  Mexico is checking passports at border crossings now, including the big ones in CA to try and stop folks wanted by the police.


    The blowback... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:10:17 AM EST
    for some of the clown car's insane rhetoric?

    20 bucks for staying over a week is new.

    No such thing as a fresh start anymore in the age of databases and cyber-records and police states.  I think that's sad.


    I wonder how long that will go on (none / 0) (#111)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:37:25 PM EST
    Got to be a big hit to the casual tourist trade.I didn't even have a passport in the days I used to drive down there just for day or weekend trips.

    How many times have wingbats ... (none / 0) (#162)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 06:25:35 PM EST
    ragebot: "How many times have we watched a cowboy movie where someone heads South to the Mexican border to escape the law."

    ... watched Sam Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch," and believed that General Mapache and his soldados are somehow representative of today's Latin Americans?

    Conversely, how many Latin Americans have also seen "The Wild Bunch," and believe that it still captures the essence of white America's contemptuous attitude toward them?

    Life in cinema was so much easier when everyone would simply head each other off at the pass.



    An interesting twist (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 02:03:49 AM EST
    on Mexico representing the past and something more primal is Cormac McCarthy's Border Trilogy, of which All the Pretty Horses is most well known.

    I prefer The Crossing, and is perhaps my most favorite novel, although it is not considered the best of his work.

    But Blood Meridian is the pinnacle and considered by many to be the modern day equivalent of Moby Dick.  Largely set in Mexico.


    Hot chili peppers in the blistering sun (none / 0) (#185)
    by ragebot on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 12:52:40 AM EST
     Dust on my face and my cape,
     Me and Magdalena on the run
     I think this time we shall escape.

     Sold my guitar to the baker's son
     For a few crumbs and a place to hide,
     But I can get another one
     And I'll play for Magdalena as we ride.

     No llores, mi querida
     Dios nos vigila
     Soon the horse will take us to Durango.
     Agarrame, mi vida
     Soon the desert will be gone
     Soon you will be dancing the fandango.

    Romance in Durango

    From one of the true masters.


    So some (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:28:28 PM EST
    guys in Boston beat up a homeless Hispanic guy and said they were inspired by The Donald to do it.

    there have always been racists (none / 0) (#124)
    by CST on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:31:46 PM EST
    in Boston.  Donald Trump is just an excuse.

    It is a serious problem here.


    Had no (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:35:49 PM EST
    idea it was a serious problem there. Thanks for the info.

    It's not nearly as bad as it used to be (none / 0) (#129)
    by CST on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:49:43 PM EST
    But there were riots when they tried to desegregate the schools, and Southie has a pretty notorious reputation that it earned.  While it has changed significantly the old guard isn't gone just diluted.  I'm not talking run-of-the-mill northern racism/segregation either (which still exists), I'm talking in your face, loud, angry and violent.

    I say they tried desegregating schools, because after court-ordered desegregation almost all the white kids abandoned the public school system for Catholic schools.  At least that's what it was still like in the 90s.  Corporate Boston is also overwhelmingly white.


    His response was (none / 0) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 04:56:50 PM EST
    if you want to make an omelet you have to break some eggs.


    Told of the attack, which also left the man soaked in urine, Mr. Trump said at a news conference late Wednesday that it was the first he had heard of it.

    "It would be a shame," Mr. Trump said, before adding: "I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate."

    Ouch, the omelet defense (none / 0) (#187)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 02:05:51 AM EST
    I heard that simile used years ago with respect to conservatives justifying what the U.S. did to Guatemala.  Not a favorite simile of mine.

    Famous photo... (none / 0) (#184)
    by desertswine on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 11:50:27 PM EST
    from the time you speak of. And the story that goes with it.

    Donald vs. The Pope (none / 0) (#127)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:36:41 PM EST
    OMG, is he running for Pope now too? (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:11:49 PM EST
    I swear (none / 0) (#138)
    by sj on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:33:27 PM EST
    every time that man opens his mouth he shows that he is more than just ignorant: he is really just stupid. I should know better, but I guess I really did have a bias that a billionaire has some mental muscle.

    Apparently intelligence is unnecessary.  Which I guess also explains why even though he started out with multi-millions as an inheritance he would (it seems to me) have to be really stupid to have to file Chapter 11. Four times.

    It might have been shrewd, but shrewdness does not necessarily equal mental acuity.


    It is not that hard to make (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 02:10:25 AM EST
    money in commercial real estate if you have money.

    President Trump, leader of the free world. (none / 0) (#176)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:17:51 PM EST
    Netflix Email... (none / 0) (#139)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:34:28 PM EST
    Coming Friday, August 28th... Narcos

    I just watch the 8 part Netflix series of Wet Hot America Summer, which is suppose to be a prequel to the movie of the same name.  Very funny and all the same characters.

    The above is described as:

    The true story of Columbia's infamously violent and powerful drug cartels fuels this gritty new gangster drama series.

    With a picture of a guy I believe is suppose to be Escobar.

    Anne (none / 0) (#140)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:36:43 PM EST
    I'll respond to your comments in the other pot here because BTd deletes more efficiently than the Clinton machine.

    I stated:

    She removed documents at the very least when she left government office with documents belonging to the government, if not earlier since she may have possessed government documents on her private server that were not properly preserved in government control.

    you stated:

    So far, none of the materials reviewed were classified at the time they were sent or received, none of them were marked in any way that indicated they were classified.  It is also worth noting that there are two phrases that bear on this matter: "containing classified information" and "without authority."  Are you certain that (1) retroactive classification required Clinton - or whoever else sent or received the documents - to treat everything as classified in order to stay within the law and (2) that any "removal" was done without authority?

     I reply: that my statement does not address the classification or  time of classification of the documents she removed from government custody, and was in direct response to BTD's false statement she removed "nothing".

    Next BTD claimed as fact:

    "None of the information was "determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security." at the time of removal

    I repled:

    SEZ You, and a  handful of Clinton lackeys. This will obviously have to be determined by an investigation rather than by the self-serving assertions of partisan hacks , especially since it is contradicted by people whose job it is to make such determinations and who work for the Obama Administration.

    You state:

    The materials did not begin to be examined until fairly recently, but long after they were sent/received and long after Clinton left her position.  Absent the FOIA requests, it's not clear to me that they would ever have been reviewed. ..

       Well, then thank god for the FOIA requests because if that is true that may be the only reason the, at best, foolishly careless and negligent review and handling of the documents by Secretary Clinton's State Department would have evaded the sanitizing effect of sunlight. I, apparently in the minority here, want to keep the light on and learn exactly what happened and why. I can fathom only one  reason whatsoever why anyone would oppose that and would not want a thorough investigation to proceed with the facts publicly recounted. Obviously that sole reason is to protect Clinton from being held accountable for her and her agency's conduct.

    Finally I stated:

    No, she did not have the power to unilaterally decide information deemed classified by other agencies was not classified.

    You respond:

    So, wait - you want to claim that she had the power to classify material - in fact, you and others have repeatedly stated that she had an obligation to classify these materials that she "should have known" were classified, but no authority or power to remove a classified determination?  Are you asserting, then, that this was a one way street?

      Yes. The Secretary of State does not have the authority to simply decide that information classified by a different agency is henceforth declassified. Cite anything in any statute, rule, regulation or executive order that would even arguably authorize the head of the State Department or any other agency to unilaterally declassify information previously designated as classified by an intelligence agency.

       And, even if such power did exist, don't ya kinda figure that there would at least be a requirement that the person exercising such supreme powers would be required to ya know, document the fact it was done? Or do you believe she possesses some sort of royal prerogative?

      I mean, seriously, this nonsense is absurd.

    Shorter Recon: (none / 0) (#170)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 07:08:40 PM EST
    a big civilian salute (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:47:10 PM EST
    to the two lady Rangers (acceptable description?).

    I am in awe.

    But wait (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:49:30 PM EST
    i just this minute hear they won't be allowed to serve on the Ranger Regiment because of blah blah

    WTF? How about they go one n one with the dipstick who made that rule?


    Perhaps reading this will help (none / 0) (#144)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:54:14 PM EST
    EO13526, 12/29/09


    Sec. 3.1.  Authority for Declassification.  (a)  Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.

    (b)  Information shall be declassified or downgraded by:

    (1)  the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority;

    (2)  the originator's current successor in function, if that individual has original classification authority;

    (3)  a supervisory official of either the originator or his or her successor in function, if the supervisory official has original classification authority; or

    (4)  officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official of the originating agency.

    (c)  The Director of National Intelligence (or, if delegated by the Director of National Intelligence, the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence) may, with respect to the Intelligence Community, after consultation with the head of the originating Intelligence Community element or department, declassify, downgrade, or direct the declassification or downgrading of information or intelligence relating to intelligence sources, methods, or activities.

    (d)  It is presumed that information that continues to meet the classification requirements under this order requires continued protection.  In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified.  When such questions arise, they shall be referred to the agency head or the senior agency official.  That official will determine, as an exercise of discretion, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to the national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure.  This provision does not:

    (1)  amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or

    (2)  create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.

    (e)  If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office determines that information is classified in violation of this order, the Director may require the information to be declassified by the agency that originated the classification.  Any such decision by the Director may be appealed to the President through the National Security Advisor.  The information shall remain classified pending a prompt decision on the appeal.

    (f)  The provisions of this section shall also apply to agencies that, under the terms of this order, do not have original classification authority, but had such authority under predecessor orders.

    (g)  No information may be excluded from declassification under section 3.3 of this order based solely on the type of document or record in which it is found.  Rather, the classified information must be considered on the basis of its content.

    (h)  Classified nonrecord materials, including artifacts, shall be declassified as soon as they no longer meet the standards for classification under this order.

    (i)  When making decisions under sections 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 of this order, agencies shall consider the final decisions of the Panel.

    You keep missing the point (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 04:30:10 PM EST
    That whatever information the CIA or whomever decided AFTER THE FACT that certain documents were classified.  And if the State Department got the same information independently, then she WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION to mark them classified.

    Since the FBI has already said she isn't being investigated, do you think they are covering for her??


    No, (none / 0) (#169)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 07:06:31 PM EST

    It's not a matter of the information being classified after the fact. The IG stated it was classified  when sent and received. That the documents containing the classified information were not marked obviously is because people sent Clinton summaries or paraphrased renditions of information that was derived from documents classified by other agencies and sent unmarked emails containing the info tp Clinton.

    There may be nothing more than negligence involved but that just helps demonstrate one of the many reaspns having the private server was irresponsible and wrpng and why leaving government with the dpcuments was wrong. Certainly no one is going to defend her ordering the server wiped.

    The good news is there is no chance her astoundlingly inept attempt to stonewall will succeed and this will be fully investigated.


    "Obviously?" Why, because that's the (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 07:39:32 PM EST
    only way you can make more of this than it is?

    And what, pray tell, does this "obvious" scenario you've dreamed up have to do with a private server?  Are you suggesting that the senders would have been more careful, more observant of the rules for communicating by e-mail if Clinton had been on the SD system?  That they broke the rules because she was on a private server?  

    The problem is that no one's suggested it, no one's hinted at it, no one's accused anyone of that.  Not to mention that there are other, better ways to send classified material and discuss classified information, and there's no indication that Clinton and her staff didn't use them.

    I do take issue, also, with your characterization of Clinton as stonewalling.  Is it her fault that all these e-mails have to be reviewed?  She said months ago that she wanted the public to see them, so they could see for themselves, but she cannot and could not just release them without a security review.  She's not the one dragging her feet - she turned over the materials, and now has also turned over the actual server and the thumb drive.

    None of it will be enough for you.  I forget which Clinton Rule that is, but we all know that nothing she says, nothing she does, ever satisfies.

    As I said in the other post - it's tiresome.


    ?4U (1.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 07:11:35 AM EST
    If you worked from home for a company for say 4 years, doing work and personal stuff from the same computer, and your company said that they wanted a copy of all company emails, how would you handle the request?

    Would you send them the company emails and hold onto your personal emails?

    or would you send them the company emails and destroy all your personal emails?

    If the latter, why would you feel the need to destroy your personal emails?


    I would (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 07:18:41 AM EST
    certainly destroy my personal emails if they wanted my computer because it's none of their damn business. You're proving the point that the GOP is not really concerned about any of the government emails. It's all about wanting some sort of personal details because we all know the GOP likes to snoop in that kind of stuff.

    personal emails (1.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 07:56:06 AM EST
    I would certainly destroy my personal emails if they wanted my computer because it's none of their damn business

    But why destroy them? Why not save them on another device, put that device in a closet, and send them the company emails?

    Wouldn't you keep those personal emails as a sort of diary where they can be accessed for future reference for a book or something?


    Frankly (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 08:13:07 AM EST
    my personal emails are something that I delete on a daily basis. I've deleted hundreds of them at a time why on earth would I want to save them if the company wanted my computer? Personal emails are not important.

    In my case, my firm wouldn't have to (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 08:01:41 AM EST
    ask me for my work-related e-mails - they would have them because when I work from home, I am logged into the firm's system, not working off my own.

    But let's say I had been.  In my opinion, the firm would be entitled to my work-related e-mails, but my personal e-mails are none of their business.  If I had to destroy them in order to keep them out of their grubby hands, I would.  

    The problem seems to be that somehow Clinton has to prove a negative: she has to prove that the e-mails she did not provide, or that she deleted/destroyed, were not work-related.  The mindset seems to be, "but how do we know you gave us everything if we can't see ALL the e-mails on your system?"  With an underlying implication that perhaps she communicated government information to people who were not authorized to be privy to it.

    Is that a fair question?  Should there have been an objective third party to oversee the decision as to which e-mails were work-related and which were not?  Would that have helped avoid some of this ridiculousness?

    In my opinion, probably not.  

    Listening to Bob Woodward the other day, he said that the importance of the personal e-mails is that we would learn a lot about who Hillary Clinton is.  Think about that for a minute.  He's basically saying he thinks we're entitled to be voyeurs.  Someone like this probably looks into the medicine cabinets in the homes he's invited to so he can learn more about who they are.  As if he has a right to know this kind of information.

    I think the government's information is about as secure as water in a sieve.  You can't pick up a newspaper or watch a news broadcast without reading or hearing about the information being leaked by anonymous sources.  Time and again, classified information has been selectively leaked - most often to try to scare the public into not pushing back against whatever insulting invasion of privacy it wants to undertake or is already involved in.  Or to wage a war.

    And that seems to be just okey-dokey with the powers that be, because it serves their agenda.

    As I said to someone else, if you want to make this about the integrity of the State Department's - or any agency's or department's - adherence to document and communications policies and laws, that's fair - have that discussion, or that investigation.  But let's not just turn the lights in their direction - let's turn some of these bright lights on the Intelligence committees in the Congress - let's find out how secure the classified information they are privy to is, shall we?  Just be prepared to find out that many of those driving this thing are far more guilty of violating those regulations and laws than the one person who seems to be the target here.

    As an aside, I have to say that what's going on right now is one of the reasons why I completely dreaded a Clinton run for president; I knew it would be one controversy/scandal/witch-hunt after another.  


    The assumption being (none / 0) (#189)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 02:14:30 AM EST
    that her private server was less secure than the servers used for standard government business (but not necessarily the preferred conduit for classified information.)

    We will see, I suppose, if that assumption is true.  What if the FBI determines that Clinton's system was never hacked?  Kerry has said he does not believe the .gov accounts are all that secure.


    Will not wiping (none / 0) (#202)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 08:32:39 AM EST
     of the server (if competently done) make such determinations impossible? Wiping a drive is different than deleting specific data files. A wipe would also write over all logs and caches and eliminate the information a forensic examination might otherwise recover as to the nature and functionality of the security methods, access to the system, file transfer and storage, when, how and by whom specific files were read, moved, modified, deleted, etc.

      What earthly reason would there to be to wipe the server if the only goal was to remove personal emails?

      In court, when it can be shown that a party with custody and control of potential evidence deliberately destroyed such evidence the other party is entitled to an instruction informing the jury that it is permissible to draw an adverse inference (i.e., that the destroyed evidence would damage the case of the destroying party)from the act of destruction.


    concept art for the Trump Wall (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:54:43 PM EST
    In case you missed it (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 04:32:42 PM EST
    I'm a great builder. What do I best in life, I build. Your infrastructure is crumbling. Isn't it nice to have a builder? A real builder. So you take precast plank. It comes 30 feet long, 40 feet long, 50 feet long. You see the highways where they can span 50, 60 feet, even longer than that, right? And do you a beautiful nice precast plank with beautiful everything. Just perfect. I want it to be so beautiful because maybe someday they'll call it The Trump Wall. Maybe. So I have to make sure it's beautiful, right? I'll be very proud of that wall. If they call at this The Trump Wall, it has to be beautiful. And you put that plank up and you dig your footings. And you put that plank up -- there's no ladder going over that. If they ever go up there, they're in trouble, because here's no way to get down. Maybe a rope.

    That image is of course from the movie Maze Runner.  But it's exactly what he is describing.   I was going to use the wall from Game of Thrones but I guess it couldn't be ice.


    Trump would love those ice scythes though! (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:36:31 PM EST
    Peal those anchor babies right off that wall.

    My spouse cracked me up (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 11:29:04 PM EST
    On the nightly news, when Jeb was trying to act all Trump tough and asked the reporter if he had a better descriptor than anchor baby, my spouse said United States citizen :)

    I read (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 04:41:29 PM EST
    where the GOP is going to unload on Trump in September. I guess it's probably Jeb who is going to be unloading some of his money on Trump. It will be interesting to see if it does anything.

    Even if it hurts Trump, it won't help Jeb! (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:40:07 PM EST
    I wish them (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 04:52:01 PM EST
    all the luck in the world with that.

    Yo tambien... (none / 0) (#158)
    by fishcamp on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 05:18:43 PM EST
    Jeb! Is in deep doo for the anchor babies thing (none / 0) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 05:12:53 PM EST
    KEENE, N.H. -- A feistier, combative Jeb Bush said Thursday that he doesn't believe the term "anchor babies" is offensive and blamed Democrats for perpetuating the idea that it's a loaded term.

    In one of his most aggressive exchanges with reporters to date, Bush dismissed suggestions that the two-word term deemed offensive by many Hispanics and denounced by Democrats is improper.

    "Do you have a better term? You give me a better term and I'll use it," he snapped at a reporter who asked him.

    He is pi$$ing away any advantage he ever had on this subject.

    Anchor Babies would be a great band name.

    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 06:09:05 PM EST
    responded to Jeb by saying "they're called babies". LOL.

    Great comment (none / 0) (#190)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 02:16:33 AM EST
    Hillary is dynamite with Latinos....She creamed Obama during the Primaries (which was not all that wonderful from my standpoint.)

    Does (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 06:10:19 PM EST
    he call his wife "anchor baby" is what I want to know.

    The interesting thing about this is (none / 0) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 06:31:14 PM EST
    the happy, for Donald, coincidence is that Maroc Rubio - one of his according to conventional wisdom most serious opponents - is in fact an anchor baby.  Jindals parents were at least here legally.  Rubios parents were not legal when he was born.

    What a coincidence! (none / 0) (#165)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 06:42:08 PM EST
    Neither were my mother- and father-in-law when my wife and seven of her ten siblings were born in Corpus Christi, TX.

    I guess Republicans won't stop talking about immigration like this until less than 5% of non-white Americans support them. Yeah, that oughta purify the party!



    Okay. (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 06:59:16 PM EST
    Well, once the GOP base finds out that Rubio is an "anchor baby" he's gonna be dead in the primaries. His numbers already are not good.

    After I heard this yesterday (none / 0) (#196)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 08:04:02 AM EST
    i heard Marco make a point of saying his parents were not here illegally.  My guess would be that they were here "legally" because of the deal with Cuba that allows you to stay if you make it to a beach.

    I think what the original comment was based on is that they were not citizens yet.

    Sort of illustrates how silly all this hair splitting is.


    Why would he do that? (none / 0) (#199)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 08:23:35 AM EST
    Columba was born in Mexico, met Jeb! there and came to the US to get married.

    She was not an anchor baby.


    I have a better term. (none / 0) (#164)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 06:32:01 PM EST
    A feistier, combative Jeb Bush said Thursday that he doesn't believe the term 'anchor babies' is offensive and blamed Democrats for perpetuating the idea that it's a loaded term. [...] 'Do you have a better term? You give me a better term and I'll use it,' he snapped at a reporter who asked him.

    How about "American citizens"?


    Or, as Hillary tweeted, (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by caseyOR on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:19:04 PM EST
    they're called babies.

    Yes, I think that about sums it up. Babies.


    Yes, exactly! (none / 0) (#183)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 11:33:26 PM EST
    That's what my husband said to the TV. Made me snort my evening wine.

    re Clinton . . . (none / 0) (#191)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 05:13:12 AM EST
    amid the hue and cry over emails and benghazi  . . .

    I think that her character was shown by her votes on the Iraq war and the Patriot Act and various kinds of intrusive and dubiously necessary financial reporting expansions . . .

    in 2008, I supported, if you could call it that, Obama based on her behavior over the previous several years.  Of course, by supported, I mean, I wished and preferred he would win the nomination . . . cause he had at least a slightly better record on those things than she did . . .

    The record seems to be that Clinton goes along with idiocy in order to not be a part of the in crowd at the time. . .

    Clearly (none / 0) (#197)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 08:04:34 AM EST
    you have given this a lot of thought

    Just curious (none / 0) (#200)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 08:25:04 AM EST
    What record are talking about?

    So, the ever-shifting defense (none / 0) (#204)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 11:23:55 AM EST
     pproffered by BTD has now morphed into essentially are you willing to claim no one else has ever done the same or similar careless and negligent things.

      No, I'm not. I am however of the opinion that the one who is running for President is rightfully subject  to greater scrutiny and a greater level of accountability. I'd also question whether the argument that the person who was in charge of the agency is somehow helped by claims her underlings did such things on her watch.

       The  argument that well, heck, we ran such a loose ship none of us really bothered to think about these things and good golly  it was commonplace to ignore security issues because doing so was a pain in the butt, don't you know, wouldn't even work for Sarah Palin.

        If say, Dick Cheney, offered up such a feeble rationale people here would likely not be so complacent.

    Timeout for (none / 0) (#206)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 03:33:07 PM EST
    Reconstructionist for a personal insult to Big Tent Democrat. Commenters may disagree with authors of this blog, but they may not personally insult us.