home

CS& N Benefit Tonight, Open Thread

Tonight in Denver: Crosby, Stills and Nash.

Proceeds from the tax-deductable tickets go to the American Transplant Foundation. Thu 8 p.m. Wells Fargo Theatre, 700 14th St. $250-$1000. For more information, visit here.

The TL Kid and I will be there... one of the partners at his new law firm gave us their great seats right in front. (Thanks, Jeff.)

This is another open thread as the last one is full.

< How To Read Polls: Part . . . | Greenwald On Olbermann >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I'm very envious (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by stxabuela on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:17:55 PM EST
    I know you'll both enjoy it!

    Me too... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Thanin on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:33:39 PM EST
    Ive always wanted to see them.

    Parent
    Coming back to guns (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by scribe on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:43:34 PM EST
    On an earlier thread, there was an exchange about the meaning of a well-regulated militia, and how quickly the feds would swoop down, should someone decide it would be worthwhile to form one.  That witty commenter (squeaky, I think it was) then linked to the story about Blackwater being that militia, and their having come into a number of (probably illegal to import, have or transfer) full-auto AK-47s which they, to avoid the relevant federal firearms laws, had put in the name of their local sheriff (but stored in Blackwater's arms room).

    Great minds think alike, I guess - the feds raided Blackwater's arms room this afternoon.

    That's a good start... (none / 0) (#8)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:49:14 PM EST
    ...although the article doesn't say that they took them away or not.  "She said she did not know whether the weapons in question were seized."

    Put 'em out of business altogether, I say.

    Parent

    Seized. (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:53:11 PM EST
    Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell said investigators with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives searched Blackwater's armory at its corporate headquarters in Moyock on Tuesday as part of the investigation. She said agents seized all of the weapons in question.


    Parent
    That's good news (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:44:29 PM EST
    It concerns me, though, that the feds may have known about these weapons for a long time, and only conducted this raid as a result of the recent publicity.

    Something about Blackwater, and the amount of free rein they're given, really worries me.

    Parent

    It's good news... (none / 0) (#126)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:19:49 PM EST
    because it's a merc outfit like Blackwater, who you and I would agree are generally up to no good.

    But bad news in that as much as I dislike guns, I don't want the FBI, DEA, ATF, ICE...pick your acronym...to be the only ones to have them.  

    Parent

    What concerns me... (none / 0) (#140)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:24:49 PM EST
    ...is Blackwater buying a freakin' fighter jet from Brazil.

    http://tinyurl.com/6jgn4x

    I imagine assault helicopters are next on the shopping list.

    Parent

    Sh*T (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:28:20 PM EST
    I better call up my credit card co ASAP and cancel the humongous order I placed earlier this afternoon. Looks like the plans I had for my militia based on todays decision is just not going to happen despite what Scalia says.

    Parent
    No worries. If they didn't ship already (none / 0) (#26)
    by scribe on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:39:37 PM EST
    they can just cancel the order and everyone goes on with their lives.

    In the meantime, you should go read the textual analysis in the opinion I link to in this comment - the Ninth Circuit decided which meaning of "is" is the correct one.

    And people were all over Scalia (or Stevens) for his linguistic and textual analysis....

    Parent

    I Always Thought Bill's Answer Was Serious (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:59:23 PM EST
    And now I know that it is.

    Parent
    Tonight, my daughter and I (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:53:59 PM EST
    are going to see "The Complet Wrks of Wilm Shkspr" (abridged) at Agecroft Hall. Agecroft Hall is an authentic 16th century Tudor mansion which was disassembled and shipped here from England and then reassembled(by some very wealthy folks long ago). It is performed by 3 cast members and is supposed to be hilarious. It is staged in the courtyard so I'm hoping it cools down some by tonight. It is hot as Hades today.

    Reassembled Tudor mansion. (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:59:55 PM EST
    My kind of place.  Where is it?

    Parent
    Richmond. It's gorgeous and (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:04:28 PM EST
    has wonderful grounds.

    Parent
    Yes, I saw that... (none / 0) (#34)
    by desertswine on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:59:35 PM EST
    a few years ago. You're going to have a great time.

    Oh, and if it ever comes to your area, go see MacHomer, another take-off on Shakespeare. Very funny.

    Parent

    Speaking of those in need (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by shoephone on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:06:00 PM EST
    79 year old jazz and blues singer Ernestine Anderson is in danger of losing her home if she does not come up with $45,000 to pay her mortgage lender by this coming Monday.

    If you live in the Seattle area, please go to a Bank of America near you and donate to the Ernestine Anderson Fund today. Really, today. If you live outside Washington, you can still donate to the fund, just make sure they know it's through B of A's in Washington.

    Very sad (none / 0) (#16)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:27:10 PM EST
    She has done a lot for many charities in the area.

    Parent
    And she took care (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by shoephone on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:35:53 PM EST
    of her mentally dsiabled sister until the day she died. Ernestine is a very loving, giving person. I really hope Seattle residents give back to her on this. She deserves so much better.

    Parent
    "disabled" (none / 0) (#23)
    by shoephone on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:36:21 PM EST
    I have no quarrel (none / 0) (#36)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:00:37 PM EST
    with the word.  Just don't use 'challenge,' please.

    Parent
    No problem! (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by shoephone on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:25:04 PM EST
    At lunch a couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine was startled to learn that the newest term for mentally disabled is "intellectually challenged".

    And I just found out last year what "cultural competency" is.

    I may have to keep a current dictionary of politically correct terms with me at all times.

    Parent

    The one that bothers me (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:38:56 PM EST
    is "developmentally delayed". A delay assumes that something will eventually happen. If it's the case that a child will be able to read at an eighth grade level, for example, but not until he's 20, that's a developmental delay. But if a child will never grasp reading, then there's no delay. I have sat in on so meetings with parents and teachers where everyone is so concerned about being politically correct that the parents leave without really understanding what's going on with their child. Somehow we have to move past some of this stuff.

    Parent
    I just lost out on a job (none / 0) (#62)
    by shoephone on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:50:02 PM EST
    for which I was completely qualified. I had three interviews with them (which all went very well) and waited three months to find out that they decided they wanted someone with more of a "background of diversity".

    In other words: I'm too white. Of course, they can't advertise for a non-white person because then they would be subject to a law suit.

    Political correctness is ruining this country.

    Parent

    Makes you wonder why they (none / 0) (#67)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:57:33 PM EST
    put you through such an extensive process, doesn't it! The answer is to entertain themselves because they've been taught by some creative mind that they simply MUST have "choices" even if they are certain one candidate is more qualified than another.

    Parent
    It's politically correct Seattle, my dear (none / 0) (#73)
    by shoephone on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:02:24 PM EST
    I've learned that the phrase "women, people of color and GLBT encouraged to apply" really means "don't bother if you're white". Even a white woman. And fluency in all the politically correct terminology is expected.

    I am, apparently, not "culturally competent".

    Dat's da breaks.

    Parent

    Discovered this when trying to get (none / 0) (#93)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:27:31 PM EST
    a small business loan/grant. "Women and Minorities" should have read "Minority Women". Would have saved us a bunch of time . . . My grandparents are from 4 different countries, but not the right ones, so I don't fit the diversity profile either {sigh}

    On the up side, becoming a senior might actually be a plus! At least AARP will recognize me in a couple years while I wait for senior status :)

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#99)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:38:03 PM EST
    I'm looking for a new job in Seattle at the moment and haven't seen the encouragement line on anything yet.  In my case, the employers are looking more for "18-35, blonde, attractive, spelling a plus, but not necessary". Really chaps the agencies when this old broad gets 100% on all the computer tests, and office skills tests. Kind of a what the h*ll do we do now, we sure can't place her?!

    Parent
    Uh. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:00:19 PM EST
    My kids are DD, not MR.  It's a expressive language delay for the most part.  (And all the social delays that come from not using language.)

    In early childhood, you can only say where they are now.  You can't really say anything about where they might be be in a year or five years.  So I can see a lot of reason to call a young child delayed, but the term should probably be dropped once by a certain age.

    Parent

    And so (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:29:42 PM EST
    developmentally delayed is the right choice for your child, but it's being used to describe all kinds of things that it isn't. A 20 year old who still does not speak is not "delayed". I have dealt mostly with high school students and parents who are negotiating for a regular diploma or extended time to graduate.  (A high school diploma in our state requires passing the state exams or having special education needs that are severe. Very few students qualify for an alternative assessment.)  There comes a time when a regular high school environment has offered a student all that it has to offer.  If a parent keeps hearing "developmentally delayed", they sometimes come to believe that if their child who is pushing 21 is just kept in school a little longer, things will get better. For the record, I'm usually on the parents' side, but a school's unwillingness to be candid for fear of offending often gets in the way of an honest assessment and a realistic plan for the child.

    Parent
    Don't suppose my oldest (51) was (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:10:03 PM EST
    ever called developmentally delayed.  Mentally challenged, a time or two. Too bad we did not have a little political correctness when she was a child.  Back then Easter Seals told a speech therapist that a mongoloid could never learn to talk--global defect, you know. She started talking when she was around 15 months (asking for her favorite songs), but if you are assumed to be incurably backward, then guess what?

    BTW, she's traveled with us thru England and Europe and across America (ok, the thing she liked best in the Alps was the cattle); seen 4 eclipses,the Ice Man, and the Tut exhibit; kayaked up the river Indiana Jones jumped into;  climbed Diamond Head; snorkeled off Maui; had a Zodiac tour on Kauai; and gone whitewater rafting.  Among other things....

    Parent

    When your child was a child, (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:13:53 PM EST
    you are absolutely correct. A little "political correctness" would have been great, but sometimes the pendulum swings a little too far.  Instead of labels for kids, we should talk about where they are developmentally, where they want to go, and how might we help them get there. But sometimes we have to be able to talk about whether there is a way to get there. Because if you can't swim across the lake, but need to get to other side, we need to start thinking about learning how to row a boat instead. Like if a child will never be able to live on his own, we should talk about other alternatives before there's no one left in the family to care for him. And if college is not going to be a viable path to employment for a child unless he or she is highly motivated to do it, we should be able to discuss other paths to meaningful employment.  When parents and schools resort to mediation over special education issues, honest communication is essential on both sides. It's usually missing and its lack is what brought them to that place.

    Parent
    You are, of course, correct. (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:50:59 PM EST
    I qualified for a teacher's certificate and taught 'trainable' kids awhile.  (I knew that my original job track was no longer possible.)  But still the main problem was that even the other teachers assumed the worst about the students' abilities (and they did have some.)  As my girl grew up, we sent her to an 'activity center'.  And the summer of '00, they asked us to go ahead and let her live in one of the 'community training homes (4 residents only).  I did agree (we never intended to leave her care to siblings), tho we felt it was a little soon.  My husband had an horrific stroke 2 weeks later, so her move was providential, to say the least.

    Parent
    I have a (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:43:20 PM EST
    relative with Downs. She's in her thirties. I can't imagine how hard it was back then for you. I saw how hard it was for my relatives 30 years ago. I still can't understand her that well though. I think it's because I'm not around her that much. She's great with my kids though. She plays with the little one and loves babies.

    Parent
    Down Syndrome? (none / 0) (#117)
    by sher on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:29:48 PM EST
    Haven't seen or heard the word "mongoloid" in decades!

    Parent
    Correct! (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:40:09 PM EST
    But that was the term being used.  Heck, trisomy 21  was not publicised until she was 3 years old.  'Down's' was used by no one.  People were still astonished that Chinese families had children with trisomy 21 and that the kids looked 'different.'

    Parent
    My sister has Downs (50 year old) (n/t) (none / 0) (#127)
    by sher on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:21:18 PM EST
    I sometimes wionder (none / 0) (#141)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:39:19 PM EST
    what it was like for my other kids (2 nearly the same age, 1 much younger).  I tried not to make them responsible for her--but she was part of the Scouts, and the church, etc.  One of the kids wrote a 2nd-grade essay saying that retarded children enjoyed the same things as other children.  Another kid, grown, wrote me that she appreciated having grown up with her handicapped sister.  After my daughter moved out at age 43, I realized just how much stress there had been when they were all home: trying to keep life as normal as possible while including the Down's daughter and making sure she was safe.

    Parent
    wonder, not woinder (none / 0) (#143)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:53:44 PM EST
    I suspect (none / 0) (#145)
    by sher on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:47:48 AM EST
    your other children have more empathy, among other things, as a consequence of growing up with a sister with Downs.  As a sibling, taking care of my sister is both a burden and a blessing. There but for the grace of God go I....

    Parent
    Your sister: (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:54:29 AM EST
    Does she live with you, or are you 'in charge'?  My daughter loves her house and the center she attends, so the siblings are under orders never to move her.  (I call her my anchor, because I will not move away as long as I can see her.)  But if necessary, one can step in as guardian, because I never gave up parental rights.  One of the fights I do have with the county people is over the living will and DNR orders--they give me silly excuses such as "what if she's just choking on food?"  And that of course does not apply to DNR.  I think I have finally persuaded the officials that they must make every attempt to ask me or one of my other kids to make the decision.  I figure my girl has had enough to cope with in this life without being subjected to life support, etc.

    Glad you can see your sister as a blessing--I have lately realized how much joy my daughter brings to people with her loving ways.  But I can't manage her daily care anymore.  Many good wishes to you!
     

    Parent

    My sister lives with me (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by sher on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:47:26 PM EST
    and she helps keep everything in perspective.  I almost never feel sorry for myself.  And yes at times it is very difficult because she is low functioning but again I could be the one who needs care rather than the caregiver.  God bless you and your daughter.

    Parent
    Dictionaries: I thought I was (none / 0) (#142)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:50:53 PM EST
    unusually good with words.  But I now find that I have always used a word that is not in the dictionary: antithical. (Or antithecal.) It seems to have been used both n scholarly journals and blogs--but it is not in any dictionary.  Obama said antithetical, and it appears that is correct.  Ouch!

    Parent
    Court decides which definition of "is" (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by scribe on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:37:23 PM EST
    is correct.

    Splitting 2-1, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has decided which definition of "is" is the correct one.  The decision is here.

    From the opinion's opening paragraphs:  

    This appeal presents the single, seemingly straightforward question whether the word "is" really means "is," at least as that word is employed in 25 U.S.C. § 81.

    * * *
    Motivated largely by the plain meaning of Section 81--but after also taking into account related statutes, relevant legislative history and the language of the contract itself--we conclude that the word "is" means just that (in the most basic, present-tense sense of the word) and that Section 81 therefore applies only to contracts that affect lands already held in trust by the United States. We therefore reverse the district court and remand for further proceedings.

    Do remember, of course, that this decision was 2-1 to reverse the District Court.  This means, therefore, that one definition of "is" as gotten two votes (both in the Circuit Court) and the other definition of "is" has also gotten two votes (one each in the Circuit and District Courts).

    And people jumped in Bill Clinton's sh&t for answering "it depends what your definition of 'is' is".

    I love it (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:50:04 PM EST
    I always knew Bill was accurate in the word having more than one meaning, but never cared enough to look deeper into it.

    I still don't. I could have cared less if he had done what they claimed, he was a great president.


    Parent

    And rightly so, I might add. (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:25:08 PM EST
    Next, possible en banc (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:34:55 PM EST
    opinion(s) and SCOTUS.  

    Parent
    Please respect Jeralyn's rule (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:43:41 PM EST
    regarding the use of proper given names. Otherwise, you are just egging on others to use to same type of mockery. Thanks.

    I'm still laughing (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by pie on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:46:50 PM EST
    about his paid posters comment.

    Parent
    Me too (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:53:26 PM EST
    Tortmaster, you may want to do a little research there, since Obama seems to have beaten McCain to the paid blogger-commenter punch by several months.

    Although, I suppose you could still argue it's a pro for Obama, since he implemented it first.

    Parent

    Not just several months, but I'll bet (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:29:01 PM EST
    by several hundred. Obama's were said to number 400 (which, would certainly explain 700 paid staffers).

    Parent
    I'm glad you appreciate my snark ... (1.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Tortmaster on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:26:45 PM EST
    ... but I'm looking for feedback on how ya'll think about McSame sending people into other blogs, even liberal blogs, to cause disension, etc...

    I'm not talking about hiring a blogger who already has a blog to blog on his or her blog about McSame -- it's the posters who sneak into blogs that I'm talking about.

    So, what do ya'll think?

    I plan to surrender to the first McSame spy I run into on the blogs.

    /snark

    Parent

    You want my honest opinion? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by tree on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:36:33 PM EST
    This is not meant as an attack on you, but I've wondered sometimes if you aren't a McCain plant yourself. I don't think you are very effective here as a spokesperson for Obama's cause, hence the wondering on my part. I apologize, but those are my thoughts.

     Personally, I vote on issues, not on who I think has the most effective spokespeople on blogs. If I decide to vote for someone it isn't because some shmoe on a blog dazzled me with his/her brilliance, or lack of same.

    Parent

    I bet you like (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by pie on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:41:13 PM EST
    to go snipe-hunting, too.  

    Don't forget your gun.

    Parent

    I respect your wishes ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Tortmaster on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:19:50 PM EST
    ... and I will do as I'm told.

    Parent
    When? (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:30:26 PM EST
    Five posts later and you are still using "McSame". That's the kind of smug attitude that keeps people firmly against unity, you realize.

    Parent
    But you don't understand. (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by tree on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:43:13 PM EST
    Its acceptable for the Democratic Presidential  candidate to talk about unity with Republicans on issues, but its wrong to think that unity means not calling them silly names on blogs. Its a highly principled stance.

    (Yes, Virginia, that was snark.)

    Parent

    This from (2.33 / 3) (#118)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:47:02 PM EST
    the people who could trace or tie the Franco-Prussian War or the Lindbergh kidnapping to something Obama did.

    Yesterday everyone was still stuck so much in get-Obama autopilot, very few even got the original point about the "elite" label being originally a Repub meme that's been applied at different times across the board to smear any liberal Democrat they didnt like.

    But, somehow, it was much more important to rehash how beastly Obama was during the Pennsylvania primary.

    Parent

    The original point (none / 0) (#138)
    by tree on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:07:20 PM EST
    that I noticed was that Maureen Dowd was the last person in the world that should be complaining about someone else tossing around the "elitist" adjective And no one was talking about "elites" unless they were trying to muddy the waters. The conversation was about "elitism" and MoDo's hypocrisy as far as I saw it.

     

    Parent

    I suggest you review the (none / 0) (#152)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:48:02 PM EST
    original post.

    Every thread isnt necessarily an invitation to attack Obama directly or by proxy (through supporters like Dowd), however hard it may be to get off attack-attack auto-pilot once you're on it.

    Parent

    Amazing the quick (3.60 / 5) (#105)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:51:19 PM EST
    offense taken at "McSame" after the (if you'll excuse the expression), Puma feeding frenzy that's been going on here for weeks if not months.

    Yes, we need to not offend the McWarcriminal supporters, underneath that blood spattered exterior  they're sensitive people that we cant afford to alienate.

    Parent

    Unity With Rethugs? (3.00 / 2) (#52)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:35:49 PM EST
    You must be kidding. But I guess that there are many offended by having their candidate's name modified to reflect his biggest characteristic. McSame seems like a perfect description for the GOP  nominee.

    Parent
    No, squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:43:57 PM EST
    unity between the Clinton and Obama supporters. We don't call the candidates names - none of them. I don't wish to be associated with people who do and it appears very difficult for the Obama side to stop with the sarcastic name-calling.

    It is that name-calling mannerism that deepened the divide between the supporters in the first place. A mere shift over who you are now going to call names doesn't change the offensiveness of the practice.

    Parent

    One persons sarcastic name-calling... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:36:24 PM EST
    is another persons sarcastic political commentary.

    I've got no problem with McSame, McCrooked, McCriminal.

    My personal favorite throughout the primary season...the 3 stooges.

    Quite frankly the lot of them deserve far worse.

    Parent

    Huh? (3.00 / 2) (#91)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:25:08 PM EST
    I don't wish to be associated with people ....

    Well there are all sorts of people who supported Clinton here, and elsewhere that engaged in name calling of not only a democratic candidate but supporters of that democratic candidate. Nary a peep out of you then. Why the sudden shift with McSame?

    Lambert, Taylor Marsh, No Quarter, even O'Liely when he bashed Obama, seem all fine to associate with, no?

    Parent

    squeaky, you need to find someone who is (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:49:11 PM EST
    willing to fight with you.

    Parent
    What she needs to (3.00 / 2) (#108)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:58:26 PM EST
    do is become one with the Hill and defend her honor against that absolute beast from Illinois right up until Nov 5.

    And stop saying McSame. It's insensitive.

    Parent

    Whatever You Say (3.00 / 2) (#109)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:02:52 PM EST
    Because I have pointed out your hypocrisy, double standard or utter blindness,  you feel the need to dismiss me as someone who is only looking for a fight?

    Pathetic, imo.

    I don't wish to be associated with people who do and it appears very difficult for the Obama side to stop with the sarcastic name-calling.
    It is that name-calling mannerism that deepened the divide between the supporters in the first place. A mere shift over who you are now going to call names doesn't change the offensiveness of the practice.

    You are dishonest here, and quite pretentious, imo. Had you been offended by all the nonsense that was dished out by your associates for the last several months, I would consider your point. On the issue of being offended by name calling you have little credibility.

    Parent

    You are making personal attacks (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:37:04 PM EST
    and you have no idea what sites I take offense to and which I enjoy reading. So, don't make such blanket assumptions.

    You are completely out of line and in violation of site rules. Forgive me for rating you as a violator.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:53:17 PM EST
    I am not making personal attacks, but pointing out that you have a glaring double standard. And I do not know anything about which sites you frequent other than TL. But I do know that at TL, your comment record is clear in that you have no problem championing sites that viciously attacked Obana, You have even once commented that you wanted to hug O'Liely for making nasty remarks about Obama.

    All of a sudden, though, when it comes to McSame you are having a fainting spell because out of principal you detest namecalling and insults?

    That is the very definition of hypocrisy, in case you were wondering.

    Parent

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:49:32 PM EST
    The candidate who reminds me the most of Bush's personality traits is not John McCain.

    So every time some one says "McSame!", I think a variety of thoughts about both candidates.  Of course, Obama could be called "McDifferent" for his constantly shifting positions.  Or perhaps "The Fantastic Presto Change-O!"

    Parent

    Tortmaster (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:07:26 PM EST
    you have turned into a chatterer. Please limit yourself to 10 posts in a 24 hour period.

    If you think I'm not enforcing a rule, email me the comments you find in violation and I'll take a look.

    Parent

    Who Is Talking About Personality (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:28:19 PM EST
    McSame has nothing to do with personality but policy, votes and positions, basically lockstep with BushCo.

    Parent
    I have no problem with the (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:24:47 PM EST
    use of McSame...it's not a personal or character attack, name-calling or insulting. It's shorthand for saying a McCain presidency will be a continuation of Bush policies.

    Tortmaster is being suspended.

    Parent

    I think it's better to make the argument than (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:50:56 PM EST
    call names or make up cutesy names for any candidates.

    The policies on TL are yours to make (of course) but I'd argue that making a distinction based on characterizing the campaign or policies versus personal attacks is a very fine one to maintain and leaves other candidates besides McCain open to a variety of names besides their own proper names.  Plus, on this same thread McCain is called McWarCriminal or some such -- is that a personal attack or a policy based moniker?

    I actually stopped referring to Obama supporters as Obamabots and a variety of other name a little time after I came to this site because I realized how juvenile it sounded in the midst of real discussion.  (I do admit to slipping more than once, but while sorely tempted many times to go with the much shorter 'bots I end up typing out the whole 'Obama supporters' phrase).

    I also admit that had I not seen the amazing amount of vitriol and immature name-calling against Clinton the past year I may not have been as sensitive to it.  I certainly did not take kindly to the poster the other day who kept referring to Clinton as 'Mrs.', even though that's not even a nickname.

    But it seems to me that there's no reason to not address the candidates by their proper names.  It is one (of many factors) that distinguishes TL from most other sites.  If one's argument is that McCain is the same as Bush, then make the argument.  If the argument is self-apparent, then no need to keep repeating 'McSame.'

    My 2 cents.

    Parent

    Make that 4 cents. (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by tree on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:14:22 PM EST
    You speak for me as well. Thanks.

    Parent
    I could do without (none / 0) (#151)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:36:31 PM EST
    more of those "creative class" backhanded swipes that sound like they originated with one of Rick Santorum or Michael Savage's writers.

    As if there were something abberant and (doggone it!) downright un-American about aspiring to see and do things in a new way.

    Parent

    it's (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:08:44 PM EST
    not that huge in the scheme of things but it is pretty juvenile don't you think?

    Parent
    I'll Take Juvenile Any Day (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:15:27 PM EST
    Over calling democratic candidates elitists, arrogant etc. Those are tride and true GOP smears, imo.

    Parent
    Truer Republicanism, one could not find (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by scribe on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:22:30 PM EST
    than in the farewell/memorial party at the late William F. Buckley's house in NYC.

    It was run by the realtors, and guests got promotional material on the sale of the house.

    Presented without further comment;  the article says all that needs be said.

    You tell (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:49:17 PM EST
    me why it's always someone else's job? Or responsiblity and never Obama's? He's the nominee. He got what he wanted and now he has to do the work whether he likes it or not.

    If One Senator (4.80 / 5) (#4)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:39:31 PM EST
    Can manage to block 100 bills, How come the Dem's can't seem to be able to block even one?

    "Coburn is blocking roughly 100 bills, including ones that fund breast cancer research and screen soldiers for signs of suicide risk. Most recently, Coburn placed a hold on an HIV/AIDS prevention bill".

    What a great cause... (none / 0) (#2)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:23:02 PM EST
    ...I hope everyone will consider being an organ donor.  

    becoming a donor: (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by kelsweet on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:46:11 PM EST
    I rarely comment here, but on this I feel I must. When my daughter was 3 in 1997 her doctor's allowed her to go into kidney and heart failure (we proved medical negligence, but didn' win the law suit) ANYWAY... this is so hard for me...  after a year on dialysis at home she received the gift of a kidney. They gave her an 85% chance it would "take" and last 5 years if there were no complications, which there was, however, she is now 15 yrs old. Same kidney still working :)
     BTW kidney's DO NOT last forever... she WILL reject at some point and go back on dialysis and eventually the list. This is a WONDERFUL CAUSE.
          I would love to tell her story, if anyone is interested, it is complicated. BECOME A DONOR!

    Parent
    Thank you for sharing... (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:37:25 PM EST
    ...your story, kelsweet.  A donor organ is truly the ultimate gift one human can give to another.  

    My Father's tranplant gave him (and us) an extra 15 years.  It came from St. Louis, so he named it Louie.  

    I recently got on the list myself and am hoping to avoid dialysis, but one never knows.  I've lived with one kidney since I was 14 and it is breaking down thirty-something years later.

    My best to you and your daughter.  Feel free to jump into the conversations around here more often!

    Parent

    st louie.. (none / 0) (#130)
    by kelsweet on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:34:13 PM EST
    wow what a small world!
     She got her transplant in Arkansas, (we're from there) However, we moved to MO 2 yrs ago and she now goes to St.Louis to see her nephrologist, Now, i was sick about moving here and having to fill the new guy in on her history... The Dr.here
    is one of her original Dr's from Arkansas, he had moved to St louis!!!
     I hope all goes well with you!

    Parent
    It is indeed.... (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:00:14 PM EST
    ...a small World.  

    That's great she can see her old Doctor.  I HATE having to break-in new ones!  A lot of things I've blocked out or don't really think about.  I'm a bad historian I'm afraid.

    Thanks for the well wishes.  Sometimes all we can do is hope things work out for the best.


    Parent

    They're letting the TL kid out of the library (none / 0) (#3)
    by scribe on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:39:28 PM EST
    to go to a concert?

    Good law firm to work for, I guess....

    he goes to an average of (none / 0) (#68)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:57:54 PM EST
    four courts a day -- they put him in court the first day after his swearing in -- he's put 2,000 miles on his car in the past month -- then he goes back to the office and writes motions on the bigger state and federal cases until after 6:00 pm and takes home a new stack of cases for the morning. It's great experience but I get tired just thinking about his schedule -- even though I did it too just starting out.

    Parent
    What a wonderful evening for you (none / 0) (#81)
    by sher on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:09:55 PM EST
    saw Crosby Stills & Nash in the 70s. A special concert. Suite Judy Blue Eyes is still one of my favorites.  You and your son should have a great time.

    Parent
    Ultimately, learning to swim (none / 0) (#86)
    by scribe on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:18:01 PM EST
    comes down to getting tossed in over your head.

    It sounds like they're keeping an eye on him and making sure he's not wasting his time or getting too far astray - things a young lawyer can easily fall into.

    I started off (post-admission) working for a solo, and when he was off somewhere, I got left to figure out stuff for myself.  While I learned a lot, it took far more time than it would have had I been more-properly supervised.  Then again, if by nature I wasn't nearly as insubordinate as I was/am (not necessarily a bad trait in a lawyer, BTW), I might have had a better facility at working within a larger firm structure under greater supervision.

    Parent

    In a large firm (none / 0) (#90)
    by sher on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:22:59 PM EST
    young lawyers rarely have an opportunity to have the "big picture" of law practice because their duties/responsibilities are so compartmentalized.  Many who started in that environment envy your experience

    Parent
    We'll trade paychecks (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by scribe on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:04:12 PM EST
    and then we'll find out how envious they still are.

    Parent
    Misread Your Title (none / 0) (#5)
    by The Maven on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:39:46 PM EST
    With just a tiny change in the initials here, this would have been a benefit for my employer, which is doing more than just fine, thank you very much (not that their financial well-being translates down to me, of course).

    I am obviously overdue for my mid-afternoon caffeine infusion.

    Saw them in Sacramento (none / 0) (#6)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:40:22 PM EST
    Wonderful small outdoor theater, with a pond nearby. Didn't pay anything like that. Very worthwhile, though.

    Hillary Clinton made a solo (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:01:45 PM EST
    campaign appearance on behalf of Sen. Obama today: elected Latino gathering.  
    Article is on Huff Post.

    People (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:23:00 PM EST
    now seem concerned that she will "outshine" Obama.

    Parent
    Apparently, they weren't watching (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:28:44 PM EST
    both candidates during the primaries. She was clearly the stronger participant in every single debate.

    Parent
    I know. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:33:09 PM EST
    Everyone "seems" to realize these things now. I really don't think he can put her on the ticket. She will generate more news and excitement than he will. Have you noticed how absolutely boring the campaign has become now that she's gone? I wonder if once she starts campaigning she will start to get all the attention again.

    Parent
    I think not only not on the ticket (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:56:48 PM EST
    but also very carefully controlling her appearances, to be as few in number as they think they can get away with.

    It only reinforces the attention to her and for her supporters, their disappointment in his candidacy.

    Parent

    The completely unbiased (2.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:17:34 PM EST
    perspective is appreciated.

    Btw, Who specifically is "worried about her outshining Obama"? I would think that as long as she's shining it's good for Obama and the party.

    I wish she'd give a talk on how to get over a post-primary snit; it would be a useful reference for many.

    Parent

    You see (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:01:37 PM EST
    the problem is that's Obama's responsibility not hers. Why does he always want someone else to do his job?

    Parent
    For the same (none / 0) (#149)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:20:07 PM EST
    reason you're doing your doddering knoght in shining armours job.

    Parent
    knight (none / 0) (#150)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:20:47 PM EST
    The primaries were a constant (2.00 / 0) (#64)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:53:34 PM EST
    round of debates and primaries and NEWS. Of course it was more exciting then. Before the convention both parties are working on logistics and setting up their operations in all the states, with no big contests looming there is no breathless media excitement.

    You have no basis for a claim that the reason the campaign is not as exciting is because he is boring!

    When the baseball season is over, Jeter seems boring too!

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:03:39 PM EST
    so far he hasn't really done anything except flip flop so I don't find that exciting for sure. The last few times McCain sent a smackdown his way he responded with his typical" I'm disappointed" whine. Maybe that's exciting to you. To each his own.

    Parent
    Well, Obama isn't out of season yet (none / 0) (#69)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:59:15 PM EST
    He needs to stay exciting until November.

    Parent
    It really is out of season now. (2.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:04:26 PM EST
    It is spring training time where they are figuring out who will play shortstop, who to trade.....really you know this you just want to be contrary.

    I know, again I forgot that these threads are only for those Hillary supporters who can't and don't want to move on. Hillary has though, if you haven't noticed!

    Parent

    I don't think it would be too hard for (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:56:08 PM EST
    Hillary to do that....she was on fire the last three months of the primaries.  She is actually very good at speaking off the cuff, others...not so much.

    Parent
    Which people? (2.00 / 0) (#48)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:25:26 PM EST
    Could you provide a source for that claim?

    I just re-read the story and there were cheers for her and cheers when she mentioned Obama.

    The two of them will unite the party and win in November and go on to do great things for the country together despite all this chattering.

    Parent

    Perhaps you could be a bit more patient (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:38:37 PM EST
    with us. Many of the commenters on this site are people who have enjoyed a conversation with each other for months, if not years, now and are very comfortable just enjoying the company. We understand the need to chuckle and drop a few comments we know will make the others smile right now.

    Don't take it so personally, and don't try to change us. If we want to have fun here, we're allowed to....as long as we don't say anything untruthful. And, I don't see anything here that isn't the truth.

    Parent

    I forget (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:55:31 PM EST
    that these threads are the Hillary Supporters' private chat room!

    I will let you have your echo chamber in peace.

    Parent

    Thanks (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:02:01 PM EST
    I guess the patient part isn't suitable to you.

    Rather than argue, you could try to resist responding to the comments you don't like. You and Tortmaster can talk amongst yourselves.


    Parent

    thanks for understanding (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:02:52 PM EST
    our long-time readers do need a place to chat -- and they are not an echo chamber -- they have all points of view -- they've learned to get along and they appreciate each other. Challenging them at every turn disrupts the conversation.

    Parent
    I am also a looooong time reader (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:21:27 PM EST
    and so, it is sad to me that I can't participate like I used to.. The internet is about community and one could actually have a conversation here because it wasn't so huge and impersonal like some others.

    Is it OK for me to feel sad about that?  I don't hate Hillary, she is my senator and I am very pleased about that. I was conflicted right up until the NY primary day. I want the DEM to win so it is hard for me to watch him being denigrated. Sure, we all should hold our representatives' feet to the fire, but the constant sniping at him is hard to ignore.

    But I will unless an egregious untruth is thrown around!

    Parent

    Not for nothing (1.00 / 1) (#96)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:31:07 PM EST
    but apparently JCP's first post (of over 1800!) was less than two months ago on 4/28/08.

    Although I do appreciate his enjoyment of making little asides and inside-jokes to others that he's come to have that kind of a relationship with here...

    Parent

    Seems I can get along (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:55:45 PM EST
    eh?

    Parent
    You won't find many for me either (none / 0) (#100)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:40:35 PM EST
    because my original screename was banned!

    Parent
    Sorry, "her" and "she's"... (none / 0) (#102)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:41:38 PM EST
    Just one thing though (2.00 / 0) (#82)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:10:08 PM EST
    I have also been here for years and voted this Best Single Issue blog every time I could. (my original screenname got banned during the primaries, of course!) and I guess that is why it doesn't seem fair that I have to ignore half the site.

    If you were here for years then you and I may have spoken about legal issues like adults.

    I will stick to the legal posts unless I see an untruth that I can provide a good source for, which I think is fair.

    Opinions like "he is so boring" and " she will outshine him" will be ignored.

    Parent

    Sorry Ms. Brainerd (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:27:43 PM EST
    But the rules here are that if you are banned under one screen name you can't come back using another.

    I just checked and you have been banned using three different screen names.

    Some days you posted 20-30 comments.

    The rules are the rules.

    Parent

    No one ever gets banned simply for (none / 0) (#97)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:31:45 PM EST
    having an opposing viewpoint. It's only how they choose to present that viewpoint that either makes them welcome, or earns them an escort out.

    There are plenty of Obama supporters here who converse without causing arguments.

    Every time I see your login name I think of Mr. Bunyon and Babe. Have you lived there your entire life?  It's an open thread :)

    Parent

    I went to high school there (none / 0) (#101)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:41:31 PM EST
    and I was, Miss Brainerd 1975!!!!

    Parent
    Awesome!! (none / 0) (#106)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:52:39 PM EST
    No wonder the moniker :)

    My best friend's family used to spend a couple of weeks up there every single summer. I was raised in Crystal. Oddly, I saw that little town of mine on the news not long ago, but wasn't paying close enough to attention to find out why....just raised my head when they said Crystal, MN.

    Parent

    Could I beg you for a direct link? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:32:48 PM EST
    I charged headfirst into the home page and o.m.g. how does anyone find anything amid the tabloid trash cluttering up the place?

    Gack.  

    Parent

    ugh (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:07:41 PM EST
    I can't bear to provide a direct link to HuffPo, but you can do a site search using a google search box and a colon, for instance huffingtonpost: clinton latino appearance.  That should get you right there.

    (yes, not giving a link is silly, but I just can't do it.  Plus, google site-searches are a good thing to know).

    Parent

    I agree about Huffpo (none / 0) (#85)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:15:57 PM EST
    Today's gun pointing at my face was the last straw. I mostly go there at work because they have all the blog links I need at the bottom

    they have become big media now and are more like the NY Post than cutting edge internet.

    And for what I thought was a progressive site, the Lara Logan BS today really pissed me off. She dissed the media for ignoring Iraq and the RW goes after her personal life and Huffpo front pages it like  the National Enquirer.

    Parent

    That's shameful (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:01:56 PM EST
    Lara Logan is one of the few good people fighting to get us the truth about Iraq, and risking her life in the process.  Who cares about her personal life.

    Parent
    Sorry. Unfortunately, the report is (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:29:09 PM EST
    in Sam Stein's latest piece at Huffington Post.  

    Parent
    Boring mundane stuff. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:38:43 PM EST
    Steamed the sour cherries from my lone semi-dwarf tree, and ran them through the food mill as I was NOT in the mood to pit several hundred cherries by hand.

    Just over eight cups of juice and puree.  The first project is cherry syrup.  If I feel more ambitious, I'll get a recipe and some pectin and make preserves.  

    Really, if you have any room at all, you should grow something.  I'm fond of pie/tart cherry trees because I've never had to do more than prune it.  The paw paws should give us the first harvest this year.  You can grow them in the shade!  Again, easy peasy.  The only problem with paw paws is that you'd best like them where you put them because they are hard to kill.  (Another reason to like them.)

    You should get yourself something like (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by scribe on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:52:27 PM EST
    one of these cherry pitters.  Gravity and the rotating ribbed wheel pulls the cherry into a narrowing tube and squeezes the pit out.

    You get about half the pits on the pass through the machine and can sort the rest out by hand.  Here's an article on the joys of having one.

    Mine is over 100 years old.  I bought it at a flea market about 10 years ago (overpaying at $30), and every year (after my trip to the u-pick-em orchard) go through about 50 pounds of cherries in one session.  That's well over two - closer to three - water buckets full.  Pitting them had taken me over 8 hours.  This cut it to under one.

    And, if you want to be the toast of a Christmas dinner - bring cherry pie.  A pitter facilitates that.  I have about 8 or 10 gallon bags of them in my freezer at just about any time in the middle of winter.


    Parent

    I've (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:59:18 PM EST
    never seen those before. I have a scissors type pitter. One 4th of July I decided to make cherry pie from scratch and used said pitter. It took quite a while to pit them and my hands hurt afterwards. I have seen ones that you sit on the counter and run the cherries through though I've never really had enough cherries to merit the expense of one of these.

    Parent
    Look at it this way (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by scribe on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:11:35 PM EST
    The little scissor-y operating pitters that are made and sold today, where you get one cherry at a time, are fine.  But if you try to do more than two or three pounds, the fine (smaller) muscles of your hands, wrists and forearms will be sore for days.  

    The two-thumbs method for doing it by hand (no tools involved) works really well, but you will have the worst case of cherry-juice hands ever.  And getting more than 5 pounds done at a time will also wear your hands out, not to mention taking even more time than the scissor-y type pitters.

    And, if they are sweet cherries - depending on the variety the pits may cling a bit, making hand pitting even more of a chore.

    I did over 50 pounds by hand once.  Once.  Never again.  It took a week of evenings to get it done.  

    These old wheel pitters, AFAIK no longer made, clamp to the worktable (be advised - the gap for the clamp is likely too narrow for today's countertops and table-edges) and, because the operation is by cranking the wheel, is a lot less tiring.  You're using big muscles of your arm and shoulder.  These were designed and built in Penn Dutch country for farm families with a couple hundreds of pounds of cherries to pit (you look at a tree full of fruit and figure out how much per tree, then multiply by the number in your orchard) and a lot of hungry mouths to feed.  On a daily basis.  If you look at the old recipes from that area, you'll note that a lot of the pie recipes are in multiples of two or four pies - they'd go through a couple pies per day at one meal.  These pitters were designed to feed that demand.  And, they have their own high-Victorian design beauty, too.

    Parent

    Lehman's (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by tree on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:20:20 PM EST
    has cherry pitters here and here.

    I've never bought one, never having the need, although I'd love to grow cherries(yum!). I just love to look at the old time products at Lehman's.

    Parent

    The second one (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:11:32 PM EST
    is the one that I've seen in Chef's Catalog. I wouldn't have enough cherries probably ever to warrant the $40 price tag.

    I've never heard of that company before.  Do you buy a lot of things from them?

    Parent

    I've bought a few things over the years, (none / 0) (#92)
    by tree on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:26:06 PM EST
    especially when I was living off the grid.   These days I just get a kick out of looking at the items they sell. Some of them remind me of visits to my grandma's house. And sometimes it seems to me that the older non-electric things work just as well as them new-fangled things.

    Parent
    I have a few items that I have (none / 0) (#114)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:22:47 PM EST
    non-electric dupes of. Depends on what I'm doing, but the older simple items generally work just fine. I love the old kitchen items . My stove/oven goes back to the late teens early 1920s. The old enamel ware is great for storage and kitchen tasks. Old USA non-lead dishes. Cast iron cooking  :) I'm going to have to hunt down a cherry pitter. Last year I just ate boatloads and froze berries and larger fruits.

    Parent
    I see a business model here. (none / 0) (#133)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:36:41 PM EST
    Here's another, better picture (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by scribe on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:19:32 PM EST
    of one of the antique (but still quite usable) wheel-type pitters.  You can better see the ribbed wheel and understand how it works.  Note the 1883 patent date.

    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:13:33 PM EST
    for sharing the information with me. I had no idea there were so many ways to pit cherries! Do you live in MI or WI where there are a lot of cherries? I don't think I could get 50 pounds at one time here even from the farmer's market.

    Parent
    I don't say where I live (none / 0) (#87)
    by scribe on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:20:08 PM EST
    b/c I like to keep my pseudonymity intact.

    But, suffice it to say I know where to find cherries and orchards, and wild berries and farmer's markets and all that.

    Parent

    My cherries were very soft this year. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:17:19 PM EST
    I'm not sure why.  Perhaps it is the variety?  At any rate, I had cherries tearing open as I picked them and I was doing my best to keep them intact.  It helped me to decide what to do with them, because I figured I'd smoosh a goodly number if I tried to pit them.  If I was going to end up with mush anyway, I figured I shouldn't fight it.

    Not sure why the birds didn't eat them this year.  Not complaining though.

    Parent

    Moisture content from rain (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by scribe on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:23:02 PM EST
    Both the amount of the rain and the relative timing of when you picked them.

    One year, I went to the u-pick-em on a muggy Saturday morning, when we'd gotten a sudden downpour of about 1 1/2-2 inches of rain at 8 am.

    By noon, the cherries were literally bursting on the trees from the combination of all the water the trees were sucking up and the heat.  I'd noticed them getting softer as the morning went along.

    Parent

    Well David C (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:00:33 PM EST
    Must be thrilled with todays decision regarding the 2nd amendment, from what I understand about him.

    Hasn't the Obama campaign (none / 0) (#38)
    by tree on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:10:51 PM EST
    been doling out Obama points for months now?

    But no info the people (none / 0) (#129)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:33:21 PM EST
    posting them here are paid for their efforts.

    Parent
    The Meeting tonite at the Mayflower (none / 0) (#144)
    by Amiss on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:20:04 AM EST
    Anyone else tune in? There was one reporter there for CNN, the only one allowed in according to some.

    A couple of talking points from it were:

    Obama wrote a check to Hillary for $4600 from he and Michelle and also Obama finance chair Penny Pritzker also wrote a $4,600 check for herself and her husband.

    Three Clinton confidants -- Cheryl Mills, Minyon Moore and Robert Barnett -- are in talks with Obama's campaign to work out details of her future involvement, including travel, her role at the national convention and resolution of her debt. Part of their argument has been that Clinton can spend more time helping Obama if she isn't raising money to pay her bills.

    Obama told reporters Wednesday he wouldn't send an e-mail asking his small-dollar contributors to donate to Clinton because "their budgets are tighter" and they probably couldn't make much of a dent.

    Obama ended Thursday's meeting by taking a few questions from the group, according to attendees. He didn't answer a question about whether he would support putting Clinton's name in for a roll call vote at the convention, but promised she would play a prominent role in Denver.He also sidestepped a question about whether she would join him on the ticket.

    But some attendees left feeling that Obama didn't go much beyond his standard talking points, and could have done more to win over her supporters. They declined to quoted by name.

    Seems as if he is making a bit of an effort, but not as much of an effort as I would like, however.

    _