Sunday Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 10:25:28 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

And now for something completely different, a Family Guy Crop Circle.

This also is an Open Thread.

< Sunday Baseball: Red Sox On The Brink | Gay Rights Weekend >

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

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2024. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Sunday Open Thread | 96 comments (96 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Is the crop circle in Venezuela? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by oculus on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 10:30:18 AM EST

BBC

: Didn't find that but thanks for the link (none / 0) (#39)
by Cream City on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:48:54 PM EST

as an ad there tips me off to a show to watch tonight -- Discovery channel's special on "Ardi."

Parent

Who about starting TL radio. See (5.00 / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 10:42:30 AM EST

Greenwald. Could be a mix of politics and sports talk with criminal defense added when J returns.

: My son got into this (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Cream City on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:01:43 PM EST

with an online group, and yes, the equipment is not that much -- and he had no probs with the software.
And about meeting interesting people? He met his wife.

Parent

Ohh (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 10:46:20 AM EST

how charming, but it looks like a corn maze, rather than a crop circle. Imagine the draw that would be!

: I can't imagine the work that went into it (none / 0) (#30)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:35:24 PM EST

Someone is dedicated to Family Guy.

Parent
: There's a bit of backgound... (none / 0) (#56)
by EL seattle on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 02:17:22 PM EST

... in this story.
I'm really glad that they selected a "family friendly" Family Guy pattern for this year's design.

Parent

Has anybody else seen the (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:41:17 PM EST

HBO documentary 'Outrage', about exposing gay politicians that vote against and are vehemently opposed to gay rights? I just saw it. Very interesting. I had not been aware of Crist's obvious issues on this until andgarden brought it up a long while ago. I then went and read up a bit. Crist has a large segement in the documentary. And I just about fell down laughing when they aired a clip of Larry Craig calling Bill Clinton a nasty, bad, naughty boy.

No segue, but did you see this? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by oculus on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:45:11 PM EST

NYT

Parent

Have I mentioned that you are a gem? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 01:17:43 PM EST

This explains so much to me now. I did know that the 2008 essentially lost firefight was now on it's third military investigation. It is common practice for any incident like this to be investigated, particularly since we have shook off the bang bang shoot em up leadership of the Bush years. Incidents are investigated and solutions to obvious weaknesses are sought. I read the second investigation and it spoke about possible weapon failures. There was an interview with a retired Lt. Col. who lost a son there and he repeated more than once that something just didn't sit right. I could tell from his interview that he was leading to something specific, but was not going to go into it at that time. I knew David Petraeus had ordered a third investigation. I would say that this is to gather evidence to take to the industrial military complex that our personal weapons suck. You should see my husband's sidearm that pilots carry with them flying. I know nothing about guns, but it does look like a piece of $h*t :) Every time we have had to address equipment failings of well established "common place" items, it has been a fight from hell. Take a look at what we had to fight and go through to get decent body armor. We had retired generals who had become "lobbiest style contractors" standing in the way of our soldiers not dying and tax payers getting their dollar's worth. Looks like they are going about this the smart way. Looks like we have weapon issues that will now be gone after.

Parent

You may be interested in the story (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Cream City on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 01:56:48 PM EST

of the father, a vet, of young Cpl. Stephen Castner of my local national guard, killed in Iraq in one of the Humvees so poorly armored that they became coffins. The father has been relentless in pushing the Guard, the local Congressman, etc., to investigate.

Also recalls to mind that the oldest soldier from my state killed since WWII was a woman in the Guard in Afghanistan who also was not equipped or trained for the warfare there so was vulnerable, as have been so many women from my state even in the regular army but killed in these wars, since women are not supposed to be in combat.

But everyone over there, woman or man, regular military or National Guard, is in a combat zone.

Parent

We have women in combat zones now (5.00 / 2) (#58)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 02:18:33 PM EST

I don't know how they determine which women will pull the trigger, but we have a female friend who has been in combat zones three times now. She has also gone to Ranger school, but she did that after two Iraq tours. She is the woman that I have spoken about who's soldiers sustained a mortar attack along with her. Because women get more pain relieving endorphins though when wounded she was pulling her soldiers to safety while the dudes were screaming. Nobody died thank God. But let's not pick on guys :)

Parent

Exactly what I said -- (none / 0) (#64)
by Cream City on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 05:14:45 PM EST

we have women in combat zones. But they're still not supposed to be and not trained for combat.

As for picking on guys, I don't see how I did that. I pointed out that even the guys in the Guard apparently, according to grieving parents and others, are not getting training and equipment they need. (And what equipment our state Guards do have is severely depleted here by being sent there, but that's another problem.)

Parent

There is no ban on women in combat zones (none / 0) (#73)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 10:20:23 PM EST

And women go to Ranger school at their request if their past commanders feel like they are of that caliber, and if that isn't training for combat I don't know what is. Women fly Apache gunships now and you only fly those to fight something. Our daughter's best friend has a mom who is a Colonel and just got home from serving over a year in Iraq. I'm unaware of any ban of women from war zones or combat training.

Parent

Just Gay women who told someone :) (none / 0) (#74)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 10:21:18 PM EST

Straight women though are free to be as manly as we want to.

Parent

: just doesn't seem fair (none / 0) (#75)
by CoralGables on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 11:14:27 PM EST

If you don't like being in the military you can claim to be gay and they let you go home, but claim to be heterosexual and they send you to Iraq?
To be equally fair, shouldn't DADT extend to heterosexuals so they have an equal right to come home?

Parent

Yes, tracy, there is such a ban (none / 0) (#76)
by Cream City on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:36:07 AM EST

on almost all direct combat roles. You could look it up -- especially being militarytracy -- but here is a fairly full and informative article for you. Btw, that 1994 policy actually expanded roles for women (so no CDS from others, please) after the Gulf War under Bush I. Now, you don't think that Bush II actually did better by military women, do you?

And you must know that many noncombat troops can be colonels.

Btw, check on the history of women in the military finally getting GI benefits. . . .

Parent

I know that women in the past haven't (none / 0) (#81)
by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:37:43 AM EST

been allowed to so "everything", but I have never known any woman thusfar who has been banned from doing anything that she could be proficient in. I'm serious. They go to jump school too but the military isn't going to send you and spend the money on you if you aren't capable. They have to be able to pass all the physical and endurance tests, and I think they have to be expert on their marksmanship because commanders will not allow anybody to place other soldier lives in danger, but we have no female friends in the military being told NO simply because they are female. It's discrimination to be excluded due to sex. I remember when Bush brought up that women were't allowed in the combat zone because people were starting to get upset about dead women and he has an uninforced regulation to stand on, but today's military does everything in its power to not sexually discriminate outside of sexual orientation and is hypersensitive about doing it. My nextdoor neighbor is female and an Apache pilot and she is an officer with as much rank and time served as my spouse and she's in Iraq right now. I have not met any female tankers though or snipers. Perhaps they are being prevented from being a part of tank units and snipers. All the women that I know are officers though and I have no large scale exposure to infantry units. There are several female officers with whom my spouse worked with and will return to work with when he gets home and they aren't aviation officers. I will ask them how things are going down with women in combat right now, but they have all been to Iraq...I know that much.

Parent

You need to read the article (2.00 / 0) (#83)
by Cream City on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:29:54 AM EST

and other sources. Your arguments are the age-old ones -- but usually from men.

I can do no more.

Parent

The articles are old (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:22:35 PM EST

This is 2009 after eight plus years of war. I know women in combat. This is when women would be making such headway too. I can do no more.

Parent

And for the record my husband doesn't (5.00 / 0) (#87)
by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 01:09:22 PM EST

qualify for "combat" now either outside of a cockpit due to his RA. Only two years ago he was still expert on all the Army personal weapons. When you have RA though firing a handgun is hell on your hands I guess. He still qualified, but he can only be classified "support" now and he was shifted into a different train up that was made up of mostly doctors that were deploying. He had to practice allowing combat MOS'd soldiers push him to the ground and sit on him while firing under attack, but support soldiers go into the field all the time and they are expected to be able to defend themselves and must be able to qualify using the weapons, and they carry weapons. I don't know when women will be able to physically keep up with those kicking in doors if they want to. But as far as I'm concerned, how can we gripe about that? Who wants to endanger a fellow soldier because you can't keep up? As far as I know the military mostly focuses on what you qualify for more than they focus on whether you have a penis or a vagina. My spouse's days of ever being considered on paper a "combat soldier" on the ground are completely over though in today's United States Army. He will go on missions though to gather information and to consult...support goes outside the wire and his outside of the wire is the toughest one out there right now and he has as much chance of being killed as anyone with him. He gets to pick and choose though a bit......and when women take over a gunner position for the day they got to choose that and usually there aren't many choices like that that dudes get to make on the battlefield.

Parent

If this helps I just googled (5.00 / 0) (#95)
by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 07:20:02 PM EST

for more recent articles and this one came out two months ago in the NY Times 'Women in Combat: an open secret in the military

Parent

: Also notice that in the article (5.00 / 0) (#96)
by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 07:22:52 PM EST

it talks about trickery on paper by "attaching" women to certain units instead of assigning them to certain units. That trickery has also been employed to put more soldiers in Afghanistan that aren't technically deployed to Afghanistan. They are just on loan.

Parent

Greatly pleased about investigations. (none / 0) (#51)
by oculus on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 01:20:05 PM EST

But why sooooo slow when lives are at stake?

Parent

: When it comes to equipment changes (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 01:48:38 PM EST

It is because of the bureaucracy and the predominant military personality. I could never be in the military because I must be me, but many people who crave conformity join the military and become successful components. You don't buck the system, you serve the system, as well as adapt and overcome. When you keep telling people to do more with less and adapt and overcome, they start ignoring obvious failures of certain items they consider part of the system. And they tell the one component easily changeable (the people) that they have to figure this out for themselves and if they don't it is a failure of soldiering. It is a mentality that serves many worthy purposes and many unworthy. My husband likes to change what is failing. I have had to deal with him coming home and throwing paperwork across the house :) I have also been told that my husband is a "cowboy", but it is pretty funny that the "cowboy" caused his whole unit to realize that they would not and could not shoot looters in the Sunni triangle even after Rumsfeld told them all they would :) That is a cowboy in the military though, and it is usually very risky being a cowboy. Now that we need real solutions to real problems that require military presence, he's suddenly popular. If he had been born at a different time and a different generation and attempted to serve, it is conceiveable that he would have been "fired" by now. If he also did not have a reputation for following up on everything said and done, it is conceiveable that someone would have tried to fire him by now too. That first tour in Iraq was hell, and the leadership that he went there with has almost all left the service. Too much accountability being required....not much glory.

Parent

I agree on the hypocrite side (2.00 / 0) (#91)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 03:14:16 PM EST

Do you have the same outrage over politicians who promise not to raise taxes and then do??

Parent

If I voted for politicians to not raise (none / 0) (#98)
by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 12:22:05 AM EST

taxes I would. And I did support and voted for capping the taxation in Colorado. It has since been lifted, but when all that went down it needed to happen. Government was being completely being wildly irresponsible and unaccountable. Generally speaking though Jim, I'm fine with most taxation. I have always considered it reinvesting in my life....my community. Roads and bridges and all sorts of infrastructures that all lead to a civilized society cost money. I'm happy to pay for my civilized living experience.

Parent

You voted for TABOR?! (none / 0) (#99)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 08:45:13 AM EST

That hasn't been lifted, BTW.

Parent

: I voted for TABOR (none / 0) (#101)
by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:39:46 AM EST

I thought they found some loopholes.....I don't live with you anymore though. What's the scoop?

Parent

And I miss beer (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:55:14 PM EST

See, I only buy beer for my husband. It goes on the shopping list specifically for him. In my hunter gatherer duties I often buy new microbrews I find for him to try (not me really, but if I try a couple he doesn't mind). I haven't had a beer now in a week and a half. And margaritas alone aren't any damn fun. I think I'm going to have to actually show up at some store and buy some beer for me. And when he ended up liking the blue berry beer it secretly upset me inside. I found Tommy Knocker and specifically bought that for him to like, and then beers started to go missing out of the blueberry pack. I then went to investigate and found him sucking on his second one, he held it up in the air and said that it was some pretty good stuff. I don't know who he thought he was.

If we lived closer we could meet for happy (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by oculus on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 01:01:44 PM EST

hour. Too bad. Of course you are quite busy keeping your house clean!

Parent

The pumpkin beer is out (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Inspector Gadget on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 01:03:21 PM EST

right now. It's actually pretty good, but everyone's taste for beer is different :)

Parent

That will be one thing I miss about my (5.00 / 2) (#52)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 01:28:24 PM EST

husband. I only had to have one of something and if it wasn't good, I could always count on him to clean it up eventually :) I had to take a last minute drive to take him something at Bragg that he left home. Joshua and I left home on Friday after school. I drove all night, and then slept all the next day in my husband's tiny crappy bed at the Airborne Inn :) When I woke up I suggested that we try to find some place wonderful to eat together one last time for the next six months. My husband being biased said that there was nothing in crappy Fayetteville (it is an infantry post so therefore must suck even worse than Rucker). I refused to be so easily discouraged. We found the downtown area, which is gorgeous, and then we found the Huske Hardware House Brewery. It was amazing beer and good food. And they brought us an English ale that we were going to share but neither one of us liked it, so they just came and whisked it away and brought us something different. At the end of the meal my husband says, "You know, I could probably get a job here easily after I retire". It is amazing what men are willing to do for good beer :) Move a whole family :)

Parent

Ellen Gilchrist and good beer. Fayetteville (5.00 / 2) (#53)
by oculus on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 01:32:59 PM EST

sounds like a great place.

Parent

When Mr. MT gets home (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by caseyOR on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 02:17:33 PM EST

come on out to Oregon. We have many excellent micro-breweries. Oh, and an insane number of brewpubs in Portland and really all over the state.

Just a couple of blocks from my home is a great little brewpub with excellent pub food. It is very family-friendly so Joshua and Zooey would be welcome, too. On days when the brewers are at work the smell of hops and malt doing their thing floats across the neighborhood. It is such a scent memory for me. There was a Pabst brewery in my hometown, and on summer nights especially, the smells of beer-making floated over the entire northwest end of town. Whenever I catch a wiff of it I am taken back to summer evenings in the midwest.

Also, fabulous wineries just a short drive from Portland, if you prefer the grape.

Parent

He loves Oregon!! (none / 0) (#59)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 02:21:57 PM EST

He loves to snow board Mt. Hood.

Parent

You aren't his exgirlfriend are you :)? (none / 0) (#60)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 02:24:14 PM EST

Parent

: No, not his ex (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by caseyOR on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 02:59:39 PM EST

I've been an out lesbian since the early 1970s. So, no chance Mr. MT and I ever had a romantic relationship. : ).
Oh, by the way, speaking of fruit beers, there is a place here that makes a killer raspberry ale, if that is your thing.

Parent

New Jersey (none / 0) (#2)
by jbindc on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 10:30:59 AM EST

Don't know much about New Jersey or the newspapers there, but the Star-Ledger today endorsed the Independent candidate, Chris Daggett.

The Star-Ledger today endorses independent candidate Chris Daggett and recommends his election as the next governor of New Jersey.
The newspaper's decision is less a rejection of Gov. Jon Corzine and Republican Chris Christie than a repudiation of the parties they represent, both of which have forfeited any claim to the trust and confidence of the people of New Jersey. They share responsibility for the state's current plight.
Only by breaking the hold of the Democratic and Republican mandarins on the governor's office and putting a rein on their power will the state have any hope for the kind of change needed to halt its downward economic, political and ethical spiral.
New Jersey needs radical change in Trenton. Neither of the major parties is likely to provide it. Daggett's election would send shock waves through New Jersey's ossified political system and, we believe, provide a start in a new direction.
It would signal the entrenched leadership of both parties -- and the interest groups they regularly represent -- that an ill-served and angry electorate demands something better

This is, and is not surprising. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by scribe on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 11:01:46 AM EST

Corzine and his rendition of the Democratic party represents the same basic ideals which manifest themselves in DC as the fevered search for bipartisanship. Regular contributors get a piece of the pie, big corporations get what they want, and regular people get the shaft and the bill.

Christie, OTOH, is your basic bullsh*tting Rethug who will say whatever will both stir the base (in inoffensive code) and sound "reasonable" to the non-base middle of the road people. Then, when in office, they give you what Bush and Cheney did - wholesale looting for the benefit of them and their friends, devastation and disaster for the regular people. Remember, they sold us George W. Bush as someone who you'd like to have a beer with, notwithstanding that he'd never deign to let you into the same bar with him let alone have a beer with you.

In Jersey, these two have managed to reach a relatively peaceful, if not friendly, condominium under which each side gets to loot, each side gets some of what they want, and nobody gets hurt. That policy is summed up in:

"Nobody gets hurt. By the way: you're nobody."

Christie would have won this election but for the fact that he, a Rove protege and loyal Bushie, did not blow up enough Republicans to go along with all the Dems he did while US Attorney. The Dems recognize (a) he represets an existential threat to them as much as Leura Canary, et als. were to Alabam Democrats and (b) he will have no hesitancy in seeking their total destruction by using the rather broadly-drawn provisions of both the New Jersey criminal and civil laws and, through his stay-behinds in the US Attorneys' office (about whom he indiscreetly boasted a while back), the federal laws. Not for nothing did all those corruption indictments - 44 arrests, a couple pleas already, one defendant's suicide - come out when and where they did. Hudson County, where they were centered, is one of the bluest parts of the country. It often breaks 70-30 for Democrats in federal and statewide elections. And it has a large number of voters and they turn out. The last part - turnout - is a direct function of the work by the Hudson Democratic machine. And the US Attorney's strike against "corruption" was aimed straight at decapitating that machine, with the incidental benefit (to Rethugs) of suppressing turnout.

Regular, non-political folk recognize there is something just a bit off about Christie, don't know why, but recognize that that disinclines them to vote against him.

I think the commenter who indicated this will hurt Christie more may be on to something in that the majority of Ledger readers who pay attention to their editorial page and endorsements are not in the urban centers, but rather live in the 'burbs. The urban vote will go for Corzine - he's running radio ads (during Yankee games, I heard one) starring Obama speaking at a campaign stop for Corzine. The 'burb vote might have gone for Christie, but likely now will be splintered.

Parent

Interesting, thanks (none / 0) (#31)
by jbindc on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:35:24 PM EST

Kinda reminds me of Chicago politics

"We don't want nobody nobody sent."

But for real fun - watch Texas politics. Too bad Molly Ivins isn't around to write about the state of affairs today.

Parent

: Miss Molly but Jim Hightower (none / 0) (#43)
by oldpro on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:55:50 PM EST

is an occasional fillin.

Parent

It's an interesting development (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 10:34:03 AM EST

Given that most of Daggett's supporters supposedly rank Christie second, this is not good news for the Republicans.

Parent

PA is going to get (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 10:33:01 AM EST

table games, ostensibly to balance the budget.

kdog and I chatted about this a little but a couple of weeks ago, and I think we both agreed that table games are better than slots for a variety of reasons. For my own part, I might play blackjack every year or so, but I would never play slots.

California native americans are getting more (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 10:37:32 AM EST

slots, as they just won a lawsuit challenging pact instituted by Gray Davis.

Parent

Gray Davis attempted to limit (none / 0) (#28)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:33:37 PM EST

the amount of gambling on reservations?

Parent

: Yes, by "compact." (none / 0) (#32)
by oculus on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:38:16 PM EST

Parent

Look carefully into the bill authorizing them and (none / 0) (#7)
by scribe on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 10:44:06 AM EST

just like they did with slots, you're likely to find a provision giving the pols the "opportunity" to own a piece of the casinos/game parlors for themselves.

With the slots, I think the pols gave themselves a 1 percent cut.

I'd like to think it ironic, but it's really more sick, that the site of the former Bethlehem Steel works in Bethlehem is now a casino. It used to be that working people filled their wallets there through honest toil for fair pay. Now, in the same place, working people have their wallets emptied to feed the insatiable appetites of corporate America and their politician servants for more money.

Parent

I really don't have a problem (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by andgarden on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 10:48:18 AM EST

with regulated gambling. If it's illegal, then people will either go to another state to gamble or do it underground.

As for the revenues. . .I'm sure the pols will find a way to enhance their reelection prospects.

Parent

I'm not just talking about (none / 0) (#13)
by scribe on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 11:05:03 AM EST

"Enhance their re-election prospects" for the pols.

This is pols, personally, having direct ownership interests in the establishments. Money during, and after, their stay in political office.

Parent

: Well, THAT is corrupt. n/t (none / 0) (#44)
by oldpro on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:58:08 PM EST

Parent

In Ohio (none / 0) (#26)
by Fabian on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:17:01 PM EST

any gambling proposals tend to have "foot in the door" clauses which say "This now, with the possibility of that later...".

Since we've seen so many ballot initiatives attempted, it's usually fun reading what the backers spin as the benefits (New jobs! More taxes!) versus the likely reality (Lower wage service sector jobs, a sliding tax scale that protects investors/backers at the expense of the state.).

The most telling thing is how regularly the backers come up with the millions of dollars to spend on these initiatives. There's money in them thar rubes!

Parent

More on the "Not-Bush" award (none / 0) (#10)
by jbindc on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 10:49:24 AM EST

Mitch Albom nails it.

Anybody-but-Bush award?
I'm serious. Did you hear what Thorbjørn Jagland, the chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, told the news media after Obama was announced? He said: "The question we have to ask is, 'Who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world?' And who has done more than Barack Obama?"
Hmm. I'd say a lot of people.
Or that was a helluva 12 days.
After all, Obama, in his first two weeks, didn't stop any wars. He didn't dismantle any nuclear plants. He still hasn't. Afghanistan is a mess. Iran is saber rattling. Near as I can tell, Obama now has an award that Mahatma Gandhi never won mostly because he is not George W. Bush.
In fact, the five Norwegian committee members must have viewed Bush as such a warmongering, divisive force, that Obama got 100 points just for moving in when Bush moved out.
And, not to pat our own backs, but who was responsible for that? We were. The American people. OK, so not everyone voted for Obama, but we're all in this together. Majority rules, everyone shares. Anyhow, who's going to admit they voted against Obama today, when it means a nice little Nobel Prize to put in the basement, next to the signed Barry Sanders jersey?
Congratulations, fellow planet-savers.

The problem with the domestic critics (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by scribe on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 11:09:15 AM EST

of Obama's award, is that they lack the perspective of America in the World which can only be gained from standing somewhere outside America. I think the rest of the world's view of America was significantly worse than America's view of itself.

So, I will not fault the Nobel committee for giving the award.

That said, I would not have voted for Obama getting it. But I don't have a vote on that, so that's what my voice is worth.

Parent

I have to admit that I've never paid any (none / 0) (#17)
by Inspector Gadget on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 11:18:36 AM EST

attention to the Nobel prizes in the past. There's no televised awards show complete with red carpet runway for evening wear fashion show where top designers are given a shout out, and we know the work all the contenders did to get themselves in the running.

Now that I know it takes one person to nominate, and 5 people to choose, there are years when the Nobel prizes are an essay contest. The person who sold Obama so well with their essay should be the one who takes the prize for literature.

Not sure how this prize retains its prestige, or how it got it in the first place. Five people in the world decide who's worthy. These five missed the target and have no specific acts or events to cite as the one that made him the best choice.

This is not about Obama. In the past, there's always been something to support the win. We may not agree with some of those, but at least they could tell us. The media got "The Wave" going around the world for Obama.

Parent

Wondering what the essay nominating (none / 0) (#18)
by oculus on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 11:20:16 AM EST

Kissinger contained.

Parent

If you missed the (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Inspector Gadget on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 11:42:01 AM EST

Roundtable on This Week just seeing Donna Brazile try to justify the award is well worth it.

Parent

Now the pundits are writing hypothetical (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by oculus on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 11:44:58 AM EST

acceptance speeches for Obama. Slow news weekend.

Parent

NobeLOL (none / 0) (#22)
by Inspector Gadget on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 11:53:46 AM EST

Obama could be wishing he had declined to accept the award by now.

Parent

: Is that why he went to church this morning? (none / 0) (#24)
by oculus on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 11:56:53 AM EST

Dear Lord, deliver me from this burden.

Parent

Donna Brazile? (5.00 / 5) (#23)
by Anne on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 11:56:52 AM EST

Ugh.

No thanks; the woman has no credibility with me, and even if what she says borders on being hysterically funny, too many people will hear what she says and take it to the bank as spot-on analysis.

These shows are populated with panelists whose dishonesty rivals their stupidity week after week after week, and Brazile is right up there as among the worst; I just refuse to watch - my dogs hate it when I scream at the TV!

Parent

I understand and share your opinion (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Inspector Gadget on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:29:54 PM EST

of her....this was the first time I haven't gone right on by the channel if she was on, and only because the topic was the Nobel. She made a fool of herself and the other panelists laughed at her. This was an unpleasant experience for dear Donna.

Parent

It is an intriguing discussion (3.50 / 2) (#36)
by Cream City on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:46:23 PM EST

so thanks for the link. Up is down and down is up again when I find myself agreeing with Huffington and Will (and with his earlier column this week as well)! But it is reassuring to see that I continue to disagree with Prima Donna. She is such a fool and continues to do no good for Dems by being out there. And I mean "out there" in many ways. . . .

Plus, more evidence that my new life as an Independent now is the only way to stay sane.

Parent

Not sure who that Republican (none / 0) (#40)
by Inspector Gadget on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:52:49 PM EST

female was, but she made a very accurate statement on how the campaign to make Obama appear capable of parting the seas has come back to haunt this administration. It was a really strong case for why he should have turned down the award.

I blame the media for making Obama into a super hero, but when the opportunity presents itself for him to take a stand against this, he consistently allows the myth to continue and/or grow.

Parent

: Nah, only blamed the media (none / 0) (#47)
by Cream City on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 01:01:34 PM EST

for buying it. Obama made himself the super-hero.

Parent

Good lord. (none / 0) (#65)
by Cream City on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 05:18:10 PM EST

-- sher likes Donna Brazile. Well, I guess that somebody has got to do so.

Or sher doesn't like Indpendents. So I guess that she doesn't like democracy?

Nah, it must be, yet again, that sher just downrates commenters, not comments. Now if she could come out, come out, whereever she is and explain her ratings. . . Yeh, that's gonna happen.

Parent

Don't get me started. (2.00 / 1) (#45)
by brodie on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:59:21 PM EST

Brazile is boringly predictable -- so completely in the tank for Obama that even Obama supporters cringe, and beyond that she's usually a reliable, unoriginal purveyor of Beltway CW. She's been overexposed as a teevee pundit since about 2003.

Oh, and I can't stand her speaking style -- the constant lazy dropping of the g's and the tendency to pronounce a word beginning "th" with a "d" sound. Very annoying. And most unfortunate hairstyle too -- the kind ladies' hairdressers were cranking out in 1957.

Lousy job she did for Gore, too. And didn't have the cojones to tell him what she really thought about his choice of Holy Joe ...

Parent

Freudenfreuden: Celebrity Dem Smackdown (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by Ellie on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:56:02 PM EST

I don't know where to turn.

In this corner, Donna Brazile leading a long parade of, er, nothing but @sscrack, apparently. The go-to "objective" Dem spokesperson is still clinging to her self-appointed role as Mother Hen both to Obama and his spanking new Dumpling Dems, even though the latter are nowhere to be seen. (Where IS Sarah Jessica Parker's pro-Obama toddler these days?)

Brazile pathetically blames Congress for not bringing something to their Leader that he can endorse. Spitballing here: why can't he crawl out from under the desk and do something more meaningful than another lovely, but empty, photo-op. I'm all for dating one's spouse and all -- Husb!!! -- but sheesh.

What happened to that wheezing excuse for Do-Nothing Dem inertia? Once "we" controlled both houses of Congress, including having a filibuster-proof number in the Senate plus the WH, we'd finally see all this dream legislation greased right on through, and damn media or Rethug approval.

In this other corner, we have John Aravosis. (It used to be a fave which I unbookmarked when the pro-Obama enthusiasm morphed into toxic anti HRC misogyny.)

It was a bit surreal. ... Obama repeated his campaign promises. That was it.
Obama repeated his campaign promises [repealing DOMA, DADT]. That was it.
... Then why is he against letting gay couples marry? The president claimed that it doesn't matter if we're at war and working on health care and lots of other important issues, we must forget ahead on gay civil rights. Then why is Obama's own administration putting out the talking point that they can't move ahead on gay rights until the wars are over, until health care is over, until Obama has less on his plate? ...
Huh?
... President Obama doesn't do controversy, and we, my friends, are controversy. ... It's unfortunate, but at some point you have to have enough dignity to say enough is enough. The Obama administration doesn't respect our community, and doesn't respect the seriousness of our cause. It's our job to hold them accountable. And we will.

During Obama's 08 sidle rightwards, the nudge-nudge wink wink was that, once installed as The Great Bi-Partisan Uniter, the Grandmaster of Political Chess could, and would, be more direct about jamming the "controversial" stuff through the sausage press.

Why was Preznit 51% able to ram reams of junk Executive Orders, tongue stuck firmly out, wielding his Jumbo Zecktive Crayola, but President Landslide 56% be utterly powerless?

Oh well, I barely cared enough to finish the post, and will now enjoy a round of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Chick Flick with the couch panel of visitors. Tonight's double bill: an 007 extravaganza of Casino Royale (Craig) and The Living Daylights.

Parent

I don't know... (none / 0) (#19)
by Dadler on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 11:22:13 AM EST

...but they must have been wowed by the vibrant red ink it was written in.

Parent

I am proud to say I voted against Obama (none / 0) (#61)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 02:43:32 PM EST

And it didn't take me three seconds to understand who and what he was and is.

So enjoy him. He is all yours.

Parent

Thank You (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by CoralGables on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 06:09:36 PM EST

I'm quite happy he won.

Parent

Not Having Vice President Palin (none / 0) (#71)
by daring grace on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 08:26:44 PM EST

not to mention President McCain?

Priceless.

Parent

The economy is tanking (none / 0) (#72)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 09:58:16 PM EST

He has no energy policy.. wants to destroy coal and oil shale with Cap and tax ...opps Cap and Trade... The French and Germans are laughing at him.. The Russians are sneering... The Czechs and Poles are disgusted and he is loosing two wars....

Yes sir, that truly is a record to be proud of...

Parent

A Bush (none / 0) (#77)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 07:54:57 AM EST

repeat then?

Parent

As you know (none / 0) (#79)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 08:41:32 AM EST

when the Democrats took control of Congress, 2/2007, gasoline was around $2.00 a gallon, crude oil $55 a barrel. Unemployment was below 5% and the market was around 13500.

Under the esteemed leadership of the Democrats it took them only a short 17 months, mid July 2008, for their energy policy (never drill) to drive gasoline to around $4.50 a gallon, crude oil to $146.; send unemployment spiraling past 6% on its way to the current 10% and drop the market to around 11000 on its way to a post Obama low of near 6000.

So yes, I'd take Bush over Obama any day of the week. Nights too.....

Parent

nice bob and weave (none / 0) (#80)
by CoralGables on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:48:30 AM EST

as I'm sure you know, under your pal Bush, gas prices for regular were at $1.45 when he took office and went as high as $4.05 during his term creating the largest increase in gas prices in American history. But hell, he was tops at something.

Also, the Dow was approx 10,600 when GWB took office and 8000 when he left office for about a 27% drop. Under Obama the Dow is currently up about 19%.

To know there is still someone out there that still likes GWB and his policies is exciting. I thought it was an urban myth. It gives me confidence that Bigfoot, Nessie, do exist.

Parent

You're talking to a guy (5.00 / 0) (#86)
by jondee on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 01:02:54 PM EST

who WOULD vote for Bigfoot if he claimed to be Born Again and promised four more wars in the M.E.

Parent

Hey jondee (2.00 / 0) (#88)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:17:33 PM EST

how ya been? See you haven't changed. Have a nice day!

Parent

Two wars (I know, thats a good thing) (5.00 / 0) (#89)
by jondee on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:47:42 PM EST

the worst national security lapse in U.S history, the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression..

Somebody's trying to tell you something, Rush. But, be my guest and keep ramming your head into a wall and hoping it wont hurt this time.

Sarah and Joe the Plumber in 2012!

Parent

: Yes, wars can do good things (2.00 / 0) (#90)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 03:11:04 PM EST

Defeat communism... Nazism...give freedom to slaves...establish US....
Guess none of those things bothered you??
And yes, the Democrats did destroy the economy...and now that they have fallen they can't get up!
lol

Parent

Bigfoot is as real as Obama's hope and change. (2.00 / 0) (#85)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:54:25 PM EST

Wait. His change has eliminated hope.

You seem to not understand that all of the bad stuff happened AFTER the Democrats took control of Congress 2/2007.

So please read my comment again.

As for the markets, remember that the MASDAQ, which had been the economy's driver for 8 years went down 50% between March 2000 and March 2001.

Of course Obama's market had a quick 20% run off and he didn't even have a 9/11 type attack to cause it.

Facts are facts. The Left wing of the Demos have blocked any attempts at increasing oil supplies and now want us to have Cap and Tax to finish off the industrial base.

But what is new......

Parent

Franklin Raines is a Repub? (none / 0) (#93)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 03:57:01 PM EST

Who knew?

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

NYT 9-30-99

And then Bush came along...

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

snip

'These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

NYT 9-11-2003

You are just so easy.

Parent

: And if the Demos hadn't let (none / 0) (#97)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:01:16 PM EST

Raines and company run wild, and/or if they had supported Bush and McCain's attempt to regulate the crooks... guess what? It would not have mattered....
Why, pray tell us, didn't the Democrats fix this when they took control??
Click here to watch Barney Frank tell everyone in the summer of 2008 everything is just so fine....
And click here to hear and see Frank try to wiggle out of the fact that under his leadership the industry has declined 90% in a year.
Really funny stuff.

Parent

A macabre indices (none / 0) (#15)
by KeysDan on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 11:10:36 AM EST

of the economic times (as reported in today's NYT) is the spike in the number of unclaimed bodies and indigent burials, with states, counties and private funeral homes having to pay the bills when families cannot. Oregon, is cited for example, in that that state has seen a 50 percent increase in the number of unclaimed bodies over the past few years, the majority left by families who say they cannot afford burial or cremation costs. Dr. Karen Gunson, the state's medical examiner said, with cryptic professional detachment, "there are more people in our cooler for a longer period of time."

A plot point in A Serious Man involves (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 11:14:33 AM EST

whether the dumped spouse is morally obligated to pay for the funeral of the guy who stole spouse's wife.

Parent

Short answer: No. (none / 0) (#29)
by scribe on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:35:09 PM EST

If Now-dead guy wanted the woman and she left Husband to go with him, the woman who left shold be obligated to pay. From her own funds.

She made her own bed, so to speak.

As for Jilted Husband, I can see letting him have the bar concession at the post funeral meal, so he can make something positive (i.e., a profit) out of the circumstance.

Parent

But, the serious man is an observant Jew. (none / 0) (#34)
by oculus on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:42:24 PM EST

Parent

Was the jilted husband responsible (none / 0) (#37)
by Inspector Gadget on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:46:30 PM EST

for the demise of the man who stole his wife?

Parent

Apparently not. But fuzzy. (none / 0) (#38)
by oculus on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:47:16 PM EST

Parent

Fuzzy enough that he could (none / 0) (#41)
by Inspector Gadget on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 12:54:22 PM EST

be cleared of criminal, but sued successfully for wrongful death?

Parent

: Hmmm. I'd have to see the movie again. (none / 0) (#46)
by oculus on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 01:00:18 PM EST

Parent

IT matters not what he is observant of (none / 0) (#63)
by scribe on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 04:47:38 PM EST

(unless that affects my snarky suggestion concerning the bar concession) - the woman in question made a choice and that choice was to go with the now-dead guy. He's her man, now, so let her carry the cost of his funeral. The former guy is out of the picture.

Nothing complicated or subtle about it, unless someone wants to make complicated or subtle an otherwise clear decision (i.e., former guy is thinking of trying to win/buy his way back into jilting woman's heart).

As to jilted guy trying to get her back - there are better ideas. Many, many better ideas. She's already done this to you once. Why do you think she won't, again?

Parent

Hiroshima & Nagasaki (none / 0) (#67)
by CoralGables on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 06:14:24 PM EST

are looking into a combined bid for the 2020 Summer Olympics. Here's an early prediction...they win easily if their bid is even slightly competitive.

TIME: Want Peace? Give a Nuke the Nobel (none / 0) (#68)
by Woodman on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:13:36 PM EST

In rebuttal to David von Drehle's, Oct. 11, article:
'Want Peace? Give a Nuke the Nobel':

What an fabulously obtuse, Orwellian article. The logical fallacies here are two fold: 1) the underlying premise that nuclear deterrence is the sole or positively primary cause of, 2) a post-WWII nuclear era comprised of significantly less death by governmental conflict than the 20th century pre-nuke period.

Firstly, there exists no verifiable evidence that nuclear deterrence actually deters governmental conflicts, military aggression, WMD development and deployment, nor any reduction in related mass causalities or fatalities. In fact, any perception of post-WWII peace or stability is actually a result of: advancements in global communication, the Marshall plan, Geneva convention, U.N. and post-holocaust trend toward civil negotiation as the humane means of both minimizing and precluding death by governmental conflict.

Secondly, the carnage en masse never actually stopped after Truman's decision to drop Little Boy and Fat Man. Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao blatantly slaughtered tens of million of civilians--100% undeterred by nuclear realities. In fact, in the four decades between '46 and ''87, verifiably 76-million deaths occurred via the militaristic tactics of global governments.* This wholly undeterred list includes Francisco Franco, Augusto Pinochet, Idi Amin, Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Darfur, Indonesia, North Korea, Ethiopia, Tibet, etc. ad nausium.

Quite clearly both von Drehle's premise and content details are fallacious to the point of misinformation, disinformation and just plain pro-WMD propaganda. That TIME allowed such text to be printed is a product of either pure ignorance, the employ of virtual children as editors possessing no more than a pre-adolescent view of contemporary history or an Obama-tainted perspective on the nobility of the Nobel Peace Prize facilitating Orwellian indecency to the double-speaking tune of War is Peace; Ignorance is Strength...and Nukes are Nobel.

Obviously, both an unconditional retraction of this article and an apology by TIME's senior editors are required as the only decent, humane and logical response to having printed such fallacious detrimental balderdash.

* `Democide Since World War II', R.J. Rummel, Nobel Prize finalist, The University of Hawaii;
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POSTWWII.HTM.

My head explodes (none / 0) (#70)
by ruffian on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 08:07:28 PM EST

Only 1 or 2 of the 9 or 10 teams left on The Amazing Race recognized a picture of Jackie Kennedy. As opposed to every cab driver in Pnpm Penh.

: I almost fell of the couch (none / 0) (#78)
by vml68 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 08:12:13 AM EST

when they thought she was the Queen!
I guarantee you that in almost any third world country most people would have identified her in that picture.

Parent

Sunday Open Thread | 96 comments (96 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment