home

Tuesday Night TV and Open Thread

How many Americans have finished dinner and turned on the TV? Millions. How many are watching the cable news coverage of today's Iraq hearings? How many are watching Dancing With Stars?

Since I got nothing from my perusal of the coverage of the three cable news networks other than McCain flubbed by mixing up Sunnis and Shiites, which he's done before and today corrected immediately, and Hillary and Obama asked a few questions, I'm watching Dancing With Stars (with Sheryl Crow) tonight.

For those of you following the real news, here's a place for you. Please do better than the cable news networks.

< Dueling PA Polls | Elizabeth Edwards Prefers Hillary's Health Care Plan to Obama's >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Florida (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:28:27 PM EST
    Apparently the DNC RBC hasn't scheduled a date to hear the Ausman challenge yet. But more interestingly (or upsetting depending on your point of view), co-chair Jim Roosevelt was asked if he had regrets knowing what he knows now and responded:

    "No second thoughts, no second-guessing. Obviously I think everybody in politics had a different set of assumptions at that time. But it's also true that if the rules aren't followed .... we'll have primaries and caucuses on Halloween next (cycle),'' responded Roosevelt, noting that he was taken aback recently to see Sen. Bill Nelson on TV talking about this issue and stressing that rules must be followed.

    Thank goodness we've saved Halloween!

    Clarify (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:31:22 PM EST
    I should have said

    Jim Roosevelt was asked if he had regrets about taking all the Florida delegates instead of half knowing what he knows now and responded

    Parent

    Seriously (none / 0) (#25)
    by badger on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:13:36 PM EST
    what would be so evil about primaries around Halloween (or the 4th of July for that matter) that we have to take away people's votes to prevent that?

    I don't think it would be a good thing, but I don't see it as the end of the world either. Take for example the silly argument du jour that Hillary staying in the race is preventing Obama (the presumptive nominee for some) from going after McCain.

    If we settled the nomination by January 1, the nominee would have lots more time to attack the GOP.

    I can understand arguments as to why the competition for the earliest primary isn't the best thing, but nothing that outweighs the right of people to vote. It strikes me the same as capital punishment for parking tickets.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:26:56 PM EST
    I agree. I tend to laugh a little when I hear that Clinton being in the race is why McCain is getting a free pass. I think Clinton being in the race has actually made it easier on Obama. If she's not there to attack they will turn towards Obama. And McCain will still get a free pass.

    Back on topic, Roosevelt ignored the fact that a different punishment isn't the same as no punishment as well. The rules certainly didn't demand a 100% delegate loss. But I suppose facts spoil the argument that is was RULES that made it necessary.

    But rejoice in the fact that Halloween will not be election day!! Because it was so at risk.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#104)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:30:07 AM EST
    Assuming Obama becomes the nominee, her staying in is now hurting him a little in the GE because McCain's series of remarkable gaffes aren't really being covered.  The latest is McCain being introduced at a rally by a guy who says, "you can keep your Tiger Woods!"  A friend sent me a link to the video and it's really repulsive.  Whether or not you favor Obama, the idea that sucessful AA's are interchangeable is offensive.  
    Full disclosure: the video was from the KO show but was a video of the actual introduction, not of KO.  
    I don't think Hillary should get out because it's hurting Obama. It would be a betrayal of her supporters and also politically crazy.  I'm saying I don't think she's helping him anymore.

    Parent
    Already that time to think about Costumes... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Deadalus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:24:16 PM EST
    I'm guessing Katherine Harris isn't going to be "in" this year.

    Parent
    I could go as a giant sign (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:33:31 PM EST
    COUNT EVERY VOTE!
    EVERY VOTE COUNTS!*


    *offer void in Florida and Michigan


    Parent
    That Eleanor Roosevelt's grandson (none / 0) (#46)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:39:17 PM EST
    would act this way is just beyond belief, after her extraordinary work for human rights here and around the world.  As for FDR, he too understood that there are tough decisions in politics -- but I think his better angels, such as Eleanor, would have stopped him from such stupidity as this.

    So sad to see such a great legacy gone down.  As a friend of mine used to say, the family tree began to lack a few branches.

    Parent

    I'm not watching (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:32:37 PM EST
    I'm detoxing from a weekend with my mom.  I love her, but she's an Obama supporter and while she was here, she had MSNBC on all day.  The only saving grace was Morning Joe today, when Joe Scarborough interviewed Hillary.

    I used to be a big cable news watcher.  I still moderate an Anderson Cooper group on LJ, but I rarely watch CNN anymore.  I check out the blogs, especially this one, Taylor Marsh and No Quarter.  If there's something worth watching, it'll be on Youtube.  

    My perception of the news has changed tremendously during this election season.  I have been sensitive to media bias for a long time, but I can't ever remember a time when conservatives (Lou Dobbs, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity) were more "fair and balanced" than so-called liberals. I'm not saying that I buy into their shtick, but b/c they don't have a dog in this fight, they seem to be more balanced in their coverage.  

    I'm looking forward to when my favorite show, Supernatural, comes back on the air in two weeks.  It'll be a welcome relief from my political obsessions.

    Did Joe or anyone on MSNBC "clarify" (none / 0) (#26)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:16:34 PM EST
    the Clinton-Brachtal (sp?) story? Apologize? Admit error?

    Parent
    Joe--whose so in love with Hill--- (none / 0) (#28)
    by Regency on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:20:00 PM EST
    made a remark about it when he interviewed her this morning. She basically said that she was glad everything was cleared up but the point had always been to make clear how messed up the system was, not to drag the poor woman's family into it.

    Parent
    Thanks! And Hillary said what I'd hoped she (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:38:47 PM EST
    would say. Very gracious of her.

    But it doesn't let the MCM (mainstream corporate media) off the hook, along with the corrupted parts of left blogistan.

    Josh Marshall's little notice of this was highly irritating:

    04.07.08 -- 8:53PM
    Hillary partly vindicated on hospital story.
    --Josh Marshall

    Has Josh joined in defending the nitpicking part of the MCM? Nitpicking of Dem candidates worked so well in giving us the Bush Maladministration. How about "almost totally vindicated," Josh? "Essentially accurate," maybe? "Basically true"? (And, yes, I am very disappointed in Josh and find it harder to trust how he reports on other matters besides the Clinton campaign.)

    For now, the MCMers (members of the MCM) are not nitpicking their current fave Dem candidate. Just you wait, Obama backers, just you wait.... When they're out to diminish a candidate's viability, truth is not of the essence--driving up negatives and driving down enthusiasm is. The MCM is not our friend.

    For all those who like the MCM nitpickers nitpicking Hillary now, killing her with the death of a thousand pecks, what about when they decide to nitpick Obama? How're they gonna like them apples? or pecks?

    Kudos to BTD--saw him referenced all over today this MCM fiasco.

    Parent

    Did you see the McCain song (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:35:05 PM EST
    courtesy of MJS at Corrente?

    100 years of war in Iraq
    100 years of war
    You burn it down
    Down to the ground
    99 years of war in Iraq.

    (to the tune of 99 bottles of beer).

    Funny! and scary.

    Think Progress (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:39:43 PM EST
    Do any of you read this blog?  I have been reading it on and off for about three years now. I am SUPER impressed how they seem to be completely devoid of all things Obama AND Clinton. I don't see many "progessive" choke*gasp! blogs that have not taken a side.  TL is, I feel, the more balanced and rational.  I see other blogs criticize the comment moderation.  I support it.  Anyway, let me know if anyone else knows of blogs that are just not even getting into the HRC/BO drama.

    Elizabeth Edwards just joined (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:42:31 PM EST
    American Progress as a senior fellow in health care. Think Progress is their blog.

    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#20)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:45:03 PM EST
    Wow. I did not know that. I was quite pleased to see and hear that Mrs. Edwards supports Senator Clinton's healthcare plan (as I do).  Thanks Jeralyn for the information.  

    Parent
    I want her to debate McCain (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Deadalus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:22:56 PM EST
    over healthcare reform.  That'd be hot.

    Parent
    Digby (none / 0) (#76)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:45:54 AM EST
    and her co-blogger dday are a great resource this year, lots of solid information and analysis of McCain, Iraq, details about how the media is playing the primaries. Sometimes the comments get a little heated and spammed with supporter groups, but I find the front page very balanced and insightful.

    Parent
    WTF is going on at Politico? (none / 0) (#105)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:33:05 AM EST
    I thought they were balanced, but lately they seem to have joined the Hillary bashing party.  There is a dreadful article on the front page about how she has mismanaged her campaign.  It's totally out of balance.

    MSNBC=Misogynic, Sexist Neanderthals Bashing Clinton.

    Parent

    Republico, um, I mean Poitico balanced (none / 0) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:39:42 AM EST
    what a world
    what a world.

    Parent
    Since this is an Open Thread (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:57:20 PM EST
    I just want to say that I got an e-mail from Bill
    Richardson, begging for money to pay his campaign debt.  I'm on his mailing list b/c I gave him a small contribution back in Sept. or Oct.  If I were a nasty person, I'd tell him to ask Obama for the money.  But I'll just ignore him.

    Those 30 coins? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Deadalus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:22:18 PM EST
    Those 30 coins he got didn't go far enough, eh?

    /snark

    Parent

    Too Funny (none / 0) (#107)
    by STLDeb on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:36:15 AM EST
    Love it, that is too funny!  LOL

    Parent
    Melissa posted Hillary's visit to Ellen DeGeneris- (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:13:00 PM EST
    Actually fun--and Hillary talks about her support for gays and the breast cancer research proposal (with some darts at Tweety).

    http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/04/hillary-and-ellen.html

    Petraeus on Nightline in about 5min Eastern (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:31:14 PM EST
    special hour interview.

    NYTimes Expose on Matthews (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:35:23 PM EST
    Huffpost got an advance copy of the Sunday magazine that has a juicy piece on Matthews.  Among the tidbits, he admits he was forced to apologize for his Clinton comments and believes he was "factually" accurate.  Big surprise - he is an incredibly insecure human being!

    He is still clueless!

    forgot link (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:35:46 PM EST
    USA Today Busts Obama Myth... (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:52:37 PM EST
    ...that he was raised in poverty with lines like this one in his stump speech:
    I was born to a teenage mom and my father left when I was two. So my grandparents and my mother helped raise me and they didn't have a lot. They didn't have money...

    But it turns out that in addition to his step father being a wealthy oil executive and his grandfather being a wealthy furniture store owner, that his grandmother was a wealthy banking executive:

    Madelyn Dunham, Obama's grandmother, blazed a feminist trail in Hawaii banking circles in the late 1960s and early 1970s and rose to become one of the Bank of Hawaii's first female vice presidents.
    LINK

    This is clearly an another example of Obama's charactorization that he was raised by a teenage single mother in poverty is completly bogus.


    More evidence that his grandmother (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:19:51 PM EST
    was not a "typical white person."  After all, she gave her all to raise him -- but then, that is so typical of many women I know, white or otherwise.

    However, those I know usually get much more typical gratitude from their grandchildren for doing so.

    Parent

    My parents raised my niece (none / 0) (#67)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:58:39 PM EST
    for a good majority of her life. in the early years, they were there as back up and then they took her in full time. I think she was 7-8. I know what she would say if she were discussing who raised her. My sister gets no credit to this day and she would never disrespect my parents. They have a very special relationship.

    Parent
    Interesting read. (none / 0) (#77)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:49:34 AM EST
    His grandmother sounds like a force to be reckoned with. I hate to parse candidate's backgrounds too closely though, sometimes your memory gets adapted to the stories your family tells you.

    Parent
    I agree, but... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:00:25 AM EST
    ...Obama has made a concerted effort to give people the impression that he grew up poor and was raised by a single mother, defied all odds, and become a success. The reality is that nearly all of his childhood was that of a priveledged youth and in two parent household.  

    Parent
    The Greatest Silence (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:11:07 PM EST
    My son and daughter and I watched the documentary tonight on HBO, The Greatest Silence: Rape of the Congo, which "exposes the systematic rape and
    torture of thousands of women and girls happening in the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)" -- women being used as a weapon of war, filmed by a survivor of gang rape here in our nation's capital, Emmy Award-winning filmmaker Lisa F. Jackson.  She won the Sundance Festival's documentary award for this one.

    We know this happens in every war, but the extent of the attack now on women and girls of the Congo is horrible.  All ages, and your heart will break to see the four-year-old's face, to hear the eighty-year-old's cries.  The strong women of the Congo and surrounding countries who are trying to help need help to get medical care to these women and their families, abandoned now.  

    If it is on again, watch.  See more info at this site.
    Please read and act.  They are speaking, they have been given a voice now -- so now we have to hear.

    Three words: (none / 0) (#56)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:16:09 PM EST
    Doctors without Borders.  Justice in its pure form.  

    Parent
    I know, nne of my family members (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:52:11 PM EST
    has been overseas with Doctors Without Borders many times.  I get to say he shared a Nobel Prize.:-)

    But if you think that three words -- or many more of our DWBs than already there -- will be enough, just look at a map.  The country of the Congo is the size of Europe.  Imagine gang rape on a massive scale, in the hundreds of thousands, across every country and every corner of Europe.  Imagine that most of those women and girls need a year of several surgeries, as in addition to gang rapes, they were mutilated, and many have no rectums, no uteruses, barely bladders.

    Imagine that they need far more for sustenance, as they have been abandoned by their families -- and many, including young girls, now have new families of their own from the rapes . . . but lost all that they had, even the clothes on their backs, in the looting that went on with the gang rapes.

    There are no words.  Watch the documentary.

    Parent

    I know... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:03:31 AM EST
    It's just something we can do from this far away to help.  

    Parent
    Kinda makes the horrible.... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:46:30 AM EST
    sexism and misogyny as demonstrated by Chris Mathews and Keith Olberman seem tame, doesn't it?

    While some here cry for their daughters living in the big, bad, sexist USA...I'll save my tears for the women of the Congo.  Ya know...real victims.

    Parent

    The (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:11:41 AM EST
    existence of  horror does not negate nor excuse the injustice in our own country. How trite!

    Parent
    We have different definitions.... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:43:05 AM EST
    of injustice I guess.

    Parent
    So short of mass gang rape (none / 0) (#118)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:55:15 AM EST
    of women in this country, we're doing fine, huh?

    You might benefit from instructions to my students on discussing issues of race, gender, ethnicity, etc., in their forthcoming papers.  The national discourse on these topics is not advanced by such comparatives as you attempt (and do so poorly).

    And foisting false claims on others that they are attempting victimhood is a real right-wing tactic on your part.  

    Parent

    Sorry Cream.... (none / 0) (#120)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:00:09 AM EST
    I refuse to take "instructions" before I discuss anything.  

    Screw sensitivity...give me truth.
    Like the truth you have alerted us too in the Congo.


    Parent

    What a Republican thing to say! (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:05:00 AM EST
    Reminds me of Republicans who look at lefty war protesters and say, "if they think America is bad, they should go to Cuba (or China or Russia or Saudi Arabia)!"

    Love it or leave it, eh?

    Parent

    hey...I take offense! (none / 0) (#119)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:57:20 AM EST
    Just kidding.

    I was just glad to see a real issue facing women in this world being brought up on talkleft.  Keep 'em coming.  Sexism and injustice against women is very real, see the Congo or Saudi Arabia or the American workplace, but what the assh*le on the tv, or some dolt on a blog, is saying ain't injustice, I'm sorry.  It's an opinion.

    Not "love it or leave it"...my message is more "don't be the boy who cried wolf".

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#122)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:15:38 AM EST
    Because there's no correlation between civil discourse and how someone is treated in society.  /snark

    Parent
    I can't imagine.... (none / 0) (#135)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:54:34 PM EST
    what the Congolese version of Tweety is saying on the tv over there...my lord it must be absolutely vile.

    Should we all hold hands and sing Kumbaya?  Yeah, it would be nice, but that ain't happenin.  I'm concerned with actions, not words.

    The KKK and NOW can say whatever they want, and if they can find a tv station to put them on the air god bless 'em...I don't have to watch.  

    Parent

    I saw this too (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:48:43 AM EST
    it was my choice instead of dancing with the stars.
    powerful stuff.


    Parent
    Sadly... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Oje on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:20:21 AM EST
    I think I am suffering from late stage disenfranchisement. The old network news programs in the 1990s targeted the over 45 crowd, in my opinion. I never found an anchor among that crew that appealed to me. The cable news initially attracted my interest, especially late night programs on CNN and, admittedly, Hardball. We were a Nielson household in early 2000, and I distinctly remember recording that I watched Tweety every day (what a sad sack I was).  By the end of 2000, I had tuned out the cable news entirely due to a visceral reaction to coverage of Al Gore and the recount. This was before I discovered Media Whores (R.I.P.) and Bob Somerby, when I only sensed that something was wrong. I still cannot tune into news programs or anchors when I know they have had time to prepare their scripts (with the exception of Olbermann's first three special comments). Like Somerby says, the news today is nothing more than a bad novel in which we get a god's eye view of the innermost emotional and factual "disinformation" that (Democratic) candidates harbor.

    So, I watched a movie... Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

    I Got Hooked On Tweety Too (none / 0) (#111)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:52:42 AM EST
    It is completely understandable.  There are aspects of his shows that are very appealing, maybe even addictive.  He was just about the only news host that called Bush out on his lies about Iraq and WMD's.  That alone earned my respect for him as someone who had the courage to speak truth to power, and as someone who was genuinely concerned about the world we are living in. I loved his aggressive questioning tactics and the way he called others out "on the carpet" when they were peddling their snake oil.  I used to joke with my friends that, as they rush home to be with their wives or mistresses, I rushed home to be with my cable news.  

    But all his genuine concern was a mirage.  He is in the business only for himself, and his sole purpose is to forward his personal narrative.  He is a disgrace to the news industry because he represents the majority of newsmen who, rather then reporting, explaining and illumination, endeavors to create his own perceptions of the events of the day.  His panel is typically jello-spined journalists who absorb those perceptions and subsequently spread it through the media, like the manure it is.

    But I do understand how you would have been hooked on him.  I'm a recovering Matthews addict myself.


    Parent

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Oje on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:49:12 AM EST
    I just realized reading jawbone above that I have been reading TPM to track Clinton Derangement Syndrome on the blogs (having already axed dailykos and Pandagon). TPM has ceased to be a source of progressive news, and JMM is untrustworthy on other subjects henceforth - perhaps as he should have been after the Iraq invasion.

    Progressive are not informed about politics by reading the maladjustment of bloggers anymore than we are informed about politics by watching the maladjustment of talking heads. JMM is nothing more than a special interest of media criticism at this point. With that in mind, his journalist-blog is no different than Google News. So, GBCTPM, I am no longer a daily reader--I have a new home page for the latest news now.

    Get almost all (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:35:14 AM EST
    my news from TalkLeft, NoQuarter and a few other blogs. From them I get links that take me to other places for more information. If the links are for kos, TPM or Huffington, I pass.

    Friends and family are mostly Clinton supporters but one granddaughter is a rabid Obama supporter. We plan on having her deprogrammed after the elections and/or as soon as she calls the rest of us "racists" one more time.

    I believe in free speech but a vitriol spewing virago of a granddaughter in my living room is beyond what I find acceptable.

    And I was the one who said leave her alone when she dyed her hair purple, got multiple piercings, tried to find something nice to say about her latest tattoo and only stopped trying to give the girl some space when she dropped out of school.

    Now that she has become an Obamatron who spews insults at the rest of us I find it impossible to take her part. Quite frankly it is all I can do to keep from whacking her over the head with the nearest blunt object. (I take lots of deep breaths and have now finally told her not to come back until she can behave like a civilized human being.)  

     I had always thought she would find herself someday. Now I wonder if when she does, she will find herself worth finding.

    TV? What's that? ;-) (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:14:20 PM EST
    Seriously, I'm looking forward to Top Chef tomorrow night, and I might watch some cartoons before I go to sleep .

    But news doesn't come from the TV for me, especially not POLITICAL news.

    Top Chef (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:47:50 PM EST
    always makes me hungry.  

    Parent
    I'm reading fluffy fiction tonight (none / 0) (#2)
    by katiebird on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:17:23 PM EST
    Does that fit in this thread? I really like Jennifer Crusie.

    Sheryl Crow's great. (none / 0) (#3)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:20:01 PM EST
    I've been off cable for a week. But I'll be back on it tomorrow for Top Chef. I'm basically avoiding the 24/7 Politics of BS. Baseball and cooking shows work well spring through fall :) Much more relaxing!

    Local news has a new appeal for me aside from the weather and sport scores.  Just a brief political recap delivered in a neutral manner, lol!~

    Love baseball! Glad it's back! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:26:39 PM EST
    Salvation from news.

    Parent
    I thought I was glad it was back..... (none / 0) (#98)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:49:22 AM EST
    then my Mets went 0-3 vs. Atlanta and Philly and look like they've picked up from where they left off last year.

    Get it together fellas!


    Parent

    Saving white bean soup (none / 0) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:22:05 PM EST
    I am saving my bean soup by converting it to a faux cassoulet.  Let's see if it works.  TV, I watched the hearings today while spring cleaning my kitchen and commenting way too much.  

    No news programs for me (none / 0) (#5)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:23:59 PM EST
    I catch the news on the net. I watched the Biggest Loser while I ate popcorn. I use to stay up to John Stewart, but now I am reading and 75% done with that John Lescroart book Betrayal that is advertising on your site on the right side. I love his books.

    American Idol and Hell's Kitchen (none / 0) (#6)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:24:11 PM EST
    from the sublime to the ridiculous, I guess!

    This time of year, I'm deeply into tax work, so this - and a big glass of Shiraz - smoothes out the edges of a long day.

    The contrast is just stark - the shining promise of young singers against the anxiety of trying to succeed in the boot camp of Gordon Ramsey's kitchen.

    And I have a fun book - Conversations with the Fat Girl, by Liza Palmer.  It's the second book of hers I've read, and she's just so funny and real.

    Denny Crane? (none / 0) (#7)
    by magisterludi on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:26:14 PM EST
    Anyone? No Boston Legal?

    Hasn't started here yet (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:28:57 PM EST
    It's on after Dancing With Stars in my time zone.

    Parent
    DWTS (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:43:15 PM EST
    I got into the show the year the Cheetah Girl was on there (Samantha Ryan).  I was SO disappointed when she was voted off.  My Mom and I were so bummed out that we stopped watching DWTS right then and there.  She compared her getting voted off the reality show equivalent of Gore & Florida 2000.

    I stopped watching free tv when Buffy and Angel ended. Cable was disconnected after Sex and the City ended.

    Lotsa good books I need to catch up on out there!  Have fun watching DWTS!

    Parent

    It[s a good one. (none / 0) (#18)
    by magisterludi on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:44:12 PM EST
    As usual. Won't say more as you've not seen it.

    enjoy!

    Parent

    Love DWTS (none / 0) (#115)
    by STLDeb on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:07:38 AM EST
    I LOVE DWTS.  I got hooked on this show the first season.  Who would have thought a show about ballroom dancing would be such a HUGE hit.  

    Parent
    Yes! Boston Legal tonight (none / 0) (#19)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:44:18 PM EST
    and it's a really good one! - on the corporate media brainwashing us.


    Parent
    wow, what a closing argument (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:41:10 PM EST
    and indictment of the media. I watched it because of the comments here, I usually don't...James Spader's closing was really powerful.  Thanks for the recommendation.

    Parent
    Candace Bergen's (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:50:26 PM EST
    closing on the vietnam vets was also incredibly good. I may have to start watching this show.

    Parent
    Boston Legal (none / 0) (#85)
    by magisterludi on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:17:27 AM EST
    is the most under-rated  show on TV, IMO. The social commentary is biting and the humor irreverent and bawdy. Love it!

    Parent
    Re-introducing Power Plays: The World Energy Watch (none / 0) (#22)
    by SunnyLC on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:51:02 PM EST
    With the foreign news emphasis today, I'd like to take the opportunity to introduce my new version of Power Plays: The World Energy Watch at

    http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/

    POWER PLAYS: THE WORLD ENERGY WATCH FOR APRIL 9, 2008

    The World Energy Watch presents excerpts of analysis and recent news reports highlighting the activities of the players involved in the power struggle for the world's remaining energy resources and energy sustainability.

    1//A sobering look at our future oil situation from Energy and Oil by Byron King tops the news in this week's edition. Looks like both domestic and imported oil supplies will be drying up by 2025. Then what?

    The U.S. Oil Supply -- A Look At Our Future Oil Needs

    New discoveries and new wells just cannot keep up with depletion of older oil fields. By 2025, U.S. daily oil output will be a fraction of its current level (probably down to about 2-3 million barrels per day), even with an aggressive program of drilling offshore and in Alaska -- which is not happening, in any case. ... . Also by 2025, U.S. imports will almost certainly decline. The oil will not be available to buy and import from world markets. Not everyone agrees with this. In one fanciful projection from 2005, the U.S. DOE forecast that "Total U.S. gross petroleum imports are projected to increase in the reference case from 12.3 million barrels per day in 2003 to 20.2 million in 2025." Maybe in somebody's dreams, but my view is that this is one projection that will never come true. ... . Really, by 2025, the rest of the oil-producing world will simply lack the product to export. This will be due to reasons of depletion on a global scale, and fast-growing internal demand in oil-producing nations. Gasoline consumption in places as diverse as Russia, Iran, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia is just soaring, so there is less net oil available for export. ... . So what will happen in 2025? Will the U.S. pump its own oil? No, it's not there. Will the U.S. continue to import large volumes? No, it won't be available. The bottom line is that conventional oil sources for the U.S. -- domestic output and imports -- are simply drying up.

    Read more stories....China and Syria, Iraqi "potato seller" now making a lot of US money protecting oil pipelines and US troops.....

    Lambert blogged about the new James Hansen (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:22:42 PM EST
    study over at corrente.

    Based on studies of undersea core samples which give a history of Co2 levels, scientists have figured out we need to cut emissions much more drastically than any agreements have specified--that is if we wish to live in a world with a climate which resembles that which has made civilization possible.

    Parent

    Right, that's why i'm strongly pro-nuclear. (none / 0) (#38)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:31:24 PM EST
    Existing coal plants must be replaced with nuclear, where possible.

    Parent
    In fact, i am in favor of trying radical (none / 0) (#43)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:36:46 PM EST
    technological solutions, such as seeding the atmosphere over Greenland. I've forgotten the precise suggestion, but climate scientists say it's "too risky".
    hmmm

    Parent
    Too slow (none / 0) (#74)
    by splashy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:33:37 AM EST
    That money should be pumped into solar and wind, which comes online almost immediately, then is almost cost free from then on.

    Besides, those technologies create far more jobs, along with them being much safer to all.

    We have enough roof space to take care of a lot of energy needs.

    Parent

    Mark Penn (none / 0) (#27)
    by Deadalus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:18:57 PM EST
    Hey BTD,

    Still waiting on you to blog about how Penn wasn't actually fired from the campaign.  You said you would two days ago, but haven't yet.  


    Still waiting for you (none / 0) (#36)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:30:03 PM EST
    to admit Obama poaches delegates.

    Parent
    Cute... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Deadalus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:31:26 PM EST
    But I think any kindergardener will acknowledge there is a difference between delegates committed a candidate who is no longer in the race choosing a different candidate and a candidate repeatedly begging delegates PLEDGED to the front-runner to change their vote.

    Parent
    Since HIllary is in the race, I don't (none / 0) (#44)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:37:20 PM EST
    understand your comment.

    Parent
    I"m not aware (none / 0) (#48)
    by Deadalus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:44:24 PM EST
    of Clinton delegates switching Obama's team?  (pledged delegates.)  Has this happened?

    Parent
    So you support poaching pledged (none / 0) (#132)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:41:19 PM EST
    delegates, when this might be what puts  a candidate over the top?
    Revolting hypocrisy.

    Parent
    Good to see (none / 0) (#51)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:55:11 PM EST
    we didn't get anywhere in our previous discussion of this issue.  My larger point is that you're willing to call out BTD but you refuse to retract your own erroneous assertions on the delegate matter which are based on your interpretation of which hairs should be split.  I think you outdo me in cute, sir.  

    It's all about rules, except when it's not about rules, because it's about rules.  Here is the most explicit statement so far I've heard on the matter from the Clinton campaign:  From Newsweek:

    "Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to," she added. Although her campaign quickly denied it was waging any effort to "flip" Obama's pledged delegates, Clinton's remarks weren't academic. After the 1980 battle between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy, her chief strategist Harold Ickes noted, the party changed a rule that required pledged delegates to stick with their candidates no matter what. The current rule, adopted in 1982, states that pledged delegates "shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them." A "good conscience" reason for a delegate to switch, Ickes told NEWSWEEK, would be if one candidate--such as, say, Clinton--was deemed more "electable." If delegates believe she has a better chance in November than Obama, Ickes said, "you bet" that would be a reason to change their vote. (He added, however, that the campaign is "focused" on winning over uncommitted superdelegates "at this point.")

    And also in the previous thread, and my apologies if you did not see it, a video was presented displaying the delegate poaching that happened in Texas.  Of course the caucuses in Texas were widely described as ugly and not exactly law-abiding; or too "law-abiding."  

    Sorry, but delegates are absurd.  The good conscience thing is obviously up for debate or more likely, spin.  I truly hope it does not go into the dark places where it could go.  But at the moment I give the Clinton campaign credit for being soft in volume and stance on this issue.  I don't know why you are claiming they are pressing this issue when it really hasn't been taken up by anyone as far as I know.

    The delegates are so...mutuable.  It's in the rules for them to be so.  Tell me why some delegates are still committed to Edwards?  Because he didn't release them.  Again, Edwards = Kingmaker.  The early blog secret scoop.  The dropped story.

    I do hope we don't get to the point where we are all lying on our backs at the convention, gasping at the meaninglessness of all our metrics!  But I don't think it's right to say that Obama's ways of obtaining delegates are any more within the rules than Hillary's.  Hillary's (potential delegate grabs at the convention) are actually sanctioned in the rules.  Obama's are not because Edwards didn't release his delegates.  That's the thing about rules.  They're stupid.

    Have at it.  But this whole debate seems to be proof positive of the importance of the popular vote in selecting our candidate - the rules are little understood, and too unfamiliar to be widely acknowledged in the way we need them to be if we want delegates to be the only important thing.  A clear victory involves the popular vote.  I hope if Obama wins it Clinton gives up her Pres bid (and he takes her on as VP).  The popular vote seems fair.  And we can measure it in caucus states.

    Parent

    Ugh (none / 0) (#70)
    by Deadalus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:05:07 AM EST
    I've not seen the video.

    My distinction was pointing to something entirely different.  Without jumping into this hair-splitting contest, I am upset that Senator Clinton has repeatedly pressed the issue of pledged delegates switching.  That is troubling.  Senator Obama has not, to my knowledge, done that.  Anecdotal evidence of delegates switching at conventions for whatever reason is not enough to dispel my discomfort with Senator Clinton's proclamations.

    These are two different issue I think anyone will agree and do not cancel one another out.

    Nor can either candidate be responsible for what the other's plethora of supporters do.


    Parent
    Same discussion (none / 0) (#71)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:17:15 AM EST
    as last time.  There was an article over on Politico regarding Obama.  He knows the game, he is going after her delegates and switching out some of his.  Some party loyalists got upset at being switched out in Alabama for those they felt would be more loyal to Obama.

    Parent
    Switching his own delegates (none / 0) (#123)
    by Deadalus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:23:19 AM EST
    is fine by any standards, I would think.  Wouldn't a good campaign make sure that their delegates are loyal?  And switch any that they doubted were?

    I'll have to hunt for the Politico article.  Thanks for the tip.

    Parent

    Kindergarteners Don't Understand (none / 0) (#112)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:01:01 AM EST
    that a candidate should only get to count votes that were cast for that candidate.  I don't give a damn if the other candidate dropped out.  Counting votes not recieved is wrong.

    Parent
    If he's not on payroll (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:04:02 AM EST
    He's been fired.

    Parent
    Does that logically mean (none / 0) (#124)
    by Deadalus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:24:05 AM EST
    that if he IS on payroll, he hasn't been fired?  It actually doesn't, so I don't see what your point it.  But he's still on payroll in anycase.

    Parent
    Pop populism (none / 0) (#29)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:20:46 PM EST
    The local news just reported on a Michelle Obama appearance in NC.  I actually found it to be a really good segment.  The local news tends less to punditry and thank goodness for that.  Michelle Obama was giving an Obama stump speech but it was the way that she framed her argument that struck me.  We are campaigning for the average American, she said.  She went back to her frequent point about striking a work-family balance.   She spoke about the need to harness the crowd's energy to achieve solutions, like getting universal healthcare and ending the war.  It ended with her saying we need that energy to combat the special interests and lobbyists [to get those solutions accomplished].

    Honestly, this obsession with identifying special interests as our enemies, while glorifying Republicans as workable partners who differ with us (though Obama is unable to say why; he seems unable to acknowledge the things that make Republicans NOT vote for him)  but would be willing to join to "get THINGS done" is the aspect of his campaign that most irritates me.  It's been shown that Obama has as many ties to corporate interests as anyone else - certainly enough to cast his anti-lobbyist stance in doubt.  And special interests as a term just begs to be misinterpreted and further watered down.  Obama refuses to identify our enemies and real obstacles.  This bothers me.  Attack special interests, flatter Republicans, negate due to good will the connection between the two...to me that's a pipe dream.  And Obama's insistence upon this matter (and yes I think it's okay to take his wife, delivering an Obama stump speech, as his spokesperson) in the real sense of the word disconcerts me.  The right wing noise machine exists not only in DC, but in our schools, our bars, our churches.  Obama's willingness to let their trespasses slide, and Bush's, for heaven's sake (see the no-one predicted 9/11 example) is what keeps me back from supporting him.  It might be CW to play nice, but in politics it rarely turns out that way.  Not to mention that just the nicest guys (Republicans) have a way of pulling out your teeth with a smile (instead of punching them...)


    Let us not forget (none / 0) (#35)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:29:07 PM EST
    that that is their [the conservative Repubs'] whole shtick..."love the sinner, hate the sin."  Well, the sins have traditionally been defined as homosexuality, taxes, social programs, equality, and any sacrifice on the part of those endowed with moderate wealth (or at least more than the other guy) to allow others to catch up.  Sorry, I actually like those things.  Repubs can claim to like Obama all they want...but I won't be surprised when people, though they wrestle so with their consciences, cast a ballot for McCain.  Here's looking at you Dems:  don't vote for McCain!

    Parent
    I Thought He Lost It (none / 0) (#113)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:04:34 AM EST
    when he praised Ronald Reagan as the "transformative figure" of the 20th century, and when he said that the repubicans had all the ideas in the 1990's.  Man, which party is he in again?

    Parent
    Informal survey. (none / 0) (#52)
    by halstoon on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:00:03 PM EST
    I'm interested to know what you all think about the California court that essentially banned homeschooling in California.

    I'm bothered by it. I don't see how we can trumpet civil rights if I don't have the right to educate my child. I also don't know how we can promote privacy when we don't recognize parents' sovereignty over their kids.

    I'd like to know what y'all think.

    society vs. parents (none / 0) (#54)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:07:06 PM EST
    In some ways I think that modern society has an obligation to protect the child's rights.  The parent is not always right and the child is not a posession.  So, since the child cannot decide, should society not have a say in protecting the child's rights for education?  

    Parent
    Society's say.... (none / 0) (#116)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:13:07 AM EST
    ends at my front door, thank you very much.  

    We should be encouraging parents to be the primary educators of their children, instead of making it mandatory to outsource the education of your child to the state.  

    If this leads to poorly educated children so be it....nobody said liberty didn't have a high cost.  

    Parent

    Can the state's interest in the child receiving (none / 0) (#139)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:14:50 PM EST
    a proper education not be monitored? Instead of banning homeschooling, can we not simply establish a reporting system where the child's progress is reported and monitored?

     The homeschoolers I met in high school (after they had been taught at home for 8 years) were all high achievers who got much better grades than the average student. They certainly outperformed all the project kids whose parents had no idea about their education.

    In other words, a kid's presence in gov't school doesn't guarantee they learn anything.

    Parent

    See recent change in law in Wisconsin (none / 0) (#60)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:25:31 PM EST
    just a week or so ago, after a similar situation here regarding "virtual schools" for home-schooling.  It seemed surprising, as the laws in this state about mandatory schooling were fairly lax since a landmark case years ago on behalf of our many Amish.

    But in the recent case involving public funding of "virtual" home-schooling, the court could only uphold the law, outdated as it was based on geographical boundaries of districts that simply don't apply online.

    So it was for legislators to change it --  and they did, in record time for our gang that couldn't shoot out a budget straight this year, setting a new record (and that's saying something) here and nationwide for slowest legislature to do its d**n job.

    What still is lacking here is accountability for home-schooling parents, a problem when it is used as an excuse to take children out of schools in cases of abuse.  I think California is far better on that.    

    Parent

    Banned home schooling? (none / 0) (#61)
    by RalphB on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:29:00 PM EST
    I didn't know that.  While my own children went to public schools, a former business partner home schooled his children and they turned out great.  Of course, their mother was a qualified teacher and they kept to a good curriculum.

    It would seem to me that, with some regulation, home schooling should certainly be an option for parents.

    Of course, I'm not too fond of mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists or seat belt laws for adults.  While I realize there's a need for these laws, I just don't like the state protecting me from myself.  :-)


    Parent

    Here here. (none / 0) (#140)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:19:48 PM EST
    I have to admit, when I hear conservatives talk about the 'nanny state' I raise my glass. I just wish they actually opposed it.

    Parent
    Charter schools (none / 0) (#62)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:43:44 PM EST
    We have such an extensive array of charter schools it won't be an issue.  People will just need to know their options.  Your public school funds follow you.  I used a school that rented a couple of class rooms at another school.  They have a couple of teachers on staff.  Once a month, I would go in with my child's school work.  They select samples from all classes and submit it with an attendance schedule to the state.  They have a spanish teacher or you can use Rosetta Stone.  Music is taught as an extension class through local college or university.  There is a broad range of families that use this. Christian families like this school.  I used it because my child was bored and I used his public high school funds and concurrently enroll in him in college.  We have great systems in place.

    Parent
    You have a good situation, but you should (none / 0) (#141)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:21:09 PM EST
    still have the right to be your children's primary educator if you so choose.

    Parent
    Sounds like tyranny to me..... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:00:05 AM EST
    Parents have a natural right to raise their children as they see fit.  

    The only time I think the state should interfere is in the case of abuse.  Educating your own children is not abuse.

    Parent

    But, again, it can be an excuse (none / 0) (#121)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:01:03 AM EST
    for hiding abuse, pulling kids out of school and claiming it is for home-schooling as soon as a teacher reports (as required) reason for concern.  I'm in a state where it happens, because of no state oversight of home-schooling (but tax funding for it).  Same thing happened here with charter schools, vouchers, etc.  

    I'm all for options for parents and their progeny but with accountability, as our states still are held accountable under No Child Left Behind and many previous acts and laws regarding education.  We thus have to be able to assess how well it is being done, and how safely for students' sake.

    Parent

    The Bush Doctrine? (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:31:41 AM EST
    Don't tell me that you are for preemptive attacks. Must be something in the water.

    BTW- considering how much abuse has been discovered in institutions, I think any concern of yours about preventing abuse at home by prohibiting homeschooling would be mitigated.

    Parent

    No abuse is the goal, I would hope (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:36:18 AM EST
    whether in schools or at home.  Don't you hope so?  

    And you consider the laws requiring teachers, doctors, etc., to report suspected child abuse to be "pre-emptive attacks"?  I would worry about what is in your water.

    Above all, as ever, do reread what I wrote, i.e., I am for all options including home-schooling -- but not at the cost of accountability for assessing how well students are doing academically or otherwise.  

    That is the situation in my state, although they get my tax funding.  I find that appalling.  You do not.  I therefore can only hope that you do not live in my state but in one where there is accountability, despite you.

    Parent

    Touchy? (none / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:44:09 AM EST
    Doctors reporting abuse is not preemptive, it is responsive and defensive. Making homeschooling illegal because you want to discover abuse at home is preemptive.

    Bush bombed Iraq with the hope of finding WMD's. His goal was no WMD's.  Had he found some after bombing it still would have been a preemptive attack.

    BTW-I am not a fan of homeschooling as a rule but I agree w/kdog, as long as there is not a problem it is no ones business.

    Parent

    Jeez, stay on topic -- (none / 0) (#129)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:10:48 PM EST
    you ignore the point about teachers, too, when they see evidence of a potential problem in protecting a child, and that ought to be everybody's business.

    And now you're going off on WMDs.  Forget it, you don't get it.

    Parent

    So.... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:37:41 PM EST
    A teacher sees bruises on a kid and reports it.  The parent pulls the kid out to home school them.
    Child services is gonna investigate regardless....I don't get your point.

    Is it the same tired kindergarten-justice argument?  Since some parents abuse kids who are home schooled, so we must prohibit home schooling, or regulate it to the point that you might as well just send your kid to public school?  

    Granted, my view may lead to more child abuse or more poorly educated children.  Then again, you can regulate parenting and education up the wazoo and still have abused and poorly educated children...I'll take more freedom everytime.

    Parent

    The thing is, our gvt has decided (none / 0) (#136)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:27:00 PM EST
    that our children are citizens with rights, and are not possessions like a pair of shoes, which seems a reasonable position.

    The devil, it seems, is in determining where the line is drawn regarding parental rights, their children's rights and the state's restrictions on those rights.

    As I read somewhere "My rights end where your rights begin."

    Anyway, I think parents should be able to home school.

    Parent

    Quite Topical (none / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:42:04 PM EST
    Teachers and doctors reporting abuse is a good thing.  Eliminating homeschooling or searching homes without probable cause of homeschoolers in order to prevent possible abuse is unconstitutional and a bad thing. Oversight is fine by me if it is limited to educational testing. Homeschooling used as probable cause to check a parents home is a violation of the 4th amendment.

    If some kids get abused because there is no probable cause to intervene that is the price of freedom. Bush would have your fourth amendment rights removed in order to protect you. This is the basis for the Bush Doctrine and preemptive actions, all so that he can protect you.

    Parent

    Sheeeet.... (none / 0) (#130)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:12:53 PM EST
    I was in the emergency room so much as a child my moms staring giving a fake name once in awhile because she was scared some nosy doctor or nurse would call child services on her, when I was just always falling out of trees or getting hurt horseplaying.

    Back when kids were allowed, and expected, to play outside by themselves.

    Parent

    I remember running around the neighborhood (none / 0) (#142)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:25:54 PM EST
    on my bike, climbing trees all over the place, and "exploring" in the forest behind my house, all alone, at like 8 or 9. I never felt scared or threatened, but no way in h*ll will my kids do the same. Unfortunately, we just don't live in that world anymore. And I may be a bit over-protective, but that's also b/c I can look back at a lot of times when I got reaaaaaal lucky to not be hurt worse than I was.

    Parent
    Losing friends... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:04:26 PM EST
    How many friends have you sort of lost or are having a hard time talking to during this primary?   Someone said it's like a divorce, a feeling of "wow, I thought I knew this person".  I guess my question is for both ways.  Does not matter.  It's a feeling of strange loss.  

    Every one of my brothers. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:16:55 PM EST
    now are on email filters, so that I only go see their messages when I am ready -- if at all.  It was getting as ugly as DKos, and that's saying something.  

    We all are very political and have hashed through a lot over the decades with civil discourse.  They are liberals, they are "progressives," they adored Bill Clinton.  But they turned on him on a dime, agreed that he must be a racist -- and their misogyny toward Hillary . . . well, I knew it was there, but the level of it now is hard for a sister to see.

    And that they were surprised when I objected to some of the crap they forwarded, well, that really surprised me.  They ought to know me better --  only now do I fully realize how deeply embedded misogyny can be, how little they ever listened to me or cared to do so.  I don't think there will be a family reunion this year.

    Parent

    That is a hard one (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:24:41 PM EST
    cause it's beyond just friends, it's in the family.  I have a problem with a nephew.  My brothers are behaving or at least they are in the closet.    

    Parent
    I don't understand (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:54:31 PM EST
    why self-identified "Progressives" think that Obama has a progressive agenda. If anything, he is regressive, i.e. Republican.

    Parent
    I may start parsing dkos. (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:50:11 PM EST
    I think it's beginning to split into rabid commenters who spew the same bile repeatedly and those that stick to some kind of standards re: conduct, language, and so on.  The Haters and Shouters are getting called out more frequently, but they don't seem to be going anywhere just yet.

    The Front Page diaries haven't changed much, though.  

    Parent

    Ironically (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by badger on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:46:28 PM EST
    the only person I've alienated so far was through defending Obama.

    One of my wife's nieces forwarded the "Obama is the Islamic Manchurian Candidate" email to us, and it got routed to my computer by mistake. I couldn't pass up the opportunity to respond. I don't recall exactly what I wrote, but it ended with "Have a nice day, bigots".

    My wife's niece was all in a tizzy because I was so "rude", but over the next several days half the people on the email's list (including the niece's mother) emailed to thank me.


    Parent

    I lost more friends and made more ememies in 2004. (none / 0) (#69)
    by DeborahNC on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:04:44 AM EST
    During this election when lots of my friends became Obama supporters, they just didn't want to hear anything that undermined their rationale for supporting BO. After a while, I just let it go because of my 2004 experience.

    I thought (kind of) that one of my brothers-in-law was going to physically attack over my position on homosexuality. In his view, all homosexuals are going to Hell!

    Parent

    I have a fair number of Republican friends (none / 0) (#75)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:39:18 AM EST
    and even they have figured out Bush by now.

    I don't mind people having different political points of view and I cut them off if they try to press me but they typically know better than to do that.

    I do very much object to nasty e-mail forwards and one sent me that Obama e-mail a few months ago and even though I am not an Obama supporter, he got a load from me and won't talk to me to this day...c'est la vie, he invited it.

    The fact is that everyone is entitled to their own point of view and it is not realistic to choose your friends by whether they support your candidate...but whether they respect your point of view and you can respect theirs that is key.

    Which leads me to TL...the thing that bothers me most is when people get locked in to just spitting out talking points without making it interesting and assuming that you haven't already heard that argument 100 times before...this happens on both Clinton and Obama supporters.

    Democrats have to bear in mind that they are overly anxious because they have endured a really depressing 8 years of Bush/Cheney and even their 'victory' in 2000 was really lame and for many Democrats, they might be saddled with the prospect of having to vote for their 3rd or 4th choice of candidates. While Obama was probably not my 3rd or 4th choice, I will gladly vote for him before I vote for McCain.

    Parent

    I never had any friends anyway (none / 0) (#80)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:02:08 AM EST
    My wife does not allow to respond to her uncle's spamming emails.

    So I don't.

    He wasn't ever really a friend anyway.

    Parent

    I can relate (none / 0) (#86)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:17:33 AM EST
    As a longtime Internet addict, I have several friends that I mostly communicate with via e-mail or telephone.  A few of them are supporting Obama and I've noticed that it takes me longer to pick up the phone or respond to their e-mails than it did a few months ago, even though we avoid the subject of politics.  It's sad.  We all used to be on the same side, hating Bush.  Now I wonder if we ever will be again.

    Fortunately, my closest friend here in NYC is an ardent Clinton supporter.  So is my son's girlfriend (I love that girl!).  My husband thinks I'm deranged, but after spending this past weekend with my mom, he thinks she's just as nutty in her support of Obama.  ;)

    Parent

    I'd never lose a friend.... (none / 0) (#103)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:23:24 AM EST
    over politics.  

    I'm friends with anti-state libertarian liberals like myself, hard-core socialists, run of the mill D's and R's...you name it.  I value their friendships infinitely more than their political views.

    It's only a small slice of life after all.

    Parent

    None. (none / 0) (#138)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:09:49 PM EST
    Probably that's because while we're all political and like to talk about it, none of us are particularly fanatic. I supported Clinton when my sister supported Obama and we talked about it, and I learned something from her point of view. My brother is to the left of both candidates.

    It's also the case that none of us are completely certain in our opinions, so we're all looking to see if someone else will have something that changes our mind.

    Parent

    My family and friends all know I'm all about (none / 0) (#143)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:45:32 PM EST
    Obama, and other than my brother and my dad, nobody else is. The first few times it came up, I just stated my reasons for defending him and why I thought he'd do better than Clinton. If people disagreed, we simply agreed to disagree and didn't bring it up anymore. It's not worth losing a friend or loved one over. One of us will be right and the other will come around.

    It helps if you can support your candidate without stating your case in a "Well, the other one is...."

    If you can't support your candidate because of who they are, but just b/c they aren't someone else, you're gonna have a harder time.

    Parent

    Frontline (none / 0) (#73)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:32:29 AM EST
    Those horrible Clintons.  Bill gave an incentive to pharmas to get 6 month patent extension if they actually did tests about the effects of psychopharmaceuticals on children.  Gee, and now we have data.  These people are so horrible.  

    More Info? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:22:35 AM EST
    I know Pharma hates doing pediatric research - it's much more difficult to do for minors and also because it's not easy to get a large, reasonably uniform test population.

    So if it comes down to having kids dosed with drugs that have only ever been tested on adults ("off label" use) or actually testing drugs on kids, I'll take the tests.

    I think the biggest problem with any prescription drug is a "Plug and Play" mentality where prescribers and parents don't do the essential monitoring and follow up.  Every drug is prescribed to improve/treat a condition and every patient should be monitored to make sure that it is doing exactly that.  

    Parent

    Not beeing one to give up (none / 0) (#78)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:05:57 AM EST
    I posted at dailyKos
    Last post I was so hammered and so insulted I thought I'd not do it again.
    But we're more alike than we are different, and I was hoping sanity would take hold over there.
    What do you think?
    So I'm not a progressive any more?

    I read your post and about 20 comments or so. (1.00 / 1) (#144)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:02:23 PM EST
    For the most part, people seemed to answer your diary in an honest and overall polite fashion. They simply noted that HRC is not a grassroots candidate, Obama was not the first choice of the netroots, but in the end he was preferable to Hillary. That seems an honest and fair evaluation of the evolution of this race.

     I don't want to be overly caustic, but have you asked yourself the kind of questions some people there posed to you? Like are you sure you're a true progressive? People noted you call yourself moderate. Is it possible that your support of HRC has led to you being a bit sensitive to criticisms of her? Was it ever reasonable to expect the people at DKos to support her? After all, Markos noted that she barely broke single digits in their reader polls all last year. Is it DKos that left you, or did you leave DKos?

    Others here who are critical of DKos should ask themselves the same questions. Is it not okay to simply come here and MyDD instead of insisting that Kos bend to your desire for Clinton?


    Parent

    I'm right of Obama and Left of Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#145)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:22:44 PM EST
    The "conservatives" are not on my measuring stick.
    I hate pork, bloated defense budgets and social engineering via tax policies.
    I prefer smaller government.
    But
    I don't think anybody should be without adequate food, shelter and medical care in a country as rich as ours.
    Government should just plain butt out of our personal lives.

    I've been labeled a liberal libertarian.

    dKos left me with that post he wrote over on Huffpo. Before that it was just a hostile neighborhood.


    Parent

    I know that is why you left, (1.00 / 1) (#146)
    by halstoon on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:11:05 AM EST
    and ultimately I respect your right to make that decision. I was just saying that after reading the Huffpo link, I didn't see how he was being overly caustic or hateful toward Clinton. He was simply pointing to reasons why she failed to garner support at his site.

    I'm pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, and pro-legalization. I also believe that taxes should be progressive and that the capital gains tax should be maintained; people who are able to sit around making money all day just b/c they have money can afford to pay taxes on it. I believe the needy should be helped.

    I also believe that personal responsibility is not forced upon people as often as it should be. I don't think you should be able to ride the system for a lifetime. I think a woman should be able to decide about abortion within 6 months, and after that she should have the baby absent a medical threat to her life or the baby dying in utero. I don't think global warming is the imminent threat Gore would have us believe, but I do believe environmental morality is a good thing.
    I don't believe in affirmative action. I do believe in charter schools and vouchers.

    I don't see myself in partisan terms. If anything, I think of myself as a civil libertarian with a strong centrist streak. I don't regularly read and have never posted at DKos.

    Parent

    One half of this party should never (none / 0) (#79)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:59:41 AM EST
    And I mean NEVER visit Kos's blog.  That should be the demarcation line by which the party fractures, and never unites until Kos gets his crap together and stops preaching hate.

    I have come to realize there is little difference between Rev. Wright and Markos.


    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#83)
    by Oje on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:56:01 AM EST
    You are actually losing the vote! It is kind of like a Stalinist purge:

    the most loyal Bolsheviki are the dead Bolsheviki!

    Parent

    Well, I can relate, (none / 0) (#84)
    by alsace on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:16:09 AM EST
    although for most of my voting life I considered myself as Independent, leaning Democratic.  Of course, early on, the Republican party had the Rockefeller wing.  But even though I voted mostly Democratic, I didn't call myself a Democrat even through Nixon and Reagan.  It took the hypocrisy of Newt Gingrich decrying the "politics of personal destruction" while practicing it that got me to calling myself a Democrat.  Now that a wing of the Democratic party is doing a Gingrich, I expect I'll be sliding back to self-described Independent.

    Parent
    I looked at a few responses. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:29:47 AM EST
    Most of the responses weren't about "you".  Instead it was talking points and people talking about themselves.

    Frankly, every time I read someone just slam Clinton I tune them out.  I don't mind if people have made up their minds, I just don't see the point of wallowing in negative emotions.  And why share them with me or someone else?  It's like listening to a friend complaining about their ex-SO for the millionth time.

    Parent

    A stump (none / 0) (#87)
    by bernarda on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:43:52 AM EST
    The collective knowledge and intelligence of the American public is less than a stump.

    Ironic twist to FL voting (none / 0) (#88)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:47:30 AM EST
    I live in FL, and this afternoon I got an interesting piece of mail from my county Supervisor of Elections.  It was one of the standard things I get that reminds me of upcoming elections, and also sends a voter registration form.  In the section of upcoming elections, it of course lists Nov. 4 - General Election Day.  But it also lists:  

    August 26, 2008 - Primary Election Day

    I'm sure that is for local down-ticket primaries, makes perfect sense.  But do you realize that Aug. 26 is the second day of the Dem National Convention in Denver?  So at the very same time the Convention is either ignoring FL delegates altogether, or seating them only if their votes don't really mean anything, voters in Florida will be going to the polls.

    I'm sure Obama's friends who are down-ticket candidates in the primary don't mind that he has done everything in his power to depress Dem voter turnout in Florida.

    Washington DC.... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:39:03 AM EST
    the new capital of Oceania.

    I love Big Brother:)

    interesting post at riverdaughter (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:39:52 AM EST
    For months now, I've tried to get a clear sense of Barack Obama.  I've read articles and books and I've searched all over the `net for insight.  Yet no matter how much I've learned about his life and career, Obama still seems to me like a cipher, a blank page, an empty suit.

    Link

    watching tv news (none / 0) (#93)
    by trailer on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:42:28 AM EST
    I too have changed my new cable watching!! It was a couple years that I left Fox news a few weeks ago left MSNBC and now thinking of leaving CNN. I can go along with all the hipe concerning Obama,so let just continue with that hipe altogether but leave Hillary bashing off. In fact lets just call Obama Pres an stop the election and save the money such as $40 million in one month to ring ustogether. Thank God for C-span and Link Tv

    laarry ward south Dakota

    I have almost (none / 0) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:43:58 AM EST
    completely stopped watching teevee news.
    usually only in the morning when I am getting ready to go to work.
    I find I am much happier and not a bit less informed.


    Parent
    btw (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:42:39 AM EST
    dancing with the stars?

    one word:
    cable

    Interesting article about Tweety (none / 0) (#102)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:19:51 AM EST
    coming out this weekend...apparently this is an advance peek

    New PA Polls from Rasmussen and SV (none / 0) (#108)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:38:42 AM EST
    Both show Clinton up by 5%.

    48% to 43% with Rasmussen

    47% to 42% with Strategic Vision

    Not sure if this means the 18 point Susa poll was an outlier,  or if it's picked something that all the other polls have missed.  Having said that,  between the two SUSA polls showing a 19% and then 18% leads for Clinton,  they also had a 3 or 4 day tracking poll showing only a 12% lead.  This had some sub groups going from dead even in the tracking poll,  to 18% leads for Clinton.  Something doesn't seem right there and I would tend to think that the true picture is somewhere around Clinton being about 12 points up just now.

    Corrupt Bar (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:49:34 AM EST
    ... A system that punishes and shames Matthew Diaz, yet obstructs any investigation into the misconduct of John Yoo and Jim Haynes, and particularly their focal rule in the introduction of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, is corrupt. Indeed, it persecutes the innocent and rewards the guilty. A bar association that disbars Matthew Diaz and leaves Yoo and Haynes free to practice is fundamentally corrupt. In essence, this choice reflects a legal profession that puts upholding the will of the Executive, even when it commands the most egregious and unlawful conduct, over the Rule of Law. It reflects the abnegation of the bedrock principles of the profession and the principles of the American Constitution and the Revolution which gave rise to it. ...

    Scott Horton via War&Piece

    If it's from Columbia.... (none / 0) (#134)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:48:19 PM EST
    there's drug money in there somewhere:)

    Obama and the banker (none / 0) (#137)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:24:19 PM EST
    On China's human rights issue:
    It's very hard to tell your banker that he's wrong, all right? And if we are running huge deficits and big national debts and we're borrowing money constantly from China, that gives us less leverage.

    Hmm .. so is that the stance he will take when he becomes the president.. what is he going to say about Saudi Arabia?