home

Late Night: No Time , 1973 and Mars

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 10:22:07 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

"Life on Mars" is back tonight, one of the few cop shows I like, probably because it involves time travel back to 1973, the music is good and Michael Imperioli from the Sopranos and Harvey Keitl are in it. Watching New York in 1973 is fun. Throughout tonight's episode they are playing the Guess Who's "No Time." (ABC needs to turn their default audio to "off" or people will stop clicking on their site. Little is worse than assaulting us with unasked for audio just because we click on a site.)

"No Time" is perfect for this week since I've been in court all week and have had no time to blog.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Holder for AG | Judges Send Kids to Detention In Exchange For Kickbacks >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Late Night: No Time , 1973 and Mars | 37 comments (37 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Obama had his big shot (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 10:31:51 PM EST
    to put together a massive package with just about any provision he could have defended with any reasoning at all. Instead, he wasted his time and, I think, political capital pursuing fruitless bipartisanship with the House (!!!!) Republicans. All I can say is that I suppose it could get worse. What further compromises might we expect to see in the Senate?

    This bill was embarrassingly bad (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:30:09 PM EST
    The problem is that it's supposedly THE bill. It was the opportunity to spend $2T to pay to rebuild the New York subway, etc.

    Instead, nearly a 3rd goes to useless taxcuts. And I fear that it will not work and make the Democrats look incompetent. If I had my way, I'd table the House bill in the Senate and launch something much bigger and much better. How about a lottery to give away free plane tickets and hotel reservations to various places in America (like Hawaii?) How about cutting California and the other states big checks so they don't have to cut their social services?

    I could personally think of lots of ways to spend money to help people, and it just wasn't done here.

    This whole thing was a massive C£U$TERFU¢k.

    Parent

    No check to California until (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:41:39 PM EST
    they cut the prison population in half.

    Parent
    I get you Ben (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:59:20 PM EST
    but I couldn't go for that.

    Parent
    Can't do that Ben.... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 08:32:16 AM EST
    jobs trump liberty...can't lay off the screws.

    I'm surprised the "stimulus" doesn't include a bunch of new criminal law putting jailers to work and getting the unemployed off the street and out of sight/mind.

    Parent

    I disagree that the House Republicans lost (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 08:01:34 AM EST
    The economy is not going to drastically improve over the next year and a half, even with the best stimulus bill imaginable. At best it will slow the deterioration in the next year or so, and start to slowly recover. The House Republicans will dance around and say the tax cuts did their job, and that will be enough to get them through the midterms.

    They have nothing to lose by opposing this bill. Obama miscalculated on that score.

    Parent

    Why is his political capital (none / 0) (#3)
    by zyx on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 10:35:06 PM EST
    "wasted"?

    He showed he means what he stands for--consensus. The other guys won't play. He looks good, and they don't.

    I don't see that Obama loses here.

    Parent

    Well, if "consensus" looks like (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 10:41:04 PM EST
    no republican support, then fine. I don't buy it, though. I'm still waiting to find out what "change" is, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with enacting Democratic values. (Yes, we knew this, but the bots of the world always claimed otherwise.

    Parent
    C'mon, family planning $ belongs in stimulus bill (none / 0) (#5)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 10:37:19 PM EST
    The GOP has really controlled the terms of discourse on this issue - to a point where some progressives are now echoing GOP talking points. As an antidote, Media Matters cites a 2008 study from the Guttmacher Institute, which reviews the cost/benefit of public funds for family planning.:
    Nationally, for every $1 spent on the family planning program, $4.02 is saved in averted Medicaid birth [and maternity] costs.

    In effect, an expenditure of funds for family planning would generate considerable savings that would help pay for the cost of Obama's overall stimulus package.

    So, if an economic plan has a stake in saving taxpayer money, while also improving the quality of health and welfare for all, why were family planning funds taken out of the stimulus bill? (It's not as if any Repubs were going to vote for the bill either way.)

    *It's a crying shame, because Obama must know that taking the funds out will cost taxpayers 4 times as much as keeping them in! Do we ever get to have a say in this matter, or is a fringe faction of the GOP still running the show? Perhaps Obama actually shares their views more than we'd like to think.


    Parent

    Agreed that money might be saved (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by zyx on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 10:42:36 PM EST
    with family planning, but that is a divisive issue and one that they would predictably honk about. Maybe it can be put in another bill. But for any Dem--especially a new president--to draw a line in the sand over birth control in a national stimulus package--would be kind of dumb.

    The point is to get the nation confident and working again. GOP, FAIL. Dems, keep trying...Obama, I think, is doing well.

    Parent

    Struggling families and the stimulus plan... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:09:40 PM EST
    If the stimulus package aims to help struggling families, it should include provisions for them to plan when, and whether, they will expand their families.

    These are desperate times; and now is not the time for the Dems to validate the GOP extremists who contend that family planning is some form of murder.

    That way of thinking is a disservice to struggling families and to taxpayers who must ultimately pay for the long-term consequences of failing to help those families when they need it the most. It benefits everybody if help comes sooner, rather than later.

    Parent

    struggling families... (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by zyx on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:42:21 PM EST
    Honestly? If there are people who are unemployed, short of cash, and they think it's not a good time to have a baby, they can do what my 25-year-old graduate-student son does--use condoms.

    He doesn't have much money, but he knows they are worth the few dollars that he spends on them.

    I'll bet I make some people mad with this, but come on. Even Democrats can speak up for personal responsibility. How much do condoms cost?

    Parent

    First, you might look up (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:57:33 PM EST
    how well condoms work.

    For about every eight times your son has sex, there's a risk that the condom will fail once.

    Just tell him to only have sex only twice a year, and maybe he won't be an unwed dad until he's 30.

    Of course, do be sure that he buys a new one every six months or so, since 12% is the failure rate for fairly new ones.  The older they are, the higher the failure rate.  But you sleep well tonight!

    Parent

    Unsourced and dangerously misleading (none / 0) (#31)
    by Don in Seattle on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:47:15 AM EST
    To fully understand research on condom effectiveness, one must understand the difference between method failure and user failure. Method failure refers to failure that results from a defect in the product. User failure refers to failure that results from incorrect or inconsistent use. In its fact sheet on condoms, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention explains that the term "condom failure" often imprecisely refers to the percentage of women who become pregnant over the course of a year in which they reported using condoms as their primary method of birth control -- even if they did not use condoms every time they had intecourse. The CDC concluded that "clearly these statistics don't report condom failure but user failure."

    Method failure of male condoms is uncommon. In fact, it is estimated to occur among only three percent of couples using condoms consistently and correctly during the first year of use. To help individuals understand this estimate, Contraceptive Technology explains that "only three of 100 couples who use condoms perfectly for one year will experience an unintended pregnancy."

    Your flip advice to "buy a new condom every six months or so" would be terribly dangerous, if anyone were foolish enough to take it literally. (And the boundlessness of human ignorance, especially in this area, should not be underestimated.) Of course condoms should never be reused.

    Yes, condoms have a "best before" date, that consumers should pay careful attention to. So do many other products, such as bread, and eggs, and milk.

    Parent

    What solutions do you suggest Don? (none / 0) (#35)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 12:04:48 PM EST
    I went to your source "Contraceptive Technology", which I see is the title of a book. You cite that: "only three of 100 couples who use condoms perfectly for one year will experience an unintended pregnancy". What happens after that? Evidently, in the 2nd year of "perfect" condom use, the risk increases to 6 unintended pregnancies; by the 3rd year the risk increases to 9; and by the 4th year we've got ourselves 12 kids; and so on and so on.

    Perhaps that's why the authors of your book characterize family planning as something that's pretty complex and intertwined with overall health and well-being:

    Family planning is two things: Primary care and specialty practice. Family planning clinicians need both breadth and depth as they prescribe contraceptives for millions of healthy women and thousands of other women with medical conditions or complicating factors that can challenge even their medical specialists.

    Just like many of us thought all along.

    Parent

    I didn't say condoms were 100% effective. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Don in Seattle on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 02:26:36 PM EST
    I was disputing Cream City's post, which as I read it left the false implication that about 1 condom in 8 fails due to some unspecified manufacturing flaw.  

    If there is any 100% perfect birth control method, short of abstinence, I am unaware of it. Assuming "perfect use", an effectiveness rate approaching 100% could be achieved by combining methods: say, condom use + diaphragm use + the pill + vasectomy, taken together, would get to 100% effectiveness for all practical purposes. Any three of those four methods would work almost as well to prevent unwanted pregnancy, but of the four, only condom use works to significantly reduces the spread of sexually transmitted disease.

    I do not minimize the difficulties that an unintended pregnancy can entail. My wife's second pregnancy was unplanned -- the result of the failure of our chosen birth control method (the Today sponge). If we had used a condom, too, it's very likely that our two wonderful children would have been born more than fifteen months apart.

    I don't see anything much to dispute in your own letter, except maybe "and so on, and so on," which suggests that the unintended pregnancies just keep on coming, ad infinitum. Actually, women are fertile and sexually active only for a finite period, roughly 25 years. If perfect condom use could be assumed over that period, that would by your numbers result in each woman having 0.75 children on average over her lifetime. That, to me, would be significantly effective birth control, notwithstanding the fact that 3/4 is certainly not zero.

    Parent

    It's not just about a condom (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by nycstray on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 03:40:27 AM EST
    It's about yearly exams, cancer screenings and preventive health care. Women's healthcare that is.

    How many women who are recently unemployed and will become unemployed over the next year will benefit from the "shovel ready" stim plan? And how many of those women will be able to hang on to their insurance, if they even had it in the first place? Add those women into the already low income women using the services. Then take that out of your state budget. Or watch your state start canceling services.

    Last time I checked, you couldn't get many contraceptives with out a visit to your doctor and an exam. You want to rely condoms and abstinence, go ahead. But I would advise you to check the facts on both methods and then get back to us. Until then, don't subject all other women to your views  ;)

    Parent

    It's good your son is so responsible (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by sj on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:26:58 AM EST
    Now let's make it as cost-effective for our daughters.

    Parent
    $1 now for family planning or $4 for future costs (none / 0) (#18)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 12:18:45 AM EST
    It's your tax money, and your son's tax money as well.

    Your choice: pay one dollar now to prevent an unplanned pregnancy, or pay four dollars later - just for the cost of pre-natal care and delivery.

    Of course, if that child and his/her family become dependent on the state for the rest of their lives, that will cost you a WHOLE LOT more.

    Let's not even think about the human cost to the children and the parents who can't afford to raise them.

    Glad to know you and your son are so responsible for your own individual family planning though.

    Parent

    As It Stands (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 10:47:06 PM EST
    States can get the money if they petition the gov. To date 26 states get the funding.

    I would be willing to bet that family planning funding from this bill will reappear and pass.

    Still, it almost seems that this was put in with the idea of taking it out. Makes the GOP look bad more than anything, imo.

    Parent

    Makes Obama look bad also (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by nycstray on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 03:44:00 AM EST
    First he overturns the Gag order on a Friday dump and then puts women's healthcare in a bill as a bargaining chip? Sorry, we already know where the GOP comes down on women's healthcare. Seems we might be seeing what Obama thinks about it . . .  

    Parent
    Only Medicare Family Planning (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 11:35:53 AM EST
     
    It's about yearly exams, cancer screenings and preventive health care. Women's healthcare that is.

    This is what it is about.

    First of all, the family-planning program that Pelosi supports expanding in the stimulus bill was created in 1972 under the leadership of Republican president Richard Nixon.

    What's being proposed is an expansion in the number of states that can use Medicaid money, with a federal match, to help low-income women prevent unwanted pregnancies. Of the 26 states that already have Medicaid waivers for family planning, eight are led by Republican governors (AL, FL, MS, SC, CA, LA, MN and RI -- a ninth, MO, had a GOP governor until this past November). If this policy is truly a taxpayer gift to "the abortion industry," as John Boehner and House Republicans claim, where are the GOP governors promising to end the program in their states?

    TPM

    Parent

    $ for family planning abroad but not here... (none / 0) (#36)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 12:23:54 PM EST
    I'm surprised so few people have focused on that point, NYCstray.

    I am infinitely thankful that the new administration will extend and expand family planning benefits to women in third world/developing countries.

    However, it's mind-boggling that Obama has specifically chosen not to do the same for women here at home, especially in view of our current socio-economic hardships.

    Parent

    Totally Different Issue (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 01:31:17 PM EST
    But if all you want to do is bash Obama, knock yourself out..

    At least your Mantra about Obama hating all women has diminished to Obama hating poor women in 24 US States who will not be able to get contraceptives through medicare for family planning.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#27)
    by sallywally on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:11:49 AM EST
    he had them over for cocktails and says he still wants to work with them. Let's just hope he notes that they have not worked with him, haven't given a single concession from their side.

    Even on NPR, by the way, they described this by saying that the bill "FAILED to win a single Republican vote," as though the failure was Obama's.

    They need to make it clear that the failure to work together was on the Republican side.

    Boehner apparently wants to get further concessions before this is all done. I'm so ashamed that he's from Ohio - he looks like an escapee from Madam Tussaud's.

    Parent

    The GOP is feeling pretty good tonight... (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:22:46 PM EST
    Here's some news from Politico (aka a GOP shill):
    [Obama] hosted congressional leaders from both parties Wednesday evening at a reception in the White House residence.

    "Someone reported that this was a celebration party for passage of the bill in the House," Boehner joked to reporters before casting his vote against the bill..."I don't know why they'd want the skunk at the garden party. But I'm going to go and smile."

    That's bi-partisanship, Republican style.

    Anything for a party (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 03:39:38 AM EST
    I think I am going to get seriously tired of hearing about the excessive celebrating at the WH. While tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs almost daily, the WH is hosting parties simply because Congress did what they are handsomely paid to do.  And, they don't even have to do it well.

    This "Red Carpet" lifestyle was evident in the primaries, the general, and inauguration. Record spending on staging. These guys can't serve the people when they clearly have no grasp of the need to lighten up on the frivolous spending.

    Parent

    Jackson Pollocks b-day (none / 0) (#2)
    by zyx on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 10:33:05 PM EST
    this is a way-fun DIY site

    http://www.jacksonpollock.org/

    Amused small-minded me (and some co-workers) no end.

    Great Site (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 10:35:47 PM EST
    And hilarious, to boot.  

    Parent
    Etch-a-sketch!!! (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 08:39:00 AM EST
    That was fun...I'm no Jackson Pollock, thats for damn sure.

    I don't know d*ck about art except what I like, and I like Jackson Pollock.  Got a print of this bad boy on my wall...beautiful.

    Parent

    Good Taste (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 11:37:32 AM EST
    Nice to have something like that to look at and dream...

    Parent
    Hung Jury (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:09:40 PM EST
    in my excessive force suit vs the University of Wisconsin Police officers who peppersprayed me for collecting ballot access signatures on the Terrace behind the Student Union in 2006. The 1st Amendment claim had previously been dismissed, following a 7th Circuit ruling that normal forum analysis is not applied to the grounds of State Universities, rather it's enough that they designate any place for non-student speech. We can't appeal that until the excessive force claim is settled.

    Where's the new day? (none / 0) (#19)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 02:46:52 AM EST
    Republican's used 9-11 to successfully ram a lot of unconstitutional laws down our throat because "extreme times call for extreme measures".

    Right now we're faced with am economic crisis that has the potential to land the world in a major economic depression. I would say these times are even more extreme.

    Instead of bold measures such as HOLC or outright nationalization of the banks we've done a patch here and a patch there approach. In the process we've already spent well over a trillion dollars with very little to show for it.

    I was hoping to see that new day in Washington that I've heard so much about. Instead we got another trillion in patches.

    More exceptions to Obama's ethics rules (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 08:56:52 AM EST
    Yet another former lobbyist has been hired into the administration...

    WASHINGTON -- White House press secretary Robert Gibbs on Wednesday called President Barack Obama's ethics rules the most stringent ever, despite the high-level appointments of former lobbyists to key jobs in recent days.

    Gibbs said granting a "limited number of waivers" to the rules to allow lobbyists to join the administration does not undermine "the strongest ethics and transparency policy ... that we've seen in the history of our country."

    His comments came one day after Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner named a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, Mark Patterson, as his chief of staff. Patterson lobbied for the firm until April.

    Obama, who pledged in the presidential campaign that lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House," issued the ethics rules during his first full day in office. They bar lobbyists from working on matters they lobbied about during the previous two years.

    Patterson has promised to recuse himself from issues related to his former employer.

    Even so, Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning, a Republican who opposed Geithner's nomination, on Wednesday called Patterson's appointment "hypocritical." It "flies in the face of President Obama's guidelines on ethics," he said.

    Several lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., also have expressed concern about the nomination of another former lobbyist, William Lynn, as deputy defense secretary. The White House last week waived the ethics rules for Lynn, who lobbied on behalf of defense contractor Raytheon. That paves the way for Lynn to work broadly on military issues.

    Craig Holman, of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said granting that waiver is "serious back-pedaling" by the White House. "This is a clear conflict of interest."

    Meredith McGehee, of the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, said critics may be too quick to judge White House adherence to rules established just over a week ago. "These are very strong rules," she said. "Let's give them a chance to work their way through."

    Link

    Just what we need in NY... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:19:57 AM EST
    another war...we've got fronts raging against drugs, some forms of gambling, tobacco, trans fats...and now salt.

    As someone who isn't done shaking until a visible white sheen is seen over a piece of meat...I'm not happy.

    Bloomberg has worn out his welcome...fix the potholes bro aka do your job and I'll do mine...monitoring my own salt intake. Jesus H. Christ...this is why naturally left-leaning people such as myself get so turned off by modern liberalism...always over-reaching.  Stick to the basics and you'll find a lot less opposition.

    Iraqi Women (none / 0) (#29)
    by CST on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:39:51 AM EST
    Running for office despite previous threats.

    Although I think it is dangerous for anyone trying to become involved in running Iraq.

    Amen to this (none / 0) (#32)
    by Pieter B on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 11:21:58 AM EST
    ABC needs to turn their default audio to "off" or people will stop clicking on their site. Little is worse than assaulting us with unasked for audio just because we click on a site.

    I even feel that way about the site of my favorite undiscovered rock band. Lads, I know what your music sounds like; that's why I'm here.

    Late Night: No Time , 1973 and Mars | 37 comments (37 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment