home

Tuesday Open Thread and Diary Rescue

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 11:27:16 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I've got some jail visiting to do today and will be offline. Big Tent Democrat or TChris may be around this afternoon, but in the meantime, here's an open thread for you.

Also check out the new diaries:

♦Reality on Film in Brazil
♦An Utter Failure of Imagination
♦How low law enforcement has fallen

< Plethora of "Phony Soldiers" | Nevada Stays Execution >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Open Thread and Diary Rescue | 30 comments (30 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Altitude Sickness (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 12:45:07 PM EST
    How long does the effect of altitude sickness last after climbing 19000 feet.  Did Mt. kilimanjaro last week and am still sick and irritable and forgetful.  Is it age catching up or alt sickness?

    It's Shaka's revenge... (none / 0) (#2)
    by desertswine on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 12:50:16 PM EST


    Parent
    My cure for going to altitiude (none / 0) (#3)
    by scribe on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 01:18:10 PM EST
    (i.e., from home near sea-level to mountain vacation spot) is to make sure I eat high-iron foods for a couple days before, and avoid gas producing foods.  Since I like liver and onions, that's usually the night-before traveling dinner.  Then I drink a lot of water on arrival.  Never really had any problems with altitude after adopting that regimen.

    If you are still having headaches a week after getting back, you probably should call your doctor, if only to ask what to do.

    Parent

    thanks (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 03:48:25 PM EST
    did you ever get just general loopiness as a side effect? I seem to be having a difficult time concentrating and with recall, nothing major but recall is proving somewhat difficult on occasion.,  I thought it may be jet lag but this is more intense than i have ever experienced.

    Parent
    What you are describing are symptoms of (none / 0) (#12)
    by Oliver W Holmes the 3rd on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 04:26:04 PM EST
    Hypoxia.  From high altitude (above 16,000 feet) activities, this is common without proper oxygen supply.  I would advise you to consult with a qualified Physician, as with hypoxia, the symptoms you are describing should have already subsided.

    Parent
    I concur (none / 0) (#14)
    by scribe on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 04:46:14 PM EST
    See your doctor.

    The hyopxia symptoms should (begin to) subside within minutes of returning to lower altitude, and definitely be done within a day or so.  That the symptoms you describe continue a week or more indicates to me (lawyer, amateur doctor) something other than altitude sickness may be involved.

    Parent

    Better safe than sorry man... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 04:59:18 PM EST
    get checked out and feel better J.

    Parent
    when I was a kid (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jen M on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 05:21:02 PM EST
    up in the andes, I wound up waking up with an oxygen mask on.

    Of course I was like ten and running around like a fool ten year old.

    My mother was sick longer.

    The oxygen worked wonders. Because, of course, we saw a DOCTOR!

    Parent

    Action alert (none / 0) (#4)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 01:28:08 PM EST
    If you have a minute and sufficient outrage, call Senator Leahy at 202-224-4242 and ask why Karl Rove hasn't been arrested for ignoring a congressional subpoena.

    Aren't gvt subpoenas what we're (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 02:17:16 PM EST
    upset at Verizon, et al, for not ignoring?

    I know, I know, there are gvt subpoenas and there are gvt subpoenas...

    Parent

    This is a congressional subpoena (none / 0) (#6)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 02:58:17 PM EST
    Unlike the double-super-secret White House subpoenas, which we haven't actually SEEN.  All we have is CLAIMS that there were subpoenas, but we don't know for sure that they existed or what the terms were.  A subpoena should be a public document, available for inspection, but these were not.

    Karl Rove's subpoena, which we know for a fact exists, would be answered in a public forum and The People would be permitted to observe.

    Do you have a problem with Karl Rove being required to testify before congress?

    Parent

    Of course not. (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 03:12:15 PM EST
    Like I said, there are subpoenas and then there are subpoenas...

    Parent
    Good idea, (none / 0) (#13)
    by Pancho on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 04:40:08 PM EST
    while you're at it, ask him when Sandy Berger will take his polygraph.

    Parent
    Look! Over there! The CLENIS! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 05:21:46 PM EST
    ask him when Sandy Berger will take his polygraph.

    Help me out.  When was the subpoena delivered to Berger, what was the scheduled date of his appearance, and what does the Senate Judiciary Committee think he knows about the firing of the US attorneys?

    Just so we're clear.

    Parent

    It was part of his plea bargin... (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:09:29 PM EST


    Parent
    What the hell is wrong (none / 0) (#26)
    by Pancho on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 12:17:04 PM EST
    with you people? Jim makes a perfectly reasonable post stating a simple fact, and you call it moronic? Edger certainly seems to think your comment was brilliant, but you obviously have a serious problem.

    Parent
    Pancho (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 07:04:22 PM EST
    You have to understand...

    DA and I thoroughly dislike each other, so he weighs in every chance he gets with some off the wall comment.

    So this typical.

    I call him an "ankle biter" because of tactics/comments such as this.

    He really can't help himself.

    Parent

    I made nothing up, and you know it. (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:56:32 AM EST
    The following took less than 30 seconds to Google. The following is two out of 434 hits.

    Something that easy to find, and you couldn't do it before making your nasties????

    You define yourself.

    hehe

    However, under a plea agreement that Robinson must accept, instead of jail, Berger would pay a $10,000 fine, surrender his security clearance for three years and cooperate with investigators. Security clearance allows access to classified government materials.

    But still missing are drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's response to a failed terror plot to blow up the Los Angeles International Airport during December 1999, otherwise known as "the Millennium plot."

    One source told FOX News that the report was critical of how the Clinton administration handled Al Qaeda threats to the U.S. homeland and that the missing report made security recommendations that were never implemented.

    Link

    The Justice Department should administer a polygraph test to former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger to find out what documents he took from the National Archives in 2002 and 2003, Rep. Tom Davis wrote in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales dated Monday.

    Davis, ranking Republican on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is leading a group of 18 lawmakers who say the Justice Department has been "remarkably incurious" about Berger's decision to remove documents relating to the Sept. 11 commission's inquiry into his role in helping prevent terror attacks during the Clinton administration.

    "It is extraordinarily important that the Justice Department avail itself of its rights under the plea agreement and administer a polygraph examination to Mr. Berger to question him about the extent of his thievery. This may be the only way for anyone to know whether Mr. Berger denied the 9/11 commission and the public the complete account of the Clinton administration's actions or inactions during the lead up to the terrorist attacks on the United States," Davis wrote.

    Link

    Parent

    Try reading, (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:21:50 PM EST
    Try reading the link.

    Try reading the link before making an incorrect statement.

    The Justice Department should administer a polygraph test to former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger to find out what documents he took from the National Archives in 2002 and 2003, Rep. Tom Davis wrote in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales dated Monday.


    Parent
    and to continue (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:24:19 PM EST
    No one said that a thing about him appearing before a committee. Repack inserted that in error in his response to Pancho.

    Action alert (none / 0) (#4)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 12:28:08 PM CST
    If you have a minute and sufficient outrage, call Senator Leahy at 202-224-4242 and ask why Karl Rove hasn't been arrested for ignoring a congressional subpoena.

    Pancho then wrote:

    Good idea, (none / 0) (#13)
    by Pancho on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 03:40:08 PM CST
    while you're at it, ask him when Sandy Berger will take his polygraph.

    Note that he didn't specify a place.

    Repack replied:

    Look! Over there! The CLENIS! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 04:21:46 PM CST
    ask him when Sandy Berger will take his polygraph.
    Help me out.  When was the subpoena delivered to Berger, what was the scheduled date of his appearance, and what does the Senate Judiciary Committee think he knows about the firing of the US attorneys?
    Just so we're clear.

    I decide to "Help" Repack out by giving him some factual information about Berger. I wrote:
    It was part of his plea bargin... (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 06:09:29 PM CST

    After your errors and personal attacks, I provided the following as proof that Pancho's comment was valid.
    However, under a plea agreement that Robinson must accept, instead of jail, Berger would pay a $10,000 fine, surrender his security clearance for three years and cooperate with investigators.

    Your desire to parse words and turn first a good question by Pancho, and then my correct answer into a personal attack again demonstrates that you have nothing to contribute.

    Parent
    tehe (1.00 / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 01:43:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Breaking News: Hillary Pledges to End War (none / 0) (#8)
    by Aaron on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 03:18:35 PM EST
    Breaking News: Hillary Pledges to End War "Immediately" Upon Taking Office

    Don't play us Hillary.... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 03:53:38 PM EST
    Nobody with half a brain can actually believe that.

    I don't doubt that she would declare the "war" over, all the while keeping the occupation raging on.

    Anyways, if anybody wants action, I'll lay 10-1 that we still have troops in Iraq after 2 years of a Hillary presidency.  Loser donates to TL....any takers name your wager.

    Parent

    No one here but us crickets. (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 04:08:17 PM EST


    Parent
    That story's a day old, and the lack of coverage (none / 0) (#15)
    by scribe on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 04:53:43 PM EST
    in the TradMedia tells me pretty much all I need to hear:

    HRC's playing to the crowd.  More importantly, she's playing the crowd.

    Here's the NYDN coverage of the speech HRC gave at the same function where looseheadprop saw her, and reported on her promise.  Read it and note the absolute lack of reference to what would ordinarily be a bombshell.  

    This announcement would be a major change of position for her - last week she couldn't see her way out of Iraq prior to 2013 at least.

    That the paper blows it off and doesn't cover it tells me they don't take her comment seriously, and therefore we shouldn't, either.

    Parent

    We're getting played allright.... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 05:07:12 PM EST
    what else is new.

    Parent
    Kdog (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:10:19 PM EST
    What kinda odds will you give me that Hillary is not elected??

    Parent
    I'm hoping she isn't elected..... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:49:46 AM EST
    No bet bro...cuz I wouldn't want to win that one:)

    Parent
    I still dont see (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 11:33:26 AM EST
    how she's going to carry a swing-state, and the Reds are completely out of the equation.

    She was more thoroughly demonized by the Right noise machine during her husbands presidency than Bill was.

    The whole thing is beginning to look more and more like a rigged game, and still a win/win proposition for the major contributers.

    One the bright side, another four years of the Thugs will drive a stake through the heart of the Right for the next 20 years.

    Parent

    I have to vent (none / 0) (#23)
    by 1980Ford on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 12:47:32 AM EST
    While reading the LA TIMES story, Santa Ana police arrest brother in girl's slaying 20 years ago just now, I was thinking, DNA is doing its job. But on a second read, I thought, WTF? I don't know what the DA has in the form of DNA, or how strong the case is, but why is it legal for him to say this?

    "The family seems to be acting like the family of the defendant," said prosecutor Larry Yellin, "and not the family of the victim."

    Yellin said he did not know what motivated Lopez to allegedly kill his sister, but detectives said they were not able to discount the possibility that the girl had been sexually molested.

    The prosecutor, however, said he would not present evidence that the girl had been sexually attacked. He declined to be specific about the new DNA link or say how or even when authorities got a break in the cold case.

    And they link to the old story, June 6, 1987, which has this line:

    He said there were no signs of sexual molestation. An autopsy will be performed.

    1. Is the writer of the story merely taking dictation from the prosecutor?
    2. Is the prosecutor's case so weak that he has to make it sound as evil as possible as if the beating death of a little girl wasn't evil enough?
    3. Why is it legal for a prosecutor to try someone in the media like that?


    Tuesday Open Thread and Diary Rescue | 30 comments (30 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment