home

Wednesday Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:36:03 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Diaries from our readers: The Best Idea Yet, by Steve M., touting paying Wall Street bonuses with toxic assets.

Falling Short, by lilburro, regarding the unconvincing testimony of Leon Panetta on interrogation methods.

Mike Ditto argues that we should be celebrating some of the cuts made in the stimulus package.

Jacob Freeze takes on Ivy Leaguers like President Obama and, um, me.

You can find all the diaries by our readers at this link. This is an Open Thread.

< Ohio Gov Objects To Timidity Of Stimulus Bill | That Obama-A Sullivan Thing >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Open Thread | 123 comments (123 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I wonder what kind of entitlement reforms (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by masslib on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:41:28 AM EST
    we are looking at?  

    Gen X (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jedimom on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:36:47 PM EST
    My fave rant, gen x will get frakked again, it has been a tradition since Raygun you know, they raise our contributions and our retirement age and lower our benefits every time they have a conference, we are that lucky lucky very small generation between the baby boomers and those spoiled gen yers

    and now I duck down before those two large generations come out swinging....

    Parent

    Good thing Obama is a baby boomer (none / 0) (#65)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:54:47 PM EST
    Jedimom, if he were a few years younger, he'd be "frakked" along with the rest of the Gen Xers as per your predictions.

    Parent
    Probably (none / 0) (#6)
    by SOS on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:50:44 AM EST
    "your on your own".

    Parent
    I'll take it... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:53:34 AM EST
    assuming it is tax-free and chock full of personal liberty!

    We can help each other as much as our hearts desire.

    Parent

    Hmmm, that ought to keep the old ladies off (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by masslib on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:54:17 AM EST
    the streets.

    Parent
    Bad for the tennis shoes market though. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:05:15 AM EST


    Parent
    I'll take one in... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:02:49 AM EST
    once my friend currently on the couch gets back on his feet...will you?  Managing to help keep my moms and great uncle off the street, as long as I'm kicking they won't be.

    Sh*t, I'd have so much more to give too without the vig.

    Parent

    No, I won't. I pay payroll taxes so the old peeps (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by masslib on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:05:03 AM EST
    don't have to rely on my charitable nature.

    Parent
    How much trickles down... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:50:58 AM EST
    to the old peeps, and how much trickles up to pharmacuetical manufacturers?  That is the question.  If the old peeps were getting it all, I'd be down...but I don't think they do, not even close.

    Parent
    You not down with social security??? (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by masslib on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:55:03 AM EST
    Holy crap.  Do you know before SS about 70% of elderly people lived in poverty?  My God, if you want to fix prescription drug coverage, fine.  But that in no way advises for dismantling the social safety net.

    Parent
    I'm down with providing... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:15:26 PM EST
    for the sick, the old, the children, and the disabled.  I just don't know the best way to go about doing it.

    Giving the money to Uncle Sam to hold seems like the worst possible idea.  Uncle Sam has turned social security into a ponzi scheme, basically.

    Parent

    Honestly, it's arguments like this that make me (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by masslib on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:03:17 PM EST
    wonder why we prioritize science and math education over history.

    Parent
    I'm talking history... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:38:39 PM EST
    people used to give 10% to the church to feed the poor, the sick, and the old.  Then people started to wise up that the bishop was living like a king, without really working, and we still had all these hungry poor, sick, and hold.  Your industry standard racket.  

    So we started giving it to the church of government instead, and we find the bueracrats livin' like kings, while not really working, while we still have hungry poor, sick, and old.  Your industry standard racket revisited.

    No wonder people soak up the idea of an afterlife like a sponge...in this life, odds are you're the one getting crooked.

    Parent

    Government is not a church. (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by masslib on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:08:54 PM EST
    Social security is not charity.

    Parent
    Excuse me, I am here to say that (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:45:23 PM EST
    historically speaking, not "everybody" gave "10% to the church to feed the poor, the sick, and the old".

    The miserly didn't give 10% to the church or anybody else, 'non-believers' probably didn't give, nor did people who were working but bordering on poverty. Taxation, like it or not, ensures that we all pay to some degree.  

    Parent

    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by masslib on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:53:46 PM EST


    Parent
    ML, only the 'free market' isn't a ponzi scheme... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 03:06:36 PM EST
    And don't you forget it!

    Parent
    Where is there a free market? (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 08:45:58 AM EST
    Every one I see is rigged in one way or another.

    Parent
    Glad we agree then! (none / 0) (#123)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 04:16:42 PM EST


    Parent
    SS is not charity... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:58:24 PM EST
    you're right...it is a ponzi scheme.

    Parent
    Kinda like outsourcing? (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 09:48:05 AM EST
    My old man always said if you want it done right, do it yourself.

    The government ain't doing it right....ya got people getting a social security check eating cat food, and people getting SS checks with half a mill in the bank.  WTF?

    Parent

    Don't you mean 'entitlement reforms' ? (none / 0) (#37)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:40:37 AM EST
    May I assume your scare quotes are implied?

    Parent
    What Democratic constiuency is Obama (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by masslib on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:53:35 AM EST
    answering to by expanding Bush's faith-based initiatives?

    Could Be These (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by daring grace on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:11:00 PM EST
    people--or some of them--are Dems.

    Or maybe these people who "...are pushing the new Obama administration for aggressive action on poverty, the environment and social justice issues that would mark a significant shift in the faith agenda that dominated the Bush years."

    Faith based service providers have been receiving public monies for more than a century in the U.S.--in my area for almost two. Witness Catholic Charities.

    To me, especially in these precarious economic times it makes sense for the gov't to enlist the collaboration of community based organizations that already have the resources in place to serve.

    "In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the government may directly fund religious groups, as long as the groups use the money for secular programs.

    "Americans overwhelmingly favor this. But according to a 2008 Pew Research Center poll, they also strongly believe these groups should not be allowed to hire only people who share their religious beliefs - the heart of today's legal controversy."

    To me, that is the major issue. faith based programs that receive public money must not hire for those programs (or any other program not related to their religious practice) discriminatively.

    It's not hard to do. Where I live a know people who work in community service programs run by the Roman Catholic Church, and largely funded with public money, non Catholics all. In fact, agnostic, wiccan or atheists, all. It has never been a problem.

    Parent

    ACLU: Obama's faith-based stuff worse than Bush (none / 0) (#64)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:50:34 PM EST
    The ACLU is steamed about: 1) The porked-up faith based funds; 2) the continuance of religious testing in hiring practices; 3) Obama's appointment of a new federal committee of religious leaders who will provide advise as to how the porked up funds to religious organizations will be spent: White House Announces Troubling Faith-Based Order(2/5/2009):
    Today's announcement included the appointment of 25 members of a government advisory committee that will be dominated by religious leaders [who will] advise the president and the White House faith-based office on how to distribute federal dollars, and also advise on a range of other issues such as AIDS and women's reproductive health care...even Bush never formed a government advisory committee made up primarily of clergy.

     

    Parent

    If Obama Reneges On His Campaign Commitment (none / 0) (#66)
    by daring grace on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    to prohibit faith based hiring practices for employment which is not faith based and IS publicly funded, then he SHOULD be opposed.

    I oppose that and would vigorously oppose instituting ANY kind of relaxing of that standard.

    He would have a hard-to-impossible time getting anything like that through Congress.

    Apart from that concern, there is a lot of good that can be done here.

    Parent

    Hard Time? (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:10:05 PM EST
    The practice has been going on since Clinton' Charitable Choice program. Obama promised to change it. If he backs off from this extremely unpopular change, among religios that is, he is going to invite a slew of law suits, imo.

    The current practice has been in violation of Title VII of the civil rights act, since Clinton started faith based initiatives.

    Parent

    So, DG you're OK with (none / 0) (#76)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:14:09 PM EST
    The porked-up faith based funds?

    And you're not concerned about what the ACLU calls Obama's UNPRECEDENTED appointment of a new 25 member federal committee of religious leaders who will help decide how the money is spent; while also advising on other issues such as AIDS and women's reproductive health care?

    Parent

    We'll See (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 04:27:51 PM EST
    As uncomfortable as I am with any faith based programs, I would much rather see Federal money get distributed to the poor and needy, rathe than to the Fat Cat Mega Ministers who took BushCo money as a quid pro quo to deliver votes.

    As I understand it, this is exactly the problem Obama wants to address or correct.

    Parent

    I'm Okay With Public Funding (none / 0) (#110)
    by daring grace on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 04:09:04 PM EST
    of faith based service provision as it has been done successfully for a long time. And beefing it up (see, I went with a different livestock term) strikes me as very productive if there's appropriate oversight as there should be for any funding program.

    As to the WH based enitity: frankly, I could do without it. I'd rather see this incorporated through the appropriate existing federal agencies and programs, like at HHS, HUD, Education, etc. One thing the WH positioning does serve to do, though, is to put it front and center in the spotlight. So, for the purposes of scrutiny, from supporters and opponents, alike, maybe that's a good thing.

    I think, based on things he said during the campaign, Obama wants to do this in the WH because of his own background in the Chicago community organizing milieu--and to make a point that what Bush didn't do right, he can correct.

    As I said, if he doesn't safeguard the fairness of hiring practices, I'm strongly opposed and would rather see the whole thing eliminated.

    I hope he's smarter than that.

    Parent

    Shame on the ACLU (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:11:09 PM EST
    This kind of stuff was not news, and in fact was all over Obama's campaign website.

    Some people just didn't pay attention.

    Parent

    Not Paying Attention? (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:17:41 PM EST
    You are the one not paying attention, unless your comment about Shame on the ACLU is just snark.

    Obama, all over his campaign website, promised to line up Faith Based Federal programs with Title VII of the civil rights act.

    Since Clinton started the Charitable Choice (faith based program), the program has been allowed to hire based on religion.

    Obama seems to be backing away from this unpopular change to Clinton and Bush's program, and the ACLU is noticing.

    Not old news, but a brand new and current.

    Parent

    Again (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:33:13 PM EST
    CLINTON did not start (nor run on) a faith based program.

    Parent
    Clintons and Gore Supported It (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 02:44:40 PM EST
    Clinton:

    Even those who are doing wonderful work with organizations represented in this audience, we are just not doing enough. And it's a personal call; it's a family community, religious call; and it's a governmental call. And we've got to do more to respond to that call.

    For one, by embracing the idea of partnerships between government and faith-based institutions, Obama isn't moving to the right so much as reclaiming an issue Democrats used to support. For decades, religiously affiliated organizations like Lutheran Social Services and United Jewish Communities received, without a hint of controversy, government funds to provide social services.

    When candidate Bush pledged in his first campaign speech in 1999 to "rally the armies of compassion," he was not blazing new ground but rather following in the steps of Bill Clinton, whose Cabinet secretaries had worked closely with religious nonprofits and Al Gore, who had endorsed the funding of faith-based organizations six months earlier. Even the most conservative aspect of Bush's faith-based plan  -- the expansion of tax incentives to encourage charitable giving  -- already had been championed by Hillary Clinton at a White House conference on philanthropy.

    Amy Sullivan


    Parent

    One more time (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 02:49:21 PM EST
    I'll try to type slowly so you can understand...

    Supporting the idea of government and religious organizations partnering for those religious organizations to provide vital social services is NOT the same thing as having an FBO Office in the WH with members of the clergy who are going to be involved in policy making.

    Parent

    Yes (1.00 / 2) (#96)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 03:01:56 PM EST
    You have lost your vision. Don't worry there is hope, although many do seem to have lost their vision permanently. ODS is relatively new, hope it does not turn out to have anything near the long term damaging CDS has.

    Parent
    What was on Obama's campaign website? (none / 0) (#78)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:20:43 PM EST
    As per my foregoing comment:
    Obama has appointed a new 25 member federal committee of religious leaders who will help decide how the faith-based funds are spent; while also advising on other issues such as AIDS and women's reproductive health care.

    Was that on his campaign website. If so, the ACLU must have missed it, I guess.

    Parent

    Nothing New About That (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:31:58 PM EST
    There is no contention about expanding the program, most congress critters are happy about it, Hillary is 100% on board.

    The issue that the ACLU is up in arms about is Obama's backing off of reconciling Title VII of the civil rights act with faith based hiring.

    Obama took a hit during his campaign for promising to reverse the discrepency which has ignored since 1993.

    IOW, orthodox jewish groups and other religious organizations do not feel that they should be forced to hire people outside of their religion while receiving federal money. Of course, they are upset, they have been allowed to discriminate in hiring and break the law ever since Bill CLintion started federally funded faith based programs in 1993.

    Some background here.

    Parent

    Um, not through the office of the White House. (none / 0) (#69)
    by masslib on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:09:42 PM EST


    Parent
    You Mean (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:11:35 PM EST
    Clinton's faith based initiative. He started it with Charitable Choice.

    Parent
    Was that really something Clinton ran on? NO. (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:32:26 PM EST
    Charitable Choice provisions are in several bills passed in the 1990s, starting with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) and was part of the Republican Contract With America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw (R-FL).  

    While Clinton signed this bill (and a few others) with this provision, and you can complain about that, there is a huge difference in comparing these provisions, which allow religious groups to apply for federal funding to provide social services, and Bush's and now Obama's, Faith-Based Initiatives Offices.  For one, the FBO's were part of both Bush's and Obama's campaign pledges, and not a compromise during negotiations with a strong Republican party.

    To compare these two is complete drivel.

    Parent

    Jb, it's worse than drivel, it's disinformation (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 02:09:03 PM EST
    Likewise, Obama's official Federal Faith-Based Government Advisory Committee, of approximately 25 clergy, is decidedly a NEW feature of this administration.

    In the words of the the ACLU it is "unprecedented"; and more excessive than Bush in terms of institutionalizing religious influence on government.

    Parent

    I suppose to a fundamentalist (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 03:34:49 PM EST
    atheist, "25 clergy" are always going to be 25 clergy, with no appreciable differnce between the ones an Obama would associate with and the ones Bush coddled.

    The larger point being, of course, that Obama's just like Bush; Im-still-mad-about-the-primaries; and Hillary's only there because she's biding her time.

    Parent

    Classy and clever - gawd love ya... (none / 0) (#113)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 06:09:58 PM EST
    Two more words: Warren and Wright.

    Parent
    Plus (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 03:28:59 PM EST
    when you're already capable of walking on water, as the Clintons are, there's no need to expand formally any FBIs.

    Its also worth pointing out that not all "religious groups" are the same: theres a world of difference between say, the Catholic Worker movement and the Endtimers and "Christian Zionists" that Bush was so cozy with.

    Parent

    The Clintons walk on water?? (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 03:50:40 PM EST
    Hmmm...news to me.  And here I thought they were just politicians who knew how to play the game better. No one ever elevated them to messiah like status. Unlike Obama, the country's personal savior....

    Parent
    Savior (none / 0) (#108)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 03:53:04 PM EST
    my Left Behind.

    Just the viable candidate who didnt have more baggage that the Union Pacific R.R.

    Parent

    Talk to Susan Sarandon (none / 0) (#109)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 04:00:51 PM EST
    and all those who felt we would be saved.

    Me - I think he's just a politician - as crooked and as dirty (with as much baggage) as the rest of them.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#111)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 04:13:13 PM EST
    as Eugene Debs said, anyone who can lead you to promised land can lead you back out again.

    Parent
    You Are Wrong (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 02:06:55 PM EST
    Both Bill and Hillary have been 100% behind faith based initiatives, and have steadfastly argued that as a government program there is no conflict with Federal law or the constitution.  

    In a speech at a fund-raising dinner for a Boston-based organization that promotes faith-based solutions to social problems, Clinton said there has been a "false division" between faith-based approaches to social problems and respect for the separation of church of state.

    "There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles," said Clinton, a New York Democrat who often is mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008.

    Boston Globe

    More here


    Parent

    Ok (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 02:22:02 PM EST
    Neither of the links you provided showed that Bill Clinton campaigned on putting an office in the WH to run FBO's. All Hillary is quoted as saying is that she supports that idea that religious organizations and government can be partnered to supply social services. Unlike Bush or Obama who want religious groups to play major roles and be a substantial programming and policy arm of the federal government.

    Drivel.

    Parent

    That would have been ok with safeguards (none / 0) (#82)
    by masslib on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:32:50 PM EST
    against employment discrimination.  I am ok with churches who provide soup kitchens and shelters getting some federal help to provide those basic services.  Though, it may violate the Establishment Clause.  It's a tough one because pervasively sectarian agencies are actually often the best direct providers of poverty services.  Probably better that the monies go through religious organization as they always have rather than directly through churches.

    However, Bush moved it into the WH, where it's clearly a boondoggle to the Republican religious Right constituency.  And, now Obama has expanded it to 12 offices and has invited these people to help craft policy, an obvious and startling violation of Church and State.

    Parent

    Noooo (none / 0) (#84)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:42:47 PM EST
    It's a tough one because pervasively sectarian agencies are actually often the best direct providers of poverty services.  Probably better that the monies go through religious organization as they always have rather than directly through churches.

    This is exactly what Hillary said during her campaign, and as much as I do not like organized religion, I have to agree with her.

    Her argument, and Bill's for Charitable Choice, is 'why reinvent the wheel'?  Obama's only deviation was or is, and hopefully he sticks with it, it to not allow discrimination in hiring by religious groups receiving federal money. That is expressly prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights act, although in 1972 there is a loophole that allows for reasonable discrimination.. It was a big stretch, imo, to allow the loophole for groups receiving federal funds.

    In 1972, Congress reentered the fray, amending Title VII to add a new section 701(j), which required employers to "reasonably" accommodate the religious practices of their employees unless, by so doing, the employer would incur an "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business."

    link

    Parent

    "Bill's Charitable Choice"? (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:46:54 PM EST
    This is not a program, but one of many provisions in bills, nor was it part of his platform.  

    Please - provide a link that says Charitable Choice was Bill Clinton's idea and something he campaigned on.

    Parent

    Um, no. He didn't run his out of the WH. (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by masslib on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:52:47 PM EST
    And, even Bush did not expand it to 12 offices or invite theocrats to develop public policy.

    Parent
    Unemployment demographics (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CST on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:35:00 AM EST
    I am having problems linking so this may get deleted.  But an interesting article about the face of our current recession.  It's a lot younger than you'd expect, but it sure goes along with what I've been seeing.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28663645/

    Honestly, it's probably better than the alternative, if a 22 yr old is laid off, they can move back in with mom and dad, defer their student loans and everyone still has a roof and food.  If mom and dad get laid off, and can't pay their mortgage... everyone is screwed.  This article certainly shows a "lazier" image than the one I've seen though.  I know too many over-educated people praying for that secretary job that they won't get.

    Doesn't make me feel better about the ticking debt bomb though, and it sure makes one feel expendable...

    A very telling quote:

    "Growing up, my parents were telling me, `The world is at your fingertips. All you have to do is educate yourself, go to college, and you'd get a prime position right out of school.' They were wrong."

    Those parents... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:10:29 PM EST
    left out the most important thing...luck.  You need luck just as much as you need to work hard.

    Parent
    Has anybody else heard of this? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:53:54 AM EST
    One of the things accepted by the House Democrats in the stimulus package was a provision that would have required any businesses receiving stimulus money to use an easy computer program called E-Verify.  E-Verify is a free program that has been around since 2004 and it allows employers to determine the legal status of potential employees.  (I know usajobs.com / OPM uses it) - see here

    I know there are many folks on here who don't like more government intrusion,and the Republicans are all over this (see: Jeff Sessions) but it was Democrats who were saying the way to combat illegal immigration was to go after the businesses that employ them, as opposed to going after the 12 million illegals who live here already. Doesn't this system seem like an easy way to curb an ever-growing problem?  Initial verification takes 3-5 seconds, so it's not like there is a burden that a potential employee has to wait to start a job.

    What do you think?

    everify (none / 0) (#59)
    by jedimom on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:41:49 PM EST
    we had big issues with this in our State , AZ
    Our sherrif Joe of the wild west rounds up people he feels are illegal and then jails them, we had proposition wars and court cases and elections turn on this stuff, the people who tried to oust Sheriff Joe were themselves ousted

    anyway the everify from what I know, will hold employERS to a higher standard so they dont hire immigrants without documentation and claim they didnt know and never pay a fine, leaving only the employEE punished..

    Tyson Chicken didnt know 90% of their employees were illegal immigrants they say

    so the employer enforcement is useless without using everify, we require I think now in AZ that employers use everify so they cant claim ignorance and they WILL be fined for the practice which some people claim will lower illegal immigration

    Parent

    My brother is going back to war (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:24:46 PM EST
    For his fourth tour, second in Afghanistan.  He is shocked, since he was supposed to be on his way out of the military shortly.  Now he has to marry his Chinese fiancee on the quick in Hong Kong next month.  Thanks Obama.  

    Between this and the economy, sh*t, I'm about to head to the Silver Spigot for a vodka tonic.

    Maybe I'll just stay in Hong Kong after the wedding.  Bird Flu, here I come.

    Blessings (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jedimom on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:33:36 PM EST
    to your family Dadler..

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#2)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:47:03 AM EST
    This is a clip of a woman, Henrietta Hughes, who spoke to Obama at a stimulus event in Florida the other day.

    She choked me up when I saw it. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:52:22 AM EST
    Poor, poor woman. I hated hearing the despair and shame in her voice...

    Parent
    Link to clip (none / 0) (#3)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:48:00 AM EST
    The link to the clip mentioned above is:

    Henrietta Hughes

    Parent

    house (none / 0) (#60)
    by jedimom on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:42:38 PM EST
    they got her a house that day in fact

    Parent
    Could (none / 0) (#67)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    you link to something that verifies this - that they got her a house?

    Parent
    Did Obama get house for Henrietta Hughes? (none / 0) (#99)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 03:22:25 PM EST
    That would be improbable. After she made her heart-wrenching plea, Obama said:
    "Ms. Hughes, we're gonna do everything we can to help, but there are a lot of people like you"...

    If Obama selectively chose to provide Ms. Hughes with a house, how would he explain not providing the same shelter for others like her?

    Parent

    It wasn't Obama (none / 0) (#104)
    by CST on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 03:35:54 PM EST
    But I do believe someone gave her housing after.

    From the website:
    "Florida Rep. Nick Thompson has offered her and her son a home in La Belle, a town about two hours from Ft. Myers."

    Parent

    Republican Rep. Nick Thompson to the rescue... (none / 0) (#114)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 06:23:08 PM EST
    providing a house for Henrietta Hughes. I guess Rahmn Emanuel isn't the only one who thinks "you should never let a good crisis to waste".

    Parent
    Ah, Obama Bi-Partisanship (none / 0) (#120)
    by daring grace on Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 09:30:20 AM EST
    Republican inspired to pitch in and help.


    Parent
    Indeed, expect to see this (none / 0) (#122)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 12:02:01 PM EST
    crop up in mid-term election ads.

    Parent
    I'n going to (none / 0) (#4)
    by SOS on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:48:07 AM EST
    scour the web and try to find something that's not political, celebrity-driven, recession-causing, bailout-centric, sad, mad, criminal, self-promoting, superficial, or self-pitying.

    Wish me luck

    Here's something (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by NJDem on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:53:10 AM EST
    that I found heart-warming :)

    Parent
    Awe. Although my kids never (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:01:29 AM EST
    really like watching him, I did. I especially like the anecdote about the subway car folks bursting into "It's a lovely day . . . ."

    Parent
    I have to tell you (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:16:48 AM EST
    When I was about 16, I was visiting my aunt in Pittsburgh, and she had to stop by work and pick something up.  It was her first job, and she needed to impress (yes, my aunt is only 8 years older than me), so we went to her office - at WQED, the public television studio in Pittsburgh - the same place "Mr. Rogers" was filmed.  It was summer time, so the show was on hiatus, but I got to go down to the studio and walk around the set.  I got to walk right up to the castle where King Friday and Queen Sara lived, saw the trolley and the tree where the owls lived.  Now, of course, at 16, I was too cool for school, but secretly, it was one of the neatest things to see. I didn't get to meet Mr. Rogers, but my aunt knew him and actually called him "Fred" - how weird would that be!

    Parent
    lucky! (none / 0) (#61)
    by jedimom on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:46:17 PM EST
    ohh that is awesome kewl!!!

    I loved the Magic Garden too

    anyone else remember the Chuckle Patch and Sherlock
    there are no locks on storybox


    Parent

    Brings back memories (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:11:42 AM EST
    of watching Mr. Rogers with my kids.  While too many tv shows got them over-energized, Mr. R. always had this amazing, calming influence even across the ether.  Great for getting ready for nap time.  For that alone, I appreciated him!

    Of course, some of his songs were just made for mocking, and even I had to have fun with the sex-education one, something on the order of:

    Boys have fancies on the outside.
    Girls have fancies on the inside.
    Everybody's fancy, everybody's fine.
    You have your fancy, and I have mine.

    Thank heavens that the subway riders didn't break into song with that one.

    Parent
    We had a record (yes, vinyl) (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:29:30 AM EST
    of a Mr. Rogers's story:  Geraldine the short-necked giraffe.  She and her friend travelled many miles in search of a cure.  When they reached their destination, Geraldine sd., should we send a note home to let them know we arrived safely.  Response:  yes, "G Sharp."  

    Hey, I always laughed.

    Parent

    That song is too funny! (none / 0) (#93)
    by NJDem on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 02:25:02 PM EST
    I think if Mr. Rogers and Edith Bunker had a kid it would be Caption Sully :)

    Parent
    Here's this (none / 0) (#13)
    by SOS on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:56:11 AM EST
    Michelle Obama Graces Vogue Cover

    Parent
    Well, good to see a big woman (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:20:36 AM EST
    on its cover instead of the latest poster girl for anorexia.  And good to see a well-educated woman on a mag, too.  (Now, can she get some fashion help so as to never ever again wear that weird dress that looked like she had just lost at paintball?!)

    Parent
    The "CSI crime-victim" dress? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:38:23 AM EST
    I remember it well.

    Parent
    Sorry, but -- BREAKING! Brett Favre (none / 0) (#5)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:48:50 AM EST
    is retiring.

    Again.

    Yawn.

    Parent

    Football is in his blood... (none / 0) (#14)
    by santarita on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:58:09 AM EST
    It has to be hard for someone like him to retire.  i watched the same thing happen to St. Joe Montana.  

    Parent
    Same re baseball: Jim Leyritz and (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:00:26 AM EST
    Rickey Henderson just couldn't quit.

    Parent
    The QBs who retire well (none / 0) (#24)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:07:33 AM EST
    got this story in yesterday's paper in Favre's former home state.

    See also the newspaper's linked reader forum, with the headline that notes how wearying Favre's repeated retirements have been here:  "We Don't Know What to Say Anymore.  Have At It."

    Parent

    Interesting Story... (none / 0) (#30)
    by santarita on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:26:54 AM EST
    Joe Montana moved back to the Bay Area where he is revered.  I don't begrudge his last two years with KC.  It was just hard for him to quit the game he loved.  It can be difficult to admit that it is time to leave and move on to other things.

    Parent
    I just hope that Favre (none / 0) (#35)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:37:55 AM EST
    doesn't end up doing bad ads.  Which ex-QB was it who modeled pantyhose?!

    Parent
    Willy Joe Namath is the one... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by santarita on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:12:15 PM EST
    who modeled the pantyhose while Dan marino modelled gloves.

    Parent
    Joe Namath (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Amiss on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:19:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Joe's in SF? (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:48:41 AM EST
    His son plays for CA HS football powerhouse, Oaks Christian, just NW of LA.

    Parent
    Where his son is competing (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:52:49 AM EST
    with Wayne Gretzky's son to have the honor of throwing passes to Will Smith's son, iirc...

    Parent
    Maybe Joe Has more than one... (none / 0) (#48)
    by santarita on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:13:24 PM EST
    house.  He is frequently seen at local hardware stores and grocery stores.  I haven't seen him myself yet.

    Parent
    Yep, probably so. (none / 0) (#79)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:29:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Thank goodness... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:48:33 PM EST
    don't let the subway turnstile hit you on the way outta the Apple, Brett.  Can you take the owner with you?

    Now the Jets just need to get Chad Pennington back, maybe Miami will take a first round pick:)

    Parent

    Is there a chance that Chad... (none / 0) (#115)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 06:25:22 PM EST
    ...comes back?  

    Now that they don't have to play the "will he or won't he" guessing game with Brett, maybe they'll put that 1st round pick to good use.  Perhaps a franchise QB with a rocket-laser arm?  

    Parent

    No chance... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 08:52:44 AM EST
    poking a little fun at my squads front-office ineptitude.

    I think we'd have to trade up to #1 get Stafford, not sold on the other QB's coming out....today's paper mentioned Michael Vick as a longshot choice.  That would be interesting.

    If they get Kurt Warner or Kerry Collins or Jeff Garcia I'm really really really done with them...and I mean it this time!...:)  

    Parent

    I'm not sold on Stafford. (none / 0) (#119)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 09:20:34 AM EST
    Got to have the right personality (i.e., mature) to play in the Big Apple and I don't think he's there yet.  Graham Harrell might be a better fit.

    I was going to say that Mike Vick will be looking for work soon!  Can you imagine?  Not what you need though--or anymore aged QB's.  Although if they do draft a QB, having an experienced QB as a back-up wouldn't be a bad idea--and Clements ain't that guy.  

    If the new coach can get your defense to be anything like Baltimore's was (is), that a step in the right direction.

    Some pretty funny comments on the old Gunslinger and his "retirement" over at Kissing Suzy Kolber yesterday.  

    Parent

    Try (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:52:48 AM EST
    break.com

    Parent
    Does this qualify? (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:12:09 PM EST
    Vibrating glove to the rescue of piano students

    Parent
    Geez (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:36:12 PM EST
    Great product for deaf musicians who are into torture. I wonder if this is a scaled down version of something devised at DARPA approved by Yoo, and used at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.

    Parent
    Reminds me of the ads for (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:11:03 PM EST
    a weight reduction scheme in which the subject just sits still and a belt vibates.  

    Parent
    The Diaries Link is Nice... (none / 0) (#16)
    by santarita on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:01:00 AM EST
    I didn't realize that there were these diaries.  Do these appear on the Home Page?

    Right side (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:02:28 AM EST
    scroll down.

    Parent
    I See a Listing of Sections on the Right Side... (none / 0) (#32)
    by santarita on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:29:39 AM EST
    is that where I'd find the diaries?  Is there any listing of sections that have recent diaries?

    Parent
    Center column (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:31:20 AM EST


    Parent
    Okay. I see it now... (none / 0) (#50)
    by santarita on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:15:49 PM EST
    sometimes they show up and sometimes they don't.  

    Parent
    They're kinda small (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:11:22 AM EST
    I was here for months before I realized they existed.

    Parent
    Okay so (none / 0) (#20)
    by SOS on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:02:58 AM EST
    we're bankrupt beyond hope and repair, and we're going to spend our way out of it.

    How's that even possible?

    Because money only has value... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:18:36 PM EST
    ...based on human psychology.  It is only worth something because we THINK it is.  Which means, we entirely control money, it does not control us, but we have worshipped it as a living diety for so long, we've flipped the equation.  If the nation doesn't see their government, at its most pressing moment, reach out to help in generous ways, then the national psyche sinks further, and the money goes with it even deeper.  Truth is, we need to have huge national discussion about what money is, what's its purpose, and what we want it to do for us.  Our paradigms are very messed up.

    Parent
    Reminds me of that Henry Miller (none / 0) (#106)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 03:49:45 PM EST
    essay Money and How It Gets that Way.

    Parent
    Don't ask me... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:50:07 PM EST
    I threw in the towel immediately once I learned certain plants were illegal.  I give up trying to figure out our systems...no rhyme, no reason.

    Parent
    Oh man (none / 0) (#23)
    by sj on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:06:32 AM EST
    I loved that!  I didn't watch him as a child, and as a teen I was just like the author.  As a parent I appreciated that his show was not full of blinding color and screaming overactive stimuli like the Saturday morning stuff.  Alas, I still didn't watch along.

    Because that was one incredibly cool dude.

    whoops (none / 0) (#25)
    by sj on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:08:11 AM EST
    this was a reply to this from NJDem.

    Parent
    Thanks for the mention BTD. (none / 0) (#41)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:53:26 AM EST
    Also, does anyone know where to get free transcripts of Congressional hearings?  I wanted to read the actual transcript of the hearing for Panetta, but it looks like the Federal News Service makes you pay $$...

    TARP I use hearings House.. (none / 0) (#54)
    by jedimom on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:32:47 PM EST
    FASCINATING in a slightly stomach churning way lol

    my fave congress critters didnt let me down, barney frank, maxine waters and carolyn maloney were outstanding in part one

    clips here

    in recess for lunch..

    barney asked the big 7 financial ceos not to foreclose on anyone while we wait the last few weeks for the housing rescue plan, God Bless Him

    Jindal (none / 0) (#75)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:13:32 PM EST
    Bobby Jindal was chosen to give the Republican response to Obama's Address to the Nation on Feb 24 (not called the State of the Union in a president's first year).

    Pretty high profile for someone who said he's not interested in running for POTUS in 2012....

    Jindal, much like Obama in '04, no? (none / 0) (#101)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 03:27:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 03:45:41 PM EST
    I think that's what Repubs are betting on. Young, fresh face, not nutty crazy, lots of appeal in a blue state, minority, popular.

    Parent
    Reid won't seat Franken prematurely (none / 0) (#98)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 03:18:57 PM EST
    Link

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that he would wait until a Minnesota court case is concluded before attempting to seat Al Franken provisionally.

    Reid previously has hedged on whether he would wait for the trial on the election results to conclude before deciding whether to seat Franken in the Senate. But on Tuesday, he said he was under the impression that a ruling would come down in the next two weeks, at which point he would decide whether the former comedian should become the 59th Senate Democrat.

    "We have to let the trial get over with, that should be over in two weeks," Reid told reporters.

    Should there be a split decision or Norm Coleman lose the case, the Republican may appeal or seek Senate review, a process that could take several weeks or months and set up a political fight between the two parties. The GOP is strongly opposed to any effort to seat Franken before Coleman exhausts his legal remedies, but Democrats accuse Coleman of employing dilatory tactics to imperil Obama's agenda.
    Does Reid do anything "prematurely"? (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 03:25:59 PM EST
    Aside from capitulation to the GOP? Never mind...

    Parent
    More Police Brutality in Fresno, CA (none / 0) (#116)
    by emdashing on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 07:35:51 PM EST
    A Fresno PD officer, following grand FPD tradition of disrespecting suspects (although this particular one was lucky enough to escape with his life) was videotaped beating a homeless man on February 9. Here's the story from the Fresno Bee.

    Wednesday Open Thread | 123 comments (123 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment