home

Thursday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:15:01 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

For those interested in things not college football, here is an Open Thread.

< The College Football National Championship Game: Gators v. Sooners | Ill. House Panel Recommends Blagojevich Impeachment >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Morning Open Thread | 170 comments (170 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Worth a re-comment I think... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:27:11 AM EST
    A sheriff in Alabama was arrested for profiting off of the malnourishment of the prisoners in his care.  Some of the details sound awful...bloody chicken?

    Link

    And the worst part, it was all legal, he just took it too far and got greedy.  Whatever law makes this legal needs to be repealed asap...but I won't hold my breath.  

    I know the law (none / 0) (#7)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:55:52 AM EST
    since it was diaried before, elsewhere.  I didn't realize that it could be made that profitable.  I believe the food allowance was never adjusted for inflation so that's what they allotted to feed each prisoners decades and decades ago.  Even the best procurer would have trouble creating a varied, nutritious and adequate diet on that paltry sum.

    The law should be scrapped and the meals program put into the prison budget where it belongs.

    (In related news, people who are arrested sometimes claim they have a medical condition that requires immediate attention.  Why?  Because the prison is on the hook for the hospital bill.  

    The choices are:
    Ignore the claim and risk something really being wrong.
    Send them to the hospital and eat hundreds of dollars in medical expenses, even if it the medical emergency turns out to be bogus.
    Release them to save money.  Any charges will still stand.  

    You can see how a budget could be seriously impacted by this.  The police have found ways of screening for false claims, but it's still a problem.  Claiming a medical emergency in hopes of being released?  Amazing.  I never would have thought of it.  
    )

    Parent

    Perhaps they should claim (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by oldpro on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:01:28 PM EST
    a medical emergency in hopes of being fed.

    I agree with the judge who found this treatment of prisoners criminal.

    Where are the human rights activists in Alabama (assuming there are any) and what are they doing to get this law changed?  Surely the NAACP, SPLC, etc. could organize to lobby the legislature...

    Parent

    Where are the 42 U.S.C. section (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:26:23 PM EST
    1983 plaintiffs' lawyers?

    Parent
    Yeah! (none / 0) (#128)
    by oldpro on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 05:18:05 PM EST
    etc.

    Parent
    Bushisms (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CST on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:29:07 AM EST
    I'm almost starting to get nostalgic.

    Some of them scarily make too much sense now.  Like this one:

    "The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the - the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."

    And:

    "I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office."

    Yeah... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:43:37 AM EST
    we might miss having G-Dub to make fun of in a perverse sort of way, Obama won't be as easy a target...a much smoother cat.

    Parent
    You're making me bitter.. and clingy. (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:47:23 AM EST


    Parent
    We can get through it (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:51:20 AM EST
    if we just stick to our knitting. . . .

    Parent
    Hey, stop it you two! (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by NJDem on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:27:54 AM EST
    just let the man finish his waffle--he needs to leave to go visit the 57 states and then find the Great Lake in Oregon!

    (sorry, I couldn't resist)

    Speaking of comic relief, guess who is a "warm, lovable sort"  

    Parent

    LOL! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by sallywally on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:29:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Replying to Cream's knitting (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by sallywally on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:32:13 PM EST
    comment.

    Parent
    Hey, Cream, thanks again (none / 0) (#14)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:10:56 AM EST
    for the information earlier. I rather doubt that the issue in this early stage has actually forced any closures. Like you opined, they were probably shakey anyway and just seized the issue. Having said that, man, I can see where businesses might be somewhat concerned over this one. Paid sick leave is indeed an operational and financial challenge.

    Parent
    Glad to give info (none / 0) (#23)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:22:38 AM EST
    and you've got the spin figured out, I think.

    The reality, we'll see.  As a voter, I wanted more info on how it has worked in the other cities.

    But we're so referendum-mad here in Wisconsin, and we rarely really have all the info I want first.

    Parent

    The blame game sort of reminds me of the antics (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:30:11 AM EST
    of many of the Galveston and Kemah Texas merchants after Hurricane Ike earlier this year. Many of those businesses were financially strapped and about to fold anyway. Ike was viewed as manna from heaven, as many filed their claims and have no intention of rebuilding.  

    Parent
    Wanna see bitter? (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:36:03 AM EST
    Check out this winner...he donated a kidney to save his wife's life, and she turns around and screws around with her physical therapist and they're getting divorced...and know the guy wants 1.5 mill for the kidney.  Jeez.

    Now I can understand his hurt...but c'mon, it's the mother of your kids dude.  Though I'm thinking it's just a lawyerly negotiating ploy in a messy divorce..."Ok, forget the kidney but I get the house" kinda thing.

    Human Beings man...what a species!

    Parent

    I saw that one... (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:14:31 PM EST
    weird demand, but it sorta makes the point, right?  I mean, cheating on someone right after they've donated a kidney to save your life... that's pretty rough.

    Parent
    Lots of reminders lately... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:22:29 PM EST
    of why to never, ever get married:)

    Parent
    Donated (none / 0) (#48)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:20:19 PM EST
    is the operative word.

    But yes, pretty cold of the wife.

    Parent

    Ponder this. If, as a recent study (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:28:16 PM EST
    suggests, some men are genetically predisposed to being unfaithful in marriage, this donated kidney was the cause of the wife's behaviour?

    Parent
    Ha! Could be - would make an (none / 0) (#55)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:30:16 PM EST
    interesting argument in court.

    Parent
    "The Faithless Kidney" (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 04:18:10 PM EST
    by Edgar Allan Poe.

    Parent
    Ahem. There are a lot more straying (none / 0) (#80)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:16:58 PM EST
    wives than husbands know about.

    Parent
    Note: my comment did not (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:29:59 PM EST
    state that "but for" the kidney transplant she wouldn't have taken up w/her PT.

    Parent
    Very true... (none / 0) (#90)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:38:14 PM EST
    You see them in the bars, and even the supermarket...hitting on ya without even bothering to take off the wedding band.

    Funny...I don't even believe in the institution of marriage, and apparently I have more respect for it than some married people...I don't go there, at least knowingly:)

    Parent

    Reminds me of one of my (none / 0) (#99)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:00:57 PM EST
    favorite lines from M*A*S*H (TV Series)

    Margaret is hitting on Hawkeye. Her tells her no, and "One of us loves Frank Burns - and I think it's me!"

    Parent

    What a great show... (none / 0) (#101)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:11:14 PM EST
    being part Lebanese, Klinger was a childhood role model.

    Parent
    Kdog, that explains ... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 05:28:21 PM EST
    WAY TOO MUCH about you.

    ;)

    Parent

    I hope you mean... (none / 0) (#165)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 08:39:01 AM EST
    I'm a Section 8 and not someone with a penchant for dressing in drag.

    Not that there is anything wrong with that:)

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:04:57 AM EST
    I wonder what'll happen to the Daily Show ratings and the like.  Dubya has been quite the whipping boy for the last 8 years on late night TV.

    Parent
    There's enough stupid... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:36:45 PM EST
    ...in politics and Washington for Jon to be Jon (and Stephen be Stephen) for a long, long time.  

    Parent
    From another blog, (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:49:42 PM EST
    John Kass of the Chicago Trib with another great lede summing up what happens when the Chicago Way hits the wussy Dem leadership in D.C.:

    So the Chicago Way hauled off and slapped the U.S. Senate in the face--one of those backhands with the knuckles to unsuspecting lips -- and guess who blinked?

    It wasn't Chicago.

    It was the Senate.

    Get used to it, America. And it won't be the last time either.



    Parent
    Another twist (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:09:09 PM EST
    because we have to keep going through the looking glass...I just heard a political reporter on XM opining that because Reid has to run for re-election in 2010 in purple state Nevada, he needs to oppose Obama to look tough...but now he looks weak because of the Burris fiasco.  But if opposing Obama is what he has to do to win re-election in Nev, why on earth is he still the majority leader?

    Nothing makes sense to me this week.

    Parent

    nah.... the BDS (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:54:51 PM EST
    sufferers will find a way.....

    Parent
    Say what you want about Bush... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:05:44 PM EST
    but I agree with him 100% on this one... :-)

    "It would be a mistake for the United States Senate to allow any kind of human cloning to come out of that chamber."
    Washington DC, 10 April, 2002

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:08:57 PM EST
    Amen to that

    Parent
    "Misunderestimate" (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by tokin librul on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:33:10 PM EST
    Is my favorite W-ism, and probably the only one i'd be remotely inclined to appropriate...

    Parent
    12 MORE DAYS (none / 0) (#3)
    by lilburro on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:36:05 AM EST
    great link :)

    Parent
    Obama and the stimulus (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:00:46 AM EST
    It looks like the Obama team is in danger of doing too little wrt the economic stimulus due to deficit fears.  They also seem likely to make it less useful by loading it with ineffective tax rebates.

    Tax rebates... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:07:29 AM EST
    when I got mine from Bush and Congress last year I went to Atlantic City and spent that sh*t, and maybe helped keep some casino workers stay employed, and they got another paycheck which they in turn spent at the local grocery, etc.

    How is that ineffective as a stimulus?  Seems a heckuva lot more effective than giving hundreds of billions to the banks with no clue where it ended up.

    Parent

    But any job saved with your $500 (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:18:23 AM EST
    was saved for maybe a few hours at most. It was wasted money, except for the fun you got out of it. That money needs to be spent on something that helps the economy keep real jobs, like bringing back some sort of manufacturing base to this country.

    Parent
    Manufacturing base... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:29:42 AM EST
    amen to that, what's the best way to do it?

    Tax cuts for domestic manufacturers, and tax increases for outsourcers aka incentives, right?  I mean I don't want the government opening government owned factories...I'm not a big believer in excessive central planning.

    And its not just my 500, it's millions of people with 500 looking to spend it...it adds up and saves jobs, and beats another weapons program or foreign occupation or prison...which create jobs at too high a cost in blood and lost liberty.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:01:20 PM EST
    I didn't mean to imply that service economy jobs are less worthy, but I can see you know what i meant.

    I think that when investing in new energy infrastructure, and other project, it would be fair to stipulate that a high percentage of the parts needed should be made in the USA. Maybe that percentage needs to be phased in over time as the manufacturing base is rebuilt.  

    Also should be true of defense programs already in the works. If you are not involved in the defense industry, you would be surprised to see how much of the manufacturing is subbed out to other countries in the effort to engage them in the process and have them buy our weapons later.

    There are a lot of ideas out there to try that are well short of government run factories.

    Parent

    Here is one example (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:31:05 AM EST
    It is less effective to have rebates than it would be to invest in education by, for example, funding universal full day preschool.  The return on such an investment would be higher and create more jobs.

    Parent
    I'd rather teachers... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:29:23 PM EST
    on the govt. payroll as opposed to Blackwater mercs or more DEA agents, but I'm not sure I buy the long term benefits.  Short term yes, less teachers unemployed and more construction workers put to work building schools...I guess thats not so bad, and certainly preferable to the DEA.

    Both my parents worked and found time to teach me to read before kindergarten started, I never went to pre-school.  Not enough education is done at home where the majority of it belongs...schools are becoming standardized test centers, not places of real learning.

    Parent

    Early intrevention is effective (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:28:16 PM EST
    Who provided the child care for you if both your parents worked?  I am sure they did not leave a three year old in the house by himself.  Or maybe they did.  Kids were tougher in the older days.  For single parent households, quality child care is even more of a burden.  Better educated kids will group up with better skills for our changing economy.  This investment helps now and in the future.  It is a no brainer.  Whle I am at it, reduced class sizes wouldn't hurt.

    Parent
    My grandmother... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:47:54 PM EST
    was my babysitter, I should have mentioned it.  But it was my parents who taught me to read, nights and weekends and whenever they could.

    I understand not everyone is so lucky to have an extended family, but there really is no substitute.

    I hear you though, I'm not totally against it, it sure beats the ways our govt. spends our money now.  But there really is no replacement for an emphasis on learning in the home, too many parents and families seem to think if they send their kid to school their job in regards to education is done...not even close.  That's my only point...I'll be the first to sign a petition to abolish the DEA and replace it with mandated pre-K...as long as there is no DARE officer:)

    Not to mention that a mandate of mandatory pre-K doesn't necessarily mandate learning.  Our government loves to mandate stuff with no regard to effectiveness, never to follow up again and see if its working.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#116)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:50:41 PM EST
    I am not sure that "universal pre-K" translates into "mandatory pre-K."  In a perfect world I think we'd recognize that time and attention from parents is the ideal scenario, but we still ought to provide a little something for those families who aren't attaining the ideal.

    Parent
    I'm coming around.... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 03:02:29 PM EST
    Thinking it all over some more, I guess there is little harm to adding another grade, as long as its optional.

    And as long as corresponding cuts are made to offset the new spending, I suppose the upside outweighs the unintended consequences I'm worried about....namely more outsourcing of parental/family responsibilities to the state.

    Parent

    It's not either/or (none / 0) (#75)
    by bocajeff on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:07:22 PM EST
    You make a case that either the money goes to Blackwater or goes to schools. It doesn't have to be this way.

    $800 billion in a population of 300 million is $2,500 per person.

    Another way to look at it is that $800 billion is roughly 10% of all outstanding residential mortgages (including rental properties, 2nd homes, and those mega millions).

    If there are 2 million homes facing foreclosure (or already been foreclosed) and the average price is $250,000 how many homes can the government save for that kind of money...

    How many cars can be bought and keep Detroit going?

    How much steel?

    Parent

    True... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:11:06 PM EST
    I just don't think giving it back to us is among the options being considered...aka shrinking the size and scope of government.

    I'm working under the assumption that not taking it from us in the first place is not one of the options being considered...the only say we have, and a slight say at that, is where it is spent.

    Parent

    'dog, (none / 0) (#79)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:16:47 PM EST
    you'd probably s**t, if not croak, if you knew some of the activities funded by your tax dollars. Five years ago I was a newbie to the Service Contract Act and government procurement activities thereunder. Let's just say that the past five years have been quite enlightening to me. The general populice would be stunned.

    Parent
    I'm sure... (none / 0) (#87)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:33:22 PM EST
    the DEA and the DOD are bad enough, I don't think I could handle knowing any of the lesser known ways our money gets misused and abused...I'm a hair away from stark-raving loony as it is:)

    Retaining at least some ignorance is bliss...

    Parent

    Trust me, (none / 0) (#88)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:35:09 PM EST
    the DoD standing alone is sufficient.

    Parent
    How? (none / 0) (#33)
    by bocajeff on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:45:55 AM EST
    You invest in universal preschool. Yes, you will build schools and hire teachers. But how exactly does this have a real impact on economic growth between now and 25 years from now when those kids become college graduates? Your unemployed will be better educated?

    Everything starts with decent paying jobs. That is where any investment (use of tax funds) should go to.

    Parent

    Stop throwing that rebate check in (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:03:49 PM EST
    my face. I'm bitter I did not get one.... :-)

    Parent
    My sister too.... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:07:48 PM EST
    her and her husband were over the income threshold...she was pissed.

    "With all the taxes we pay!  We're ok but not rolling in it, we coulda took the kids to a ballgame or something!"  And she's right, they live very well, but don't have a Scrooge McDuck moneybin to swin in or anything.  And even I gasp when I hear what they pay in taxes...makes my 4k and change a year look like the chump change it is.

    Parent

    It sucks even more if you are (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:25:52 PM EST
    single, no kids and can't claim any deductions on your taxes. The tax for last year was what you paid with a 0 next to it. I know I definitely should not be complaining in terms of needing the money. My gripe was more along the lines of what your sister said....with as much as we are paying it would have been nice to get a little bit back.

    Parent
    High income, single, no kids... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    damn vml, you are getting royally screwed.

    Why do I have the sneaking suspicion you would put it to better use than the government?...:)

    Parent

    "damn vml, you are getting royally (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:55:30 PM EST
    screwed."
    Hmmm,I wouldn't quite put it that way...:-)

    If I thought the government was putting the money to good use, I would quit my petty griping.

    Parent

    The icing on the cake: the noticed (none / 0) (#85)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:32:17 PM EST
    from the IRS stating you get nada!

    Parent
    Whats the point of that? (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:41:40 PM EST
    Is that the USPS stimulus package at work?...:)

    Parent
    And full employment for IRS (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:51:25 PM EST
    worker bees I guess.  


    Parent
    And to be fair to the rebates (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:07:39 PM EST
    tried last May, they might have worked a lot better if they hadn't "coincidentally" effectively gone right into the pockets of the oil companies in the form of skyrocketing gas prices.

    Come to think of it, the oil companies were actually the first industry to get a bailout last year.

    Parent

    You said it... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:19:39 PM EST
    that was odd.

    Like Bill Maher said "I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but if we elected Colonel Sanders president and the price of chicken tripled, I'd think something was up."

    Parent

    Then it won't work (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:11:52 AM EST
    plain and simple.

    I hope he enjoys his one term in office.

    Parent

    Remember John Brennan? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by lambert on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:02:08 AM EST
    He's b-a-a-a-a-c-k!

    And how comforting to know that a torture advocate will be given homeland security responsibilities. I know I'll sleep better at night. Won't you?

    Oh, and the proposed post won't require confirmation hearings. Sweet!

    Because his talents (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:10:21 AM EST
    should not be wasted on foreigners I suppose.

    That was sure a short-lived victory. What's next, tinkering with social security?  ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

    Parent

    Oh, or reducing (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:26:14 AM EST
    Medicare benefits?  nah, that was Bush, or maybe, McCain.

    Parent
    Yes, both, as a matter of fact... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by sallywally on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 07:34:57 PM EST
    according to the NYT today....

    He's promising to "rein in" spending on both.

    Parent

    sorry, the link didn't work. nt/ (none / 0) (#143)
    by sallywally on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 07:35:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama Promises Bid to Overhaul Retiree Spending (none / 0) (#146)
    by sallywally on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:01:57 PM EST

    Just in case:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/us/politics/08obama.html?th&emc=th

    Parent
    if you read the NYT report (none / 0) (#59)
    by lilburro on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:35:56 PM EST
    carefully, you will see that his title is going to be something like "deputy national security adviser."  IOW, as I read it, he will be Jim Jones' no.2.  That is a lot of influence given to somebody who thinks rendition is a vital tool.

    Parent
    Nothing on Obama's speech yet? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:27:47 AM EST
    For me, too much poetry and not enough prose.  And a lot of warmed over lines from his stump speeches.

    And the initial press reactions played up Obama's "dire warnings" and "call for sacrifice."

    I don't think those are the reactions they were going for.

    He really needs to go back and study those early FDR speeches.  FDR's mix of realism, pragmatism and optimism is a tough mix.  Obama's not quite there yet.

    But it's probably a good dry run for his inaugural speech.  They can keep and amplify what worked, and cut out what didn't.

    How many people did he lose by (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:22:46 PM EST
    talking about reforming the "entitlement" of SS?
    Like a typical Republican, he lumps Medicare and SS together, but stresses that we need to save SS.
    Blah.
    I thought it would be at least a year before he decided to deal with the SS "emergency".
    This is very bad politics, IMO, because the Republicans, in the spirit of bipartisanship, will seize on Obama's words and start offering proposals to cut benefits or whatever.

    Parent
    You're right ... (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:47:35 PM EST
    but he said that so often during the campaign I'm immune to its effect.

    Obama's always had some attraction to the right wing.  It was noticeable way back at Harvard, when he was made president of the Harvard Law Review and spent most of his time mollifying the conservatives.

    I think he has a bit of a crush on conservatives.  They make him weak in the knees ... or something.

    Parent

    From What I've Read (none / 0) (#137)
    by CDN Ctzn on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 06:39:43 PM EST
    so far and commentary's over at Salon it's looking more and more like alot of Milton Friedman and the "Chicago Boys" rubbed off on Obama while he was at the University of Chicago. How was it few if any saw a correlation between the two earlier on?

    Parent
    Lots of people saw it. (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 07:17:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes, many, many saw it but (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by sallywally on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:06:00 PM EST
    the WORM patrol said he didn't mean it and didn't listen to Austan Goolsbee, really...

    Parent
    What does "save" mean? (none / 0) (#147)
    by sallywally on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:04:42 PM EST
    What's the point of tax cuts for everyone else when people on small fixed incomes will not get cost of living increases?

    "Save" = not eliminate?

    "Save" = privatize or not?

    Parent

    Rioting in Oakland (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:39:05 AM EST
    over the fatal shooting of a young African American man by a cop at a BART station on New Year's Eve, and over the faulty "offical investigation" so far. It started out as a sober memorial, but a group of some 200 people split off and became a "roving mob" that

    expressed fury at police and frustration over society's racial injustice. Yet the demonstrators were often indiscriminate, frequently targeting the businesses and prized possessions of people of color. They smashed a hair salon, a pharmacy and several restaurants . . . .  Nearby, [a woman] stood near her smashed Toyota Corolla as a man walked by, repeatedly called her a misogynist slur and then added, "F- your car" [San Francisco Chronicle].

    The "roving mob" was spearheaded by a group of about 40 young white men affiliated with a "revolutionary" bookstore in Berkeley--the same thugs, IMO, who would have rioted, black folk be damned, if Obama had lost the election, or the nomination.

    oh yes (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:13:35 PM EST
    I call them the Abercrombie & Fitch Brigades....

    Parent
    Niiiice (none / 0) (#64)
    by blogtopus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:46:31 PM EST
    Yeah, the new HOPE generation.

    Parent
    Well, it's important (none / 0) (#86)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:32:54 PM EST
    not to confuse the genuinely hopeful young Obama supporters with these upper-middle-class, misogynist, fake revolutionaries.

    Parent
    interesting (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:22:32 PM EST
    So your claim is that these whites are using black issues to riot and destroy... Seems that happened in Germany in the 30's..

    Go a link??

    Parent

    Yes, using black issues to riot and destroy (none / 0) (#108)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:24:44 PM EST
    as a consequence of advancing a doctrinaire political agenda whose proponents on the fringes of the U.S. Left have never hesitated to envision nonwhite bodies as cannon fodder in the coming "struggle." Remember the people who claim that every "revolution" needs a "vanguard," and that they are it? Here's your link.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:17:49 PM EST
    but I was looking for a link connecting these undesirables to the riots.

    Parent
    It was first mentioned (none / 0) (#159)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:01:26 PM EST
    in the 1/8/09 morning edition of the Chronicle, which you can search for. Meanwhile, the evening edition and updated story alludes to this connection.

    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 10:04:52 AM EST
    Do you feel that the protest itself shares any blame, given that, if you are correct, the take over by the anarchists could not have happened without the availability of the protest.

    Keep in mind that I am not excusing the police officer. Based on what I know now he should be tried, convicted and given LWOP.

    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#172)
    by Spamlet on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 02:46:24 PM EST
    I wonder if you and I are on two different wavelengths. I'm not even sure what you think I may or may not be "correct" about.

    I think the protest was entirely justified, and that anyone who participated in the violence is accountable for his or her actions.

    My larger point, embedded in my initial comment on this topic, is that there is a faction of largely white, largely middle- and upper-middle-class thugs and misogynists on the doctrinaire fringes of the American Left who attach themselves parasitically to the causes and movements of minority groups.

    The Obama campaign was a recent and striking instance of this phenomenon. Obama won the nomination and the election, so these poseurs couldn't "protest" a loss that didn't occur. But I wasn't surprised to see them disrupt this legitimate protest against the deadly police brutality directed at a young African American man.

    To answer what I think you asked me, I don't "blame" the protest for these people's actions, any more than I blame Barack Obama for the behavior of some of his thuggish, misogynistic supporters--some of whom are the same nihilists who trashed this protest and caused economic and emotional damage to minority business owners.

    Parent

    Oscar Grant protests in Oakland getting ugly (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by blogtopus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:31:54 PM EST
    I think the officer who shot the man should be jail, but this is just not the way to handle it.

    I saw the video; it was obviously a chaotic situation, but the man was ON THE GROUND, on his STOMACH, and the officer drew his revolver, took aim, and shot the guy point blank. This was all caught on camera video, and the officer is still free. Am I insane? How is he still walking free?

    Can someone explain this in a non-derogatory, non-condescending way? I honestly am puzzled.

    I hadn't really looked (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by eric on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:24:27 PM EST
    at this story much, but did so just now.  After watching that video, I am surprised that all of Oakland isn't on fire.

    You are correct, it is inexplicable - the shooting and the fact that this cop has not been arrested.

    Parent

    One explanation put forward (none / 0) (#60)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:38:27 PM EST
    is that the cop thought he had grabbed his Taser and not his revolver. But that still doesn't explain why a man lying face down would need to be Tased in the first place. Also, see my comment above about the core group of rioters.

    Parent
    I heard SF reporter and cop (none / 0) (#149)
    by sallywally on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:11:40 PM EST
    on Sirius last night and the cop said tasers are usually/often carried on the other side of the body to prevent this, also, they don't feel like a Glock, etc.

    Parent
    I haven't seen the video. But, (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:41:32 PM EST
    wwere there other people around?  Any of them apparently assoc. with the person who was shot?  Could the officer have thought the person on his stomach on the ground was armed?  What happened before the person who was shot was on his stomach on the ground?

    Parent
    He was also handcuffed, apparently....n/t (none / 0) (#145)
    by sallywally on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 07:55:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Other reports said no cuffs n/t (none / 0) (#160)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:03:27 PM EST


    Parent
    At what point... (none / 0) (#68)
    by desertswine on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:56:43 PM EST
    is this sort of thing determined to be out of control?

    Parent
    Depends on who has the power (none / 0) (#170)
    by blogtopus on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 12:24:03 PM EST
    Those in power: It's never out of control.
    Those who are out of power: Since when has it NOT been out of control?

    Parent
    Do school kids need to (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:57:23 PM EST
    be drinking cappuccinos

    wonder.... (none / 0) (#73)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:05:27 PM EST
    if Arne Duncan Chicago schools ceo who PEBO apptd to Sec Ed approved this?!?

    Parent
    Meanwhile in Detroit... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:06:47 PM EST
    they're asking people to donate lightbulbs to keep the schools lit.

    I really wonder sometimes if anarchy wouldn't run smoother than our bueracracies.

    Parent

    Non-Gator, non-football news: (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:35:30 PM EST
    Trevor Hoffman, future Hall of Fame closer, is leaving the Padres and signing with Milwaukee Brewers.  The end of an era.  Plus, Tony Gwynn's son, a Brewer, hit one of Trevor's pitches the season before last, enabling Colorado to go to the playoffs.  

    Have you seen the new MLB network? (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:00:45 PM EST
    Pretty cool, they had BJ Upton of thhe Rays on last night giving batting pointers, and a piece on the '95 Indians vs. Braves series...nice to satisfy your offseason baseball jones.  

    Not sure if all cable/satellite providers are carrying it yet though.

    Parent

    Thanks. I'll check it out. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:12:47 PM EST
    Smoltz going to Boston?  What next?

    Parent
    Who is gonna land Manny?... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:23:46 PM EST
    Call me crazy, but I'd love the Mets to make a play for him...we need another bat, and knucklehead or not the guy flat out hits.

    Parent
    I got to see him play when the Dodgers (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:25:40 PM EST
    played in Ssn Diego this fall.  He garners as many boos here as Barry Bonds did.  But, such an exciting player.  

    Parent
    Call me crazy (none / 0) (#114)
    by CST on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:42:31 PM EST
    I miss Manny.

    The outfield will never be quite as exciting without him.  Who else is going to scare you like that during fly balls?  Hoping he's still on the field and didn't disappear into the Monster.

    He's been with us so long, I still can't really picture him on another team.  But hey, I'd much rather have him in the NL than the AL.  And I REALLY don't want him in the AL East.

    Parent

    No you don't.... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:52:38 PM EST
    Manny is like David Banner...your pitchers wouldn't like him when he's angry.

    Parent
    Manny is a slob and a boor n/t (none / 0) (#123)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 04:28:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Maybe so... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 10:16:04 AM EST
    but a slob and a boor who can hit...its not a Nobel Prize competition after all.

    Parent
    TV transition (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 03:12:17 PM EST
    Obama team wants to delay transition date from February 2009

    Link

    Makes Sense To Me (none / 0) (#120)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 03:14:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Parting Shot (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 04:51:59 PM EST
    The Blair House rejection has been cleared up. Obama and his family were turned away by the Bush Family so that John (war monger) Howard could stay one night and get a medal from Bush.

    Not enough room for mixing right wingers and the first family elect?  Think again.

    [the] Blair House has "119 rooms with 35 bathrooms. Howard wouldn't even have to share a sink with the Obamas."

    think progress

    So what? (3.00 / 2) (#125)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 04:58:24 PM EST
    The Obamas, always thinking that everything is about them, were trying to move in earlier than any president-elect in history.  They knew when he ran and when he won,that they would have to have accommodations for their young daughters.  Staying at the Hay-Adams is not exactly "slumming".

    This was just more arrogance on their part to expect things to be re-arranged to accommodate them because he is The Chosen One.

    Parent

    IMO, it was perfectly proper for (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 05:00:20 PM EST
    the Obamas to inquire if their family could stay at Blair House to accommodate the start of school schedule.  It was also w/i the Executive Branch's discretion to turn down the request.

    Parent
    I have no problem (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 05:09:13 PM EST
    with them asking, however, it has been portrayed as a snub and an illustration of how mean the Bush admin is because they didn't anticipate keeping it open for a month, when that has never been done before.  Clinton had a school age child who went to the same school and didn't ask for special favors.

    It just reeks of entitlement, which has been the Obamas M.O.

    Parent

    Sure seems like a snub to me (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 05:29:26 PM EST


    Parent
    BS (1.00 / 0) (#130)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 05:28:54 PM EST
    Both Clinton and Carter moved into the Blair House in December, Reagan moved in Jan 1.

    Carters in Blair House
    December 6, 1976
    Link

    Reagans in Blair House January 1, 1981
    The Reagans took up residence at Blair House on January 1, 1981, several weeks before the inauguration.
    Haig Press Briefing - Blair House, DC 01/01/1981
    Reagan, Baker, Brady, Small - Briefing Blair House 01/06/1981
    Reagan Remarks, Q&A - Return to Blair House 01/01/1981 link

    Bill Clinton was in Blair House by Dec. 7 1992
    link

    The place has 135 rooms. You are the arrogant one.


    Parent

    Typical (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 05:53:16 PM EST
    More name calling from squeaky.  Color me surprised.

    Parent
    OH (1.00 / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 05:56:37 PM EST
    And I forgot to add liar at worst, or woefully misinformed at best.

    Parent
    Sounds like Carter was just a visit (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by nycstray on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 06:23:55 PM EST
    same with Clinton (didn't read the whole thing)

    Obama was conducting most of his biz out of Chicago until now, or he may have had a few short stays at the Blair House by now. Where did he stay when he visited Bush the first time?

    Parent

    Not Sure (1.00 / 0) (#136)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 06:35:08 PM EST
    But I gather from your response that were it you, Obama would also have to wait until the 15th to stay at Blair House.

    Seems absurd to me, and quite the snub.

    But hate fuels politics, and graciousness is evidentially in short supply. As gracious as Hillary not much of it seemed to rub off on  her hard core fans.

    Parent

    Are her facts wrong? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by sallywally on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:26:46 PM EST


    Parent
    More On Warren (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 07:53:55 PM EST
    One of the things Obama and Warren agree on according to Axelrod is evidentially a sham. Warren has misrepresented himself big time. Really disgusting evil man. First he burns condoms and sets back the African Aids initiative (PEPFAR) and demanding abstinence only there is this:  
    With safe sex advocates on the run, Warren and Ssempa trained their sights on another social evil. In August 2007, Ssempa led hundreds of his followers through the streets of Kampala to demand that the government mete out harsh punishments against gays. "Arrest all homos," read placards. And: "A man cannot marry a man." Ssempa continued his crusade online, publishing the names of Ugandan gay rights activists on a website he created, along with photos and home addresses. "Homosexual promoters," he called them, suggesting they intended to seduce Uganda's children into their lifestyle. Soon afterwards, two of President Yoweri Museveni's top officials demanded the arrest of the gay activists named by Ssempa. Terrified, the activists immediately into hiding.

    link via digby

    Squeaky --- mixed signals (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:15:19 PM EST
    On one hand you say that Obama is showing America that GLBT families are welcome in DC by him and on the other you call Warren "a disgusting evil man" for his views on homosexuality, a man that PEBO has decided to honor with giving the invocation.

    Parent
    I'll Say (none / 0) (#151)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:22:57 PM EST
    And I think that Warren is going to go down, he is too disgusting and hypocritical. Pandering to evangelicals is one thing but putting this horror show front and center is really wrong.

    And more, Tom Kaine new head of democratic committee, staunch opposition to GLBT marriage.

    Many mixed signals that is for sure. Personally I think it is good to give credit where due and good to keep the fire on when our reps stop representing us.

    Some on the bandwagon here are too unconsolable about Hillary losing the primary to give Obama any credit. That seems wrong to me, but to each his or her own.

    Parent

    PEBO Economic Stimulus speech (none / 0) (#8)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:59:55 AM EST
    no specifics, general broad strokes, what we expected...

    link

    also at link is a linky to the Daschle confirmation hearings LIVE, he COMPLIMENTED Dole right out of the gate, sickening really, DOLE killed UHC in 93, ugh enough with the bipartisanship, the GOP isn't going quietly into UHC without a fight..

    Alex Koppelman of Salon's War Room (none / 0) (#16)
    by esmense on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:11:56 AM EST
    asks the question I'd like to ask; "Can Harry Reid do anything right?"

    The other important question; is it possible for Democrats make any kind of progress on progressive policies that serve the interest of working and middle class Americans if the Senate leadership starts out declaring it's unwillingness to work, much less fight, for such policies?

    As an example, Koppleman quotes from an interview Reid gave to The Hill --

    Speaking to The Hill, Reid said Democrats have to be "very, very careful" not to overreach in this new Congress, explaining that this year will be different from 1993 -- the last time Democrats controlled both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch. The paper reports, "Back then, Reid said, Democrats had controlled the House for decades and behaved as though the opposition did not exist. This time around, their recent stint in the minority would give them a commitment to bipartisanship."

    Krugman on the (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:15:11 AM EST
    bi-partisan tax cuts to bring the GOP on board for the stimulus package. Worth repeating every simgle day:

    Look, Republicans are not going to come on board. Make 40% of the package tax cuts, they'll demand 100%. Then they'll start the thing about how you can't cut taxes on people who don't pay taxes (with only income taxes counting, of course) and demand that the plan focus on the affluent. Then they'll demand cuts in corporate taxes. And Mitch McConnell is already saying that state and local governments should get loans, not aid -- which would undermine that part of the plan, too.

    OK, maybe this is just a head fake from the Obama people -- they think they can win the PR battle by making bipartisan noises, then accusing the GOP of being obstructionist. But I'm really worried that they're sending off signals of weakness right from the beginning, and that they're just going to embolden the opposition.



    Parent
    There Is Only One Way The GOPukes Win In '10/'12 (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by tokin librul on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:45:39 PM EST
    That is if Obama and the Dims fail to provide practical solutions for the horrendous array of clusterfux left steaming on the national table like piles of crap by the departing Busheviks.

    They have NO incentive to cooperate--None, Zero, zilch, Nada...

    And EVERY incentive to butt-fork Obama & the Dims.

    The Iron Law of Institutions is in play:

    The Iron Law of Institutions is: the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution.


    Parent
    You assume (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:18:44 PM EST
    that the "plans" are always correct.

    And while I like your "Iron Law of Institutions," we do have something going on  called "democracy."

    And since you want to assign blame, we gave away billions a few months ago with no real control. We now know that the banks have merely used it to payout a Xmas bonus for the Ex's and improve their bottom line.

    Disgusting? Yes.

    I am mindful that it was a Democratically controlled Congress, with the help of quite a few Repubs and the Pres that did this.

    And while we are at it we need to go back to Carter's CRA, Clinton's '99 expansion of Fannie and Freddie, the Demos opposition to Bush's '03 attempt to strengthen oversight of F & F and the Demos' failure to LOWER energy prices as they promised to do in the '06 elections that have had more than a small bit to play in the current mess.

    So pardon me if I find your comment off target. The Repubs are guilty of letting the Demos do what the Demos wanted. But assisted suicide is still a crime, eh?

    Parent

    I'll put it this way (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:26:40 PM EST
    Giving Republicans a large role in crafting the approach to this economic recovery is like giving a kidnapper post-rescue joint custody of the child he stole.

    Parent
    Cass Sunstein Appointment (none / 0) (#19)
    by joanneleon on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:17:45 AM EST
    I'm interested in your opinion on the Cass Sunstein appointment.  I'm not sure I understand exactly what his responsibilities will be, and how much impact his controversial opinions are likely to have on this new position.  

    I am really concerned about his established opinions on holding the Bush administration accountable, on domestic spying, FISA and telecom immunity, on military tribunals, and on the powers of the executive.  

    Also, this seems like a relatively low position in the Obama administration.  Is there any information out there about the likelihood of him being considered for the Supreme Court?

    What did Obama appoint Sunstein to? (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:49:35 AM EST


    Parent
    Head of Regulatory Affairs (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:55:54 AM EST
    The president-elect is expected to name Sunstein--his friend and informal adviser--to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a transition official said late Wednesday.

    link

    Parent

    His first job should be getting rid of (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:32:24 PM EST
    the new HHS regs.

    I'd forgotten he and Samantha Power are married now.

    Also, the guy isn't as bad as I thought.  He is a proponent of the serial comma (or his editor/publisher is.)

    Parent

    Huff po headline: Samantha Power's (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:53:38 PM EST
    husband appointed!

    Also, I think Ms. Huffington may oppose Paterson appointing Kennedy.  Very unflattering photo of Kennedy up now.

    Parent

    Oh yeah (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:32:04 PM EST
    The conservative and libertarian blogs are quite happy (as happy as they can be) with this pick.  The Corner likes it and Volokh likes it too.

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:33:05 PM EST
    He will be the first head of OIRA to think that OSHA is unconstitutional.

    LINK

    Parent

    Man laid off job fatally shot outside of work (none / 0) (#21)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:20:39 AM EST


    forgot the link (none / 0) (#22)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:21:24 AM EST
    http://www.wfaa.com/video/index.html?nvid=319633

    Parent
    Larry Craig (none / 0) (#29)
    by eric on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:30:17 AM EST
    says he is done appealing.  LINK

    Everyone pretty much expected this - he was just appealing long enough to run out his Senate term.

    Dept Of Agriculture Pick (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:03:23 PM EST
    Tom Vilsak, mixed reports. He is friends with Monsanto but has and will work with progressives. Perhaps this bit from This is a guest post by long-time Iowa organic farmer and food activist, Denise O'Brien can be applied to the whole new incoming administration:

    During his administration it quickly dawned on many that our Governor Tom Vilsack was a centrist like former President Bill Clinton, and we were likely to disagree on a lot of issues. What's a progressive to do? Give up? Not bother to even engage in discussions about relevant issues?

    The best thing to do was to keep talking and to keep exposing the governor to a more progressive line of thinking. We resigned ourselves to the fact that our expectations of a democratic governor were exactly that -- expectations -- and that there was still a lot of work to do.

    One of the best progressive accomplishments under his watch was the creation, by executive order, of the Iowa Food Policy Council. This was the second statewide council of its type to form in the United States. A number of progressives served on IFPC,....

    Denise O'Brien

    Being a moderate... (none / 0) (#156)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 09:08:27 PM EST
    ...or centrist Democrat is how Democrats get elected in Iowa.  Tom Harkin is the closest you will get to a "wild-eyed" liberal in a state-wide elected Democrat in Iowa.  

    I can almost guarantee you there isn't a politican in Iowa that doesn't have BigAg $ support.  But consider this...

    During his gubernatorial campaigns from 1998 to 2004, Agriculture Secretary-designate Tom Vilsack raised $11.4 million. Only 2 percent of his campaign contributions, or $224,958, came from agricultural interests.

    Link

    Parent

    Madoff... (none / 0) (#46)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:15:25 PM EST
    the damage continues, CNBC Gasparino reporting the NYS Carpenters Pension Fund is exposed to the losses, and he notes the unions are under legal mandate to diversify in their investments.....

    Pensions shouldn't be invested period... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:44:16 PM EST
    it's all gambling, to various degrees of risk.

    They should stick in private accounts for each pensioned employee, FDIC insured...but then again that would be hard to skim and steal from:)  

    My Sealy Postueropedic retirement account is looking better and better everyday...I'm tellin ya.  At least until a loaf of bread costs 20 bucks...which it surely will if the Fed keeps printing currency like its monopoly money.

    Parent

    This pension plan probably falls (none / 0) (#66)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:53:34 PM EST
    under ERISA, which would mean that taxapayers could be footing part of these losses.(?)

    Parent
    Sorry, link...... (none / 0) (#70)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    Cappuccinos

    ohh lookee here, Dems pushing back... (none / 0) (#72)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:04:43 PM EST
    on tax cuts in the stimulus package..oh wouldnt it be loverly?

    Senators from both parties agreed that Congress should do something to stimulate the economy. But senators emerging from a private meeting of the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday said that tax portion of Obama's stimulus plan is unworkable.

        They were especially critical of a proposed $3,000 tax credit for companies that hire or retrain workers. Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota described it as "misdirected."

    linky

    Well, that is good news to me (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:16:33 PM EST
    I'd like to see tax cuts addressed as part of tax policy down the road, not as part of a stimulus package.

    If they determined that part of the stimulus needs to be more consumer spending, just give us each a grant. They give money away to everyone else, why not the normal citizen?

    Parent

    And there's this: (none / 0) (#94)
    by NJDem on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:51:56 PM EST
    "Key Senate Democrats blast Obama tax proposals" [CNN]

    Even Kerry chimed in--maybe he's still upset about being snubbed for SoS?

    Parent

    Or maybe (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 04:27:41 PM EST
    he's actually more courageous than Obama on this issue.

    Parent
    Smoltz is getting up there in age. (none / 0) (#100)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:06:19 PM EST
    He's tired of batting.

    You mean tired of playing... (none / 0) (#107)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:24:30 PM EST
    real baseball?...:)

    Parent
    Heck Yes. (none / 0) (#113)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:33:58 PM EST
    Extends their careers by several years -- both hitters and pitchers. I know, I know, there's always an anamoly, like that hack Clemmons. When I lived in Anaheim I saw the man pitch against the Angels when he was still with the Yankees. Pitched the entire game, won, and got a well-deserved standing ovation from the Angels fans in the ninth inning.  They didn't know about his extra-marital activities at the time.  

    Parent
    Hehehe (none / 0) (#103)
    by CST on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:12:55 PM EST
    I'd prefer to put him in the pen to help out Okajima and Delcarmen, but I guess he's more of a replacement for Schilling

    Oh man (none / 0) (#104)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:17:12 PM EST
    You're killing me just by mentioning that name.  I was just a kid when the Tigers traded top prospect John Smoltz for veteran Doyle Alexander.  Alexander went 9-0 that year and was instrumental in helping the Tigers win the division... but he only played two seasons after that, and John Smoltz is still frickin' pitching!!!  Oh man.

    All Families Aboard (none / 0) (#134)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 05:59:35 PM EST
    Today the 2009 Presidential Inaugural Committee announced the names of 16 families who will join President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden on their Whistle Stop Tour to D.C. the Saturday before the inauguration.

    Lesbian couple Lisa Hazirjian and her partner Michelle have been invited to join the Whistle Stop Tour and appear onstage with Obama and Biden during events

    Washington Blade via think progress

    How nice for Lisa and Michelle. (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 07:05:54 PM EST
    This is a lot of "just for show" from Obama/Biden.

     When Obama stops declaring his opposition to marriage equality, lobbies for and signs ENDA, and abolishes DADT and DOMA, then I'll believe he has a commitment to equal rights.

    In the meantime, at least we'll have a president who isn't afraid of catching teh gay cooties, for whatever that is worth.

    Parent

    I Am Sure It Must Be Painful For You (none / 0) (#140)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 07:23:10 PM EST
    To see GBLT activists that actually campaigned for Obama and are not afraid of getting kooties from him.

    Parent
    Wrong again, Squeaky. (none / 0) (#161)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 12:00:26 AM EST
    This has nothing to do with the primaries. Seriously, you appear to be the only person here still fighting the Hillary/Barack war. It is your only, and repetitive, response to any comment that MIGHT be even slightly critical of Obama. The Democratic primary ended 7 months ago. Maybe you should get over it.

    And why do you think there are LGBT activists  who would be afraid of getting cooties from Obama? My comment was sincere. We've had eight long years since the Oval Office was occupied by someone who acknowledged that LGBT people were actual, you know, people and not misguided perverts.

    It is a nice PR move. I'll be impressed when I see Obama deliver results on the issues I listed.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#162)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 01:17:48 AM EST
    Not fighting the Obama Hillary war. But I am still fending off love lorn Hillary zombies who, like you have only had a one note song here at TL.  You have no standing because like our GOP commenters you have had zero good to say about Obama. Every single comment has been to bash the president elect with an implicit if only..

    Your first comment here 3 6 08:

    My mother and my aunt,both of whom live in Illinois, have always voted dem., straight ticket every time. They cannot stand Obama. Say he hasn't done one single thing for Illinois, acts like a" know-it-all", is bad on the safety net issues, and is disrespectful to voters. By the way, this is my first post ever. So relieved to find this site.

    Not much differece in the other 400 or so comments since save for a few sports comments here and there.


    Parent

    So, anyone who supported Hillary (none / 0) (#163)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 01:34:44 AM EST
    in the primary is not allowed to offer any criticism of Obama. Get a grip. Squeaky. That contest is over.

    My opinions on the things Obama does or does not do are no less, and no more, valid than anyone else's. It doesn't matter which candidate I supported in the primary.

    I should listen to Dr. Molly. Not worth the effort to engage with you. You are a bully.

    Parent

    Hardly (none / 0) (#164)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 01:58:04 AM EST
    I supported Hillary, and am long over it. Others here are most certainly not. Criticizing Obama is fine but if that is all you do you sound exactly like the Obama cultists, who could not bear even hearing Hillary's name without making a slam.

    Parent
    There are signs of healing (none / 0) (#166)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 09:18:20 AM EST
    in our Squawky.  Didn't call you a PUMA, hey?

    Yeh, Squawk's obsession with HRC, the hours spent in reviewing comments by the hundreds, is just sad.  But Squawky is protected here (for reasons speculated about on other boards but without resolution).  

    So let's both try to heed Dr. Molly, Oculus, et al.  I enjoy your engagement with others here.


    Parent

    PPPUMA (none / 0) (#169)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 12:12:51 PM EST
    For being a member of such a insignificant fringe group you sure are pompous, not to mention pretentious.

    No wonder you prefer the kaffe klatch type of blog rather than TL where your distortions and hate are called out. Must be more fun to oogle your diety and trash the unclean one unfettered by any rational dialogue.  

    Parent

    "Oogle my diety"?! (none / 0) (#171)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 02:20:54 PM EST
    Ye gods, you really have lost it with your obsession, but thanks for the laff.

    And no, sweetie, I do not belong to any political organization now.  Not PUMA.  Not the Dems, either.

    I used to be a Dem, but then I heard who else belonged, and that they spent their time . . . oogling dieties.  Sounds icky, squawky.  I wouldn't advertise that activity of yours.

    Parent

    Huge Symbolic Act (none / 0) (#141)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 07:28:07 PM EST
    IOW, yes it is clearly just for show. It shows America by example, that LGBT couples constitute a family and that family train is heading to DC, express.

    Parent
    Pedigree Dogs Exposed (none / 0) (#157)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 09:37:40 PM EST
    Well, that was informative.

    My chosen breed, the Hungarian kuvasz, has some genetic problems.  It's to be expected since the Nazis made of point of killing every one they saw.  That seriously diminished the gene pool!  This is why good breeders screen for known problems.

    But I just watched Pedigree Dogs Exposed and frankly, I was stunned.  Not only do breeders NOT screen for some known inherited problems, but they actually win major championships while suffering from them.  Pug can't breathe?  That's okay - have Best In Show!  Spaniel's cranial cavity so small that it compresses the brain?  No problem - we'll award him the Grand Championship!  And then they breed more like that.  On the positive side, at the rate some breeds are being inbred, they'll be bred into sterility and extinction.  

    Looks like another venue of research for me.  I'm hoping I won't find much.  I get the impression that people don't breed kuvasz for the money.  Ego, maybe.  Fortunately rarity and a lack of popularity seem to keep kuvasz mostly in the hands of true fans.  

    Thursday Morning Open Thread | 170 comments (170 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment