home

Monday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 12:54:15 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

They predicted snow for Denver today but it's a gorgeous fall day so I'm going to take advantage of it.

For those of you online, here's an open thread.

< The Politics of Contrast Triumphant | Sully Ignores Krugman's Nobel >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Open Thread | 84 comments (84 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    billion dollars spent on election (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:41:28 PM EST
    and not one major news network writes a story that discusses how money controls our political process.  

    It amazes me how obscene it is that we spend a billion dollars on "democratic" elections.

    If there were no fundraising and candidates had to debate their way to the presidency, what would this election look like?  Moreover, I don't care who you are, when businesses are funding your campaigns to the tune of 70% or better how is it that you could possibly represent the people first?

    New Orleans is still not up and running and a billion is spent on the respective campaigns (including primaries).  I know, it is just like a tiny little earmark but it is still obscene....

    Too much obscenity... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:46:44 PM EST
    to keep track of, I swear.

    One bright side of a significant economic downturn might be us getting our national priorities in order.  Nothing like money getting tight to realize the difference between what you want and what you need.

    Who am I kidding...we'll just keep borrowing and borrowing until there isn't a sucker-nation left on planet earth who thinks we're good for it.

    Parent

    And how much of that went ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:48:32 PM EST
    into the pockets of TV networks?  65-70%?

    It's not hard to understand why the MSN likes a close election.

    Parent

    money doesnt talk, (none / 0) (#30)
    by sancho on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:59:47 PM EST
    it swears, as a famous iconoclast once noted.

    Parent
    USA population = 300 million people. So if we (none / 0) (#79)
    by Don in Seattle on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 04:08:16 PM EST
    spend a billion dollars on the Presidential election, it works out to about $3.30 per citizen. Does that really seem like such an unreasonable amount to you? It doesn't to me, especially since no one is forced to shell out a dime.

    Then again, my perspective could be skewed. I know I personally have contributed a lot more than $3.30 to the candidate of my choice this cycle. But I bet I'm not the only one here who could say that.

    Parent

    Sure it does (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 04:25:02 PM EST
    especially in light of the fact that more than 70% come from business.

    But lets take your argument at face value and change the system to ask each american to send 3.10 to the gov't for the elections to fund them.  That way the pols are only indebted to us as opposed to big business.  

    It is a mockery to spend a billion dollars when New Orleans is still not working properly.  

    It is a mockery when the majority of Americans base their voting decisions on advertisements they see as paid for by pols.  

    I would like to see no advertising.  Just debates.  Let's see how the msm behaves when there is no money attached to the candidates.  It grossly waters down coverage and obiterates investigative, in-depth journalism.

    10 million people out of work, 6 million underemployed and a billion on campaign spending.

    If you like a capitocracy than a billion may not mean much to you, but I would like to see the pols beholden to the people, not the corporations....

    Parent

    From which orifice did you pull that 70% figure? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 07:00:40 AM EST
    Businesses aren't allowed by law to contribute directly to Presidential campaigns.

    It's completely bogus -- a false dichotomy of the first order -- to say that what prevents our rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina is the $1 billion we spend on the presidential election. I don't know exactly what we've already spent on Katrina, but I'm sure it's in the tens of billions, maybe over $100 billion. It's pleasant to imagine that another billion would finish the job, but it wouldn't.

    Similarly, a billion dollars more or less is a drop in the bucket compared to the problem of American unemployment. And there is no reason at all to suppose that if we banned campaign commercials, the billion dollars saved would magically redirect itself toward effective career retraining programs. (OR to hurricane relief. How many different ways are you planning to spend this billion-dollar windfall?)

    You or I can always take some self-righteous stand against the way other people choose to spend their money. Why should we spend hundreds of billions each year on sodas and sugary cereal, when there are children starving in Darfur? Why do we allow people to spend as much as they want going to DisneyWorld, when that money would be better spent developing alternative energy systems?

    Americans probably waste a billion hours every day watching mindless TV shows. Come the Revolution, the people will devote that time to progressive re-education programs that will cure them of the false thinking caused by their lifelong indoctrination by the establishment capitocracy. Et cetera, et cetera, blah blah blah.

    (By the way, what is the need for a made-up word like 'capitocracy', when we already have 'plutocracy', a real word that means the same thing?)

    We don't have to "change the system" to enable people to send $3 to a Presidential election fund. That system has been in place for decades. Look at the top right checkbox on your Form 1040. It doesn't even cost you the 3 bucks!

    You say you want more "investigative, in-depth journalism"? Cool. I have no problem with that, none at all -- in fact, I'd like some more of that myself. What do you say we find some people who are doing that, and then patronize their advertisers?

    Come to think of it, that sounds like work. I'll get around to it.

    Someday.

    Maybe when political advertising is banned, I'll find the time.

    You go ahead, though.

    Parent

    You are right (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:22:42 AM EST
    businesses give to campaigns not directly, but indirectly.

    If you would like one thousand examples google them.  However I will provide one easy one for you and you can go to opensecrets.org and research for youself.

    "CFI says that as of Aug. 8, 173 organizations, primarily corporations, had donated to the conventions through the host committees, which are separate from the national party convention committees. The role of the host committees is to raise money to pay for the conventions, organize volunteers and provide hospitality to delegates and the media.

    In its report, "Inside Fundraising for the 2008 Party Conventions: Party Surrogates Gather Soft Money While Federal Regulators Turn a Blind Eye," CFI says sponsors receive invitations to private events with elected officials and party leaders, the chance to sponsor state delegation receptions and welcoming parties, and access to VIP areas in the convention auditorium.

    CFI says the roundtable discussions, such as the health care roundtable, are co-hosted by donors who contribute $100,000 to $500,000.

    Host committees have until 60 days after the conventions to disclose the contributions they receive. CFI notes that a few companies have publicly revealed their donations, including Lilly, which donated $250,000 to each host committee. Amgen and Merck said they also contributed $250,000 to each committee.

    Ken Johnson, PhRMA's Senior VP of Communications and Public Affairs, said the association was making a "sizable contribution" of equal amount to both conventions. He declined to say how much, saying it was up to the host committees to divulge.

    Public Citizen's governmental affairs lobbyist Craig Holman issued his own report on convention funding in which he describes the sponsorship levels. The RNC sponsorship packages are $500,000 for gold, $250,000 for silver, $100,000 for bronze and $50,000 for Viking. The DNC has five sponsorship levels: $1 million presidential, $500,000 platinum, $250,000 gold, $100,000 silver, and $52,800 for mile-high-plus sponsorship."

    Parent

    Granted. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:59:36 PM EST
    Rich people can afford to give more money to political campaigns than not-rich people. Many of them have employers, and their jobs tend to be high-paying.

    When they run into their individual donation maximum, as they often quickly do, they can try to hit up everyone on their Blackberry. Some of them get to be quite good at this. They do it for their colleges, their museums, their charities, their operas, and their politicians. Think of it as grassroots community organizing for the rich, and maybe it won't seem quite so sinister.

    Scott Fitzgerald is supposed to have said, "The rich are different from you and me," to which Hemingway replied, "Yes. They have more money." On the other hand, there are a lot more of us po' folks.

    Parent

    Bundlers (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:23:58 AM EST
    Bundlers are people with friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who's willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate in one big "bundle."

    Even though these donors direct more money to the candidates than anyone else, disclosure can be spotty, with Obama and McCain posting bundlers by ranges, indicated in this chart with the "max" and "min" columns, and with the top ranges being simply "$500,000 or more." Together, as of August 18, 534 elites have directed at least $75,750,000 to McCain, and 509 have gathered at least $63,300,000 for Obama. "

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bundlers.php?id=N00009638

    Parent

    because I like capitocracy (none / 0) (#88)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:24:31 AM EST
    :)

    Parent
    More PROOF (none / 0) (#91)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 09:34:51 AM EST
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27290815/
    you want to argue campaign financing and how business rules our government, which is not "plutocracy" but as Reich defines it supercapitalism and as I define it "capitocracy" you ought to read more than the headlines.  Dig a little, it will serve you well.

    Parent
    Snow? It's 80 degrees here. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:46:37 PM EST
    Today was my first day of jury duty. We sat and sat and sat and then they came in and dismissed us. I guess the trial for my panel was either delayed or some kind of plea bargain was made. Now I have to call each day after 4:30 to see when/if I have to go again. This lasts two weeks.

    I was disappointed that we didn't get to the part where the attorneys question us. I saw the most well known lawyer in Knoxville go into the courtroom. Talk about a heart throb. No wonder he wins so many cases. He probably smiles at the jury and they are already on his side.

    After 3 cold, rainy, dreary days... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:57:36 PM EST
    ...we're just happy to have the Colorado sunshine back!

    That's too bad you didn't get to experience more of the process.  But, there is still hope from the sounds of it.  

    What did you end up wearing for your big day?

    Parent

    Business dress. Oculus guilted me into it. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:02:18 PM EST
    Some of the men wore jeans but most were dressed business casual. I would prefer jeans but I guess if I go back, I'll dress nice again.

    I did find out that we are in the hard core criminal court so if I get on a jury, it won't be something minor. Most of the others there were pretty old so I guess it will depend on what kind of jury they want. There were about three times as many man as women. It was boring. I wanted to sneak in a court room and watch a real trial.

    Parent

    When I was on the grand jury..... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:26:52 PM EST
    I wore my swiss-cheese jeans and a Bob Marley t-shirt pretty much everyday.  

    The DA's didn't like me too much, if you couldn't already guess:)

    Parent

    I would definitely want you on my jury kdog. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:29:09 PM EST


    Parent
    You're such a rebel, Kdog (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:31:29 PM EST
    ;)

    Parent
    Not true... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:35:28 PM EST
    I'm just a knucklehead.

    If I was a rebel, I'd be on trial:)  

    I'm too selfish, can't part with the little freedom we have left to fight for more.

    Parent

    I was being .. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:43:47 PM EST
    facetious.

    Parent
    Thought you might be righteously... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:59:52 PM EST
    poking some fun, setting the record straight just in case my friend:)

    Though I was able to sweet-talk one slob out of the criminal justice ringer during my term, not to toot my own horn or anything:)

    Parent

    I had jury service (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by eric on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:13:59 PM EST
    in March.  I was seated on four panels, but was dismissed on every one.  It turns out that they don't like lawyers on the jury.  Heh.

    Parent
    I was surprised to learn that lawyers were (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:18:27 PM EST
    ever allowed to serve. If I were charged with something, I'd like lawyers on my jury. I have talked to many people since I found out I had jury duty and I'm shocked at how many told me "you know they're all guilty". They would be terrible jurors but you know there are people like that who make it through the selection.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by eric on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:25:08 PM EST
    that I would probably want a lawyer on the jury, too.  Interestingly, it was the prosecution that struck me all four times. (All of the cases I was called up to were criminal cases).  The defense was fine with me.

    Parent
    I'm not surprised that the defense would want (none / 0) (#49)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:28:01 PM EST
    you and not the prosecutor. They probably prefer the type of people I mentioned above (no offense oculus).

    Do they say in the court room that one side or the other doesn't want you or did you find out later?

    Parent

    It depends on the judge (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by eric on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:07:25 PM EST
    here, anyway.  Some Judges do voir dire for the whole jury at once and then have the lawyers cross off the names on a list.  Others do the jurors one by one, and each side has to accept you or strike you.  I had both happen to me.  I knew the prosecutor crossed me off right away because I saw her put a big X over me on her jury chart.

    Parent
    You guys can have the lawyers... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:29:17 PM EST
    I'll take 12 ex-cons to decide my fate.

    Parent
    kdog (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by eric on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:10:32 PM EST
    I can assure you that you WOULD want me on your jury.  My wife always says that to me, "everyone is not guilty".

    Beyond a reasonable doubt is way, way up there with me.  Of course, that is the way it should be for everyone, I think.

    Parent

    I'm sure I would brother... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:14:47 PM EST
    if your comments are any indication, you're a man after me own heart.

    But I'm still taking 12 random ex-cons over 12 random lawyers...because, sun god forbid, odds are I'll be guilty:)

    Parent

    Funny Video (none / 0) (#2)
    by liberalcraze2008 on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:07:43 PM EST
    Check out this funny video about Sarah Palin. You'll laugh your asses off.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1exiyBYnJ00

    Another really good laugh (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by tootired on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:38:29 PM EST
    High Information Voters

    Parent
    Go Obama/Palin ticket! (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:11:37 PM EST
    Yeh, that tape is just so depressing, isn't it?  

    Biden is invisible -- but that was to be expected of almost anyone picked for the ticket. :-)

    Parent

    Since these Obama supporters (none / 0) (#77)
    by tootired on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:53:03 PM EST
    are enthusiastic about having Palin on his ticket, it sort of flies in the face of those who say that Palin is dragging McCain down, doesn't it? I am not a Howard Stern fan to say the least, but he certainly nailed this one. It's depressing, but also revealing. Identity voting is alive and well.

    Parent
    You go looking for uninformed voters, you will (none / 0) (#90)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:09:45 PM EST
    find them. Obama supporters, McCain supporters, doesn't matter. Undecideds are probably worst of all, as a group.

    Jay Leno has been walking around demonstrating people's ignorance, on all manner of topics, since forever. It really shouldn't be all that surprising, at this late date.

    Parent

    This weeks episode... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:07:55 PM EST
    of "The Shakedown" brought to you by America's War on Drugs.

    Why do I bother voting again?

    The Santa Ana's have kicked off here in CA. (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:09:27 PM EST
    No relief from the winds. Branches incessantly scraping the roof and windows. Cars steer funny on the freeway. Gritty dust everywhere, on every surface. Basketball hoops, trees and their limbs down everywhere. Chapped hands and lips and bloody noses. Forest fires. Acrid smoke everywhere you turn, inside your house and out, all day and all night.

    We need a healthy rainy season this year.

    Ah, the Santa Ana's (none / 0) (#5)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:13:00 PM EST
    Long time since I've felt those. New fires or the same ones from the weekend?

    Parent
    I think the same ones, (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:18:34 PM EST
    but the winds really kicked up last night and today so the fires have been on a tear.

    Parent
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#10)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:25:03 PM EST
    Sorry to hear it's getting so bad. I saw footage of one fire last night/early AM. Looked like a lot of the smoke could get trapped in the Valley area below the fire.

    I've been watching the fires there since spring when I found out I was moving back. I'm so afraid I'll lose my place to live before I get there. Couple close calls early on . . . Ah, the 'joys' of CA living.

    Parent

    Rainy seasons actually (none / 0) (#8)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:21:14 PM EST
    make things worse!

    It's a paradox all right.  More rain means more vegetation which dries into kindling which fuels the fires.

    OTOH, steadily dropping rainfall leads to desertification which lowers the fuel load.

    Pick your poison!

    We pay for snow removal up north.  People who live in fire ecologies pay for fire control.  It adds to the unique flavor of a region.  It's not a bug, it's a feature!  I do hope we don't have any winter storms this year because we blew all our catastrophe days on Hurricane Ike's power outages.  In the future, I would like the Gulf Coast to keep its hurricanes under control.  [/snark]

    Parent

    Don't forget the mudslides! (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:28:27 PM EST
    Heavy rains after a heavy fire season . . .

    I think I'll be paying for both snow and fire services, lol!~

    Parent

    Tracking the fires last year (none / 0) (#28)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:57:21 PM EST
    I was hearing both fire/smoke alerts on the coast and restricted access, chains-only roads up in the mountains because of snow.  (via radio streaming on the internet)

    It gave me something to think about.  Fire OR Ice?  How about Fire AND Ice?  Plus mudslides, earthquakes and the rare hurricane or tsunami and flooding rivers.

    Is there a safe place to live in CA?


    Parent

    I think if you checked a fault map (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:19:51 PM EST
    you could find a safe place in the desert?

    I still need to check the fault map, but I'm a bit below the snow line (should just see a bit unless I drive up the road), non-flood area, and I don't think there's a mudslide threat, but need to double check, lol!~ Mostly, I think my biggest threat will be fire. Seems to be very good rapid response in the area from the tracking I've been doing. Even so, I already have my evac plan figured out since I'll be arriving in fire season, most likely. 6 pets makes for interesting planning, lol!~

    Parent

    It's always good to be prepared. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:29:09 PM EST
    My sister is going through relationship troubles and was asking family if she could stay with them/us if she needed to.  I told her disaster preparedness is always good, no matter if the crisis is a physical disaster or a more personal one.

    Parent
    I'm thinking of a used trailer (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:37:29 PM EST
    I could go park anywhere and my pets would be fine even if I slept on my parents couch. Less stress on the poor cats, lol!~

    My niece is currently living with them due to abusive BF and I have camped out there a time of 2 back in the day. It's actually their cabin I'm moving to while I relocate. Takes a lot of the stress out of relocating from the other coast.

    Parent

    Pop up, tow behind camping trailers (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:42:19 PM EST
    aren't too bad.  No idea what even a used one would cost, but they aren't too heavy.

    Reminds me of my husband arguing he needed the utility of a full sized pick up.  I argued back that he'd get more utility at a lower price by buying a trailer and a hitch.  

    Parent

    I'll need a vehicle large enough to (none / 0) (#66)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:54:51 PM EST
    to transport a crated Dalmatian or 2 on a regular basis, but I do not want one big enough to evac the whole crew. I think in the long run, a second hand trailer will be cheaper and just plain ol' more practical! I could get buy with something the size of a Liberty day-to-day, but not to evac.

    After the mountain stint, I'll most likely be along the Russian River somewhere, so long term solutions are needed  :)

    Parent

    Yep, (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:44:55 PM EST
    a healthy rainy season doesn't make the subsequent Santa Ana's nor the fire season any less, it's just something we've not had for a couple years and, emotionally, I miss it and want it.

    That and our water supplies need it.

    Parent

    Wish I could give ya some of ours bro.... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:49:03 PM EST
    we had a very wet summer, and it shows in the trees...halfway through October and still 99% green and lush.

    Be safe, my man.

    Parent

    I think we're ok. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:04:32 PM EST
    Funny you're 90% green, we have a couple trees in front of my house that are turning red right now.

    Parent
    OK - this makes no sense at all (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:15:13 PM EST
    Penn State is undefeated and obliterated Wisconsin a week after Wisconsin took Ohio State to the limit and came up a squinch short.

    And the Coaches put PSU third?

    I've long (like 25-30 years) thought there was some level of bad blood or something between JoePa and the polls, and this falls into that category.  Man's 80-something, still kicking footballs (that's how he hurt his knee) and still winning and winning big.

    Oh, yeah.  Bowden is out at Clemson (big surprise, that), and Romo broke his pinkie and is out for a month.  (I think he punched a wall....)

    Time to mixmaster your fantasy leagues.

    As a Nittany Lion alum (none / 0) (#9)
    by rdandrea on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:22:42 PM EST
    (well grad school anyway)

    Let me take a stab at that.

    I think that Penn State's schedule has been fairly weak at this point in the season.

    If the Lions are still undefeated in two weeks and still ranked where we are, we can grouse about the polls.  The biggest mistake we can make is to look past a weak Michigan to Ohio State.  Weak or not, Michigan has beaten us nine straight times.

    Ohio State appears to be on the mend.  Their defense looked great Saturday.

    Maybe I've been listening to Joe Pa's weekly sob stories for too many years, but I'm totally surprised that we're in the top five.  We haven't really been tested yet.

    Parent

    Don't get me wrong, Donald (none / 0) (#76)
    by rdandrea on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:32:58 PM EST
    I've been following the Lions as long as you have.  And this is indeed one of the better teams I've ever watched.  They certainly have been the most fun team to watch since I've been following them.  Great QB, great receiver corps.

    I'm hoping and rooting.

    I'm just not ready to ride an emotional roller coaster yet.  Been there, done that, like going undefeated in 1973, winning the Orange Bowl, and finishing fifth in both polls.

    They have to play well every game, through the last game of the season.  They finish with Michigan State, who is tough this year.

    I'll start getting excited after the Ohio State game; more excited November 23 if they can keep playing the kind of ball they have been playing.

    (looking for some wood to knock on)

    Parent

    Clemson just fired (none / 0) (#34)
    by bjorn on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:07:16 PM EST
    Tommy Bowden as head coach.  The ACC is no longer very competitive but I wish Florida State would fire Bobby Bowden.  It is time for him to go too!  He just wants to beat Joe Paterno's all-time win record


    Parent
    It would be a lot of fun (none / 0) (#35)
    by rdandrea on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:07:36 PM EST
    Some of the best bowl matchups ever.

    The goal-line stand that beat us in 1979 is probably one of the most memorable goal-line stands in college football history.

    A guy who used to play ball for my dad in high school was the PSU kicker on the fake field goal play in the 1959 Liberty Bowl where PSU scored the winning (and only) touchdown.

    Galen Hall, the holder and backup quarterback who threw that pass for the TD is now the Lions' offensive coordinator (and probably Joe's ultimate replacement, but that's only speculation)

    Parent

    Is that the same man who used to coach at (none / 0) (#36)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:10:06 PM EST
    Florida?

    Parent
    According to Wikipedia (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by rdandrea on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:11:00 PM EST
    Yes

    Parent
    He's pretty old. What's with Penn St and (none / 0) (#40)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:14:55 PM EST
    the older coaches? Not that I wouldn't mind a good coach of any age down here (Vol fan).

    Parent
    The other name I've heard is (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by rdandrea on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:21:23 PM EST
    Rutgers coach Greg Schiano, who's a lot younger, but that was a couple of years ago.  His stock has fallen a little with Rutgers' record.  (it's my other alma mater, so I'm not dumping on Rutgers)

    Both Hall and Schiano are out of the Penn State system.

    Joe Pa's contract is in its last year, but there's no indication that he plans to go willingly.

    I don't blame him.  If he retires, he'll suddenly figure out how old he is and die.  Like Wile-E-Coyote stepping off a cliff.


    Parent

    I hope he doesn't get forced to retire. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:25:44 PM EST
    It wouldn't be the same without Joe Pa coaching. I guess that's what he lives for and I'm sure they'll always have a place for him. Especially after how well they are doing right now.

    Parent
    I'm sure they can find a fancy-sounding... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:33:04 PM EST
    title for him in the athletic dept.

    I mean the guy doesn't even go to every practice anymore...how can a head coach not go to every practice, isn't that where you do most of the coaching aka teaching?

    But I guess it ain't easy to know when to say when.

    Parent

    Big Brown.... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:27:30 PM EST
    is officially going out to stud due to an injury.

    So much for Curlin vs. Big Brown in The Classic or another Grade I...though I think Curlin woulda beat Brown handily anyways.

    And if anyone is looking for investment opportunities with their 401k money, I'll be happy to share my Breeders Cup picks once the fields are set:)

    Heh (none / 0) (#14)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:33:20 PM EST
    Dutrow expressed disappointment but said the horse's health is the highest priority.

    If that's the case, they should have laid off the steroids. Methinks it's more of a case of protecting their investment over a true concern for the horse . . .

    That said, good to hear they won't be risking his health any more and he can enjoy the good life now.

    Parent

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:43:19 PM EST
    Dutrow is one guy I can do without in the horse game...I'd file him under "shady".

    In general, I wish they wouldn't be so quick to retire horses due for big stud fees...bad for the sport.  And as Evening Attire showed us, some just don't wanna retire, they wanna run.  

    BTW, Evening Attire will be honored with "Evening Attire Day" at Belmont Park 10/25.  I'll be in the upper deck burning and betting with the Rastas if anyone wants to stop by and say hi.

    Parent

    My grandparents lived (none / 0) (#13)
    by coast on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:29:07 PM EST
    in Welcome.  God I would love some good barbecue.  Enjoy the day.  I'm trying to finish preparing returns for all the extenders.

    Christopher Hitchens endorses Obama (none / 0) (#15)
    by magster on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:37:49 PM EST
    link

    Surprising considering Hitchens' pro-Iraq war stance.

    yes, he's another public intellectual, (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:49:39 PM EST
    like Oprah, or Paul Krugman.

    Parent
    But his endorsement ... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:12:57 PM EST
    is a load of twaddle.

    He endorses Obama because he's taller, younger and healthier.

    Okay, I'm exaggerating.  But only slightly.

    We really don't need any more endorsements like this.

    And, of course, Hitchens has to to invoke his Brit boarding school days. Probably because it's the last time he had anything interesting to say.

    Parent

    I actually like (none / 0) (#45)
    by eric on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:22:26 PM EST
    Hitchens a lot.  His views on many things are pretty close to mine except for his crazy views on the "defending civilization against its terrorist enemies" stuff.  Something really snapped in his brain on that issue.  Otherwise, I find his writing to be interesting and hilarious at times.

    His book, "God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" is really good.

    Parent

    Oh, you're the one. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:52:48 PM EST
    ;)

    Parent
    Maybe he figures to get (none / 0) (#20)
    by scribe on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:42:54 PM EST
    some free beer or something out of it.

    Parent
    Jobs baby jobs (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:04:21 PM EST
    glad to see Obama finally caught up to me more than 16 weeks after I screamed that job loss was accelerating and was only going to get worse, which of course means that foreclosures will rise, crime will rise, bankruptcies will rise and once the cycle starts it only gets worse.  

    Better late than never but of course instead of using a stimulus package to create jobs several months ago which only prolonged our pain, they should have had more foresight.  Of course all through the bailout I screamed any bailout without a jobs package is STUPID.

    Of course it is too late to stem the tide now and hundreds of thousands of americans are going to lose their jobs because all of washington has as much foresight as they do real concern for the middle class.

    A 3k tax credit is a nice thing for me, but I am not going to create 25 jobs at 50-75k for a 3k tax break per job.  This helps big companies mostly because they will continue with strategic hiring and take advantage of the credit.  

    I do not believe this will create jobs that weren't planned already.  Infrastructure and green are N-E-W jobs, stop pandering and help the middle class.  

    I just read that. It said that Hillary gave a (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:21:15 PM EST
    speech and she said we have a better answer than "drill baby drill". It's "jobs baby jobs". I just love her.

    Parent
    Speaking of Hillary ... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:28:32 PM EST
    Democrat Barack Obama proposed more immediate steps Monday to heal the nation's ailing economy including a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures at some banks

    Hillary was recommending that six months ago.

    But better late than never, I say.

    Parent

    yes, and now we need a 180 day (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:32:24 PM EST
    moratorium.  They have all been well behind the curve on the j-o-b-s issue and I hope to god they are feeling some ill effects of the horrible legislation they passed re: bankruptcy.  Who were they lobbied by to pass the bankruptcy laws, the banks perhaps? Did the banks start borrowing like mad dogs after the legislation in 2005 (was it 2005) knowing that bankruptcy protection had been seriously eroded?

    They get you coming and going...

    How about some N-E-W  J-O-B-S  instead of the tax credit, bailout rescue rhetoric?  

    They are ALL out of touch.

    Parent

    Green Economy or Bust! (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:36:23 PM EST
    I'm hoping our fearless leaders don't opt for "Bust!".

    Parent
    Too late.... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:16:42 PM EST
    we're already busto....negative 9.415 trillion and counting.

    Parent
    Me too! (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:34:59 PM EST
    It might not be such a bad thing...

    Parent
    Does the 3k make up for the co outlay? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:30:11 PM EST
    I usually do ok during a recession like economy. As jobs are trimmed, I pick up the "slack". And it's not from small businesses. Larger co's will replace key personnel, but I can't see them creating a whole heck of a lot of jobs for 3k per.  In my field, computers, etc would eat that up.

    Parent
    it was not specific (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:33:19 PM EST
    again, i will take the tax credit but I am not going to hire because of it.  

    Parent
    Obama is up big in NJ and NY (none / 0) (#68)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:03:27 PM EST
    According to SUSA.

    here and here

    Today brings Autumn to New Mexico... (none / 0) (#78)
    by desertswine on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:53:23 PM EST
    Here the seasons attack sharply and quickly...
    and in the mountains the Aspens.

    McCain just got socked by an ACORN (none / 0) (#81)
    by Christy1947 on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 04:31:49 PM EST
    There is now a post with a lot of photos up on HuffPost just now. Go look and see. The average comment is, and I quote "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

    It does seem that a lot of GOP governors and other electeds, including one John McCain, have been working regularly with ACORN and sponsoring and signing homebuyers legislation and such and having the moment memorialized on film or disc. Look at the pictures of faces who should be familiar like McCain, Romney, Pawlenty, and Charlie Christ.  Old John was snapped at their 2006 convention smiling and smiling. Well, he wanted to know who was working with ACORN, and now he does, and can name names if he still wants to.

    hit 50 (none / 0) (#84)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:39:42 PM EST
    Obama is averaging 50 for the first time ever on real clear politics.

    Monday Open Thread | 84 comments (84 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment