home

Monday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 08:12:45 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

This is an Open Thread.

< Anger At Financial Institutions Make Temporary Takeovers The Only Politically Palatable Bailout | Obama To Attempt To Block AIG Bonuses >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Morning Open Thread | 203 comments (203 topical)
    Let's sing a little Bachman-Turner Overdrive (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 08:48:09 AM EST
    Takin' Care of Business (1974)

    Because the streets of Detroit (and hopefully everywhere else) are going to look like it's 1974 all over again because the Mustang, Challenger, and Camaro will once again compete as new models in the showroom.

    Don't Mean To (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 09:41:55 AM EST
    take away from your hype, but with all three coming in at under 20 mpg in the city, all three are examples of why Detroit has been a failure and will be again if this is what they want to push. When they can make a fleet of cars that average over 30 mpg they will have a chance of getting back to a semblance of reality. Until then they will continue to get squashed in the long run by Honda and Toyota.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 09:47:30 AM EST
    But they are way better looking and way cooler than the ugly models Honda and Toyota put out.

    I can always hope...

    Parent

    Ugly Hondas and Toyotas (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by eric on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:39:46 AM EST
    that are reliable, last a long time, and get good mileage, that is.

    I've got 195K on my Mazda.

    Parent

    Reliability (none / 0) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:42:53 AM EST
    It's less fuel-efficiency than it is reliability that's caused the problem for American cars, IMHO.  American cars seem to be built more for open country than congested city/suburban driving.  One of the most reliable, well-aging vehicles you can have where I live is a Jeep Grand Cherokee (I own a 13-yo one myself), yet they're near the bottom of the heap in the suburb-dominated reliability ratings CU puts out for used vehicles every year.

    Ancient Ford pick-ups and Jeeps dominate here (and good luck picking out your vehicle in a supermarket parking lot if you forget where you left it), with a smattering of Subarus mostly driven by recent transplants from suburbia.

    Parent

    Indeed the difference (none / 0) (#43)
    by eric on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:56:02 AM EST
    between American and Japanese designed cars became very clear to me when my wife bought a 2006 Mazda 6, which was made in the USA and is basically a Ford.  I have an older Mazda, a 1997 Protege.  The difference is striking.  The American car is bloated in size, has a massive turning radius, a gigantic cheap plastic dash, and is a chore to park because of its turning limits.

    My car is basic, simple, turns on a dime, and is easy to park.  It is a good urban car.  Hers is more for the highway.

    Parent

    Great story (none / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:06:31 AM EST
    My eureka moment came when I had to junk an only 4-year-old Ford Escort as essentially unrepairable and bought a used 4-yo much maligned Hyundai Excel to replace it.  Both were obviously bottom of the barrel cheap cars, but the Hyundai had all kinds of little "luxuries" the Escort didn't-- stuff like (gasp!) a little light in the glove box that went on when you opened it, ditto for a light in the trunk, and various other small things I can no longer remember that just blew me away.  Total cost probably no more than $5 per vehicle.

    As for the engine, I used to say that both cars were powered by hamsters running in a wire wheel in the trunk, but the Hyundai just had better hamsters.


    Parent

    What caused (none / 0) (#98)
    by eric on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:39:27 AM EST
    the Escort to die?

    Parent
    Multiple organ failure (none / 0) (#160)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:33:57 PM EST
    It was long enough ago, I can't remember the details anymore.  But my mechanic (a superb guy, one of the few AAA-approved guys in the area at the time) said it would cost something like $4,000 just to bring it up to where it could pass emissions inspection.  He further said that I'd have to have that work done elsewhere because the only really ugly beefs he'd ever gotten into with customers was over Escorts that had refused to stay fixed after he'd done various repairs on them.

    Parent
    Excellent Point (none / 0) (#90)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:31:14 AM EST
    for those that like to scan the annual car issue from Consumer Reports, one of the most interesting parts is the little reliability circles in the used car section. My introduction to that issue years past was the enlightenment from Toyota having all colored in red circles while the premier American car the Cadillac was nearly entirely filled in with black circles.

    I was once asked the chances of a new pizzeria being able to compete with Dominoes. My outlook was if they could make a better pizza that cost less than Dominoes and still have free delivery in under 30 minutes they "might" have a chance. That's where I'm beginning to see the Big Three. If they can make a more reliable car with better gas mileage and priced less than Toyota, they "might" have a chance.

    Parent

    The new (none / 0) (#105)
    by eric on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:42:31 AM EST
    Chevy Malibu is a good car.  But, to be honest, the reason that I like it is that it feels more like a Toyota than a Chevy.

    Probably too little, too late.

    Parent

    Those pages of red dots (none / 0) (#162)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:37:16 PM EST
    in the sea of pages of black dots are incredibly impressive.

    But all useless to me now that I live in a rural area since they're pegged to a different kind of use, one that's much, much more grueling on the engine and related systems, less grueling on the frame.

    Parent

    Mustang looks nice (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 09:53:11 AM EST
    The others, not so much.

    Buuuut: Fix Or Repair Daily. . .

    Parent

    People have to buy them first jb... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 08:52:42 AM EST
    I don't see it happening right now...unless the AIG crew is lookin' to spend some bonus money before it gets seized as stolen property.

    Parent
    I gotta hope (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 09:03:41 AM EST
    It's sad every time I go home and see what's going on in metro Detroit.  

    Wish I hadn't just bought a car last year.  I'dlook good in any one of those!

    Parent

    I tend to think... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 09:18:43 AM EST
    any rebirth in Detroit will be have to be done outside the auto industry...the hole is just too deep.

    There is opportunity there...property is so cheap, or ripe to be claimed for free...that someone with a little imagination could really build something.  

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 09:24:31 AM EST
    Some people in power (Mayor Dennis Archer, Governor Granholm) have desperately tried to attract other industries to diversify the city / state, but people have long held (some incorrect) assumptions about Detroit.  That's why you may have seen the commercials on CNN and MSNBC over the last couple of years with Jeff Daniels, touting Michigan's high tech environment and encouraging businesses to relocate there ("Michigan gives you the upper hand" campaign).

    Parent
    I'm so tired (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:01:21 AM EST
    And everything needs washed, I have dog nose prints on every vehicle window, they are even on the moonroof.  And a very nice Sheriff around Opelika AL shared with me and gave me a big fat well deserved speeding ticket.  Tenacious BTD whose call name is Armando is a baby and was shown in only one show due to that.  He was given a V1 rating (which is very excellent).  Two more and he will be considered an International Champion.  Then the same judge proceeded to dismantled his daddy to the bare bones of I do not like this dog :)  There isn't anything in life that isn't political in some way.  It is very hard to show an all black dog and they are seldom loved in the showrings.  I knew that when I bought it and I still did it because he will pass on very very excellent pigment to his kids.  But on an all black shiny German Shepherd even the tiniest flaws stand out glaringly.  It wasn't all bad.  Some judges liked him :) Baby beat his father though with the one judge that judged them both.

    Yes, please keep us posted (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:13:02 AM EST
    on the professional career of Tenacious BTD.  Are you required to reveal to the judges the source of the dog's name?

    Parent
    I will (none / 0) (#193)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 04:01:15 PM EST
    They name dog's like they name race horses so usually everybody ignores all that unless the dog goes select at Nationals as an adult.  If that ever happens to BTD then everyone will want to know where he got his name.

    Parent
    And after I take a needed nap or two (none / 0) (#194)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 04:05:25 PM EST
    and it quits raining here I'll take a snap of him with his International medal around his neck and put it up.  When we first arrived at the show he was pretty freaked out.  He thought he was all bad, little Mr. Jr Man around here and he'd never seen a Great Dane and certainly never seen five or six of them standing all in a huddle together, a barking herd of ponies.  I wasn't sure if I was going to be able to get him settled enough to show him in the afternoon, but we got him checked into a decent hotel and he took a break there and regained his composure :)

    Parent
    car windows (none / 0) (#203)
    by sj on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 05:36:58 PM EST
    I call it doggie nose art.

    Parent
    Ron Silver RIP (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:14:28 AM EST
    I know, I know - he defended Bush and the war, but he was awesome as political consultant Bruno Gianelli on The West Wing.

    Some great Bruno quotes:

    "I'm reading things that would make the cast of Up with People sit down on the floor and cry."

    ========

    "Because I am tired of working for candidates who make me think I should be embarrassed to believe what I believe, Sam. I'm tired of getting them elected. We all need some therapy, because someone came along and said that liberal means "soft on crime." Soft on drugs. Soft on communism. Soft on defense. And we're gonna tax you back to the stone age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to. And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave-it-to-Beaver-trip-back-to-the-fifties!' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please. Don't. Hurt. Me.' No more. I really don't care who's right, who's wrong. We're both right, we're both wrong."

    =    ========

    "I think anybody who's got a five point majority and still doesn't control the agenda might be spending a little too much time reading about how to get a man over his fear of commitment."

    =========

    "Losing makes you funny.  Winning makes you handsome."
    Repost - Fed funding of stem cell research banned (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:25:56 PM EST
    I apologize for the repost, but I posted this in an open thread where I think everyone had already moved on. I think this is very important and we need to look more closely at what is now legal or illegal (at least until September 30) when the provisions of the Omnibus Bill that was just passed come to an end.
    =======

    CNS has a this story regarding the fact that even though Obama signed an executive order lifting Bush's ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, the Omnibus Bill signed after that includes a provision that bans federal funding of stem cell research.

    On Wednesday, only two days after he lifted President Bush's executive order banning federal funding of stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos, President Barack Obama signed a law that explicitly bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

        The provision was buried in the 465-page omnibus appropriations bill that Obama signed Wednesday.  Known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, it has been included in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services every fiscal year since 1996.

    I don't know much about CNS News Service (except that I pass the building on my way into work), but the actual provision sure enough, says:

    Link

       

    SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this  Act may be used for:

        (1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos
        for research purposes; or

        (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).

        (b) For purposes of this section, the term "human embryo or embryos" includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.

    The story goes on to say:

       

    Close observers on both sides of the embryonic stem cell issue were well aware of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, and understood that it would pose a legal obstacle to federal funding of embryo-killing research even if President Obama issued an executive order reversing President Bush's administrative policy denying federal funding to that research.

        Rep. Diana DeGette (D.-Colo.) sponsored the House version of a bill--vetoed by President Bush--that would have legalized federal funding of stem cell research that destroys so-called "spare" human embryos taken from in vitro fertilization clinics.  On Monday, she told The New York Times she had already approached what she called "several pro-life Democrats" about the possibility of repealing Dickey-Wicker.

        "Dickey-Wicker is 13 years old now, and I think we need to review these policies,'' The Times quoted DeGette as saying. "I've already talked to several pro-life Democrats about Dickey-Wicker, and they seemed open to the concept of reversing the policy if we could show that it was necessary to foster this research."

        Rep. Mike Castle (R.-Del.), who co-sponsored Rep. DeGette's bill, similarly stated this week that Dickey-Wicker should be revisited.

        "Certainly, the Dickey-Wicker amendment . . . is something we need to look at," Castle told Congressional Quarterly Today on Monday. "That was passed in 1996, before we realized the full potential of embryonic stem cell research. Some researchers are telling us now that that needs to be reversed."
    Taxman comes early... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:01:14 AM EST
    to suck some more blood out of the usual suspect's veins...smokers.  Link

    I noticed the higher price last week, but I couldn't figure out the culprit till I found this article...Phillip Morris, jumping the gun on the taxman.

    Any NY'ers out of work would be well served by a bootlegging trip to Virginia...make a killing.

    The other one who gets sucked (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:45:19 AM EST
    dry is the person without children.

    I have no kids, didn't even have a choice in the matter (medical issues).  However, I pay the "childless penalty".  The average person with 2 children pays taxes on $108,000 less in income than I do for the children's first 18 years (~$3000 exemption * 2 children * 18 years).  And that's the simplified version that doesn't take into account increases in the deduction tax brackets effects of those deductions, etc.  

    Call me crazy, but I think people WITH children should pay more in taxes than people without children.  I know kids cost a lot of money -- however having kids is a choice that many people make.  Or, alternately, take the deduction, but give the childless the deduction too.  We should all get the $108,000 over 18 years deduction that I mentioned above.

    Parent

    Actually, in reading your comment, (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:12:05 PM EST
    what struck me is that you did have a choice: you could have adopted, and not only gotten the annual exemption, but been able to write off some part of the costs associated with adoption.  

    That measly $3,000 exemption doesn't come close to making a dent in the money that people with kids spend annually.  In fact, people with kids are probably responsible for a lot of other people having jobs who otherwise would not, so why shouldn't they get some return on the money they contribute to the economy?

    Parent

    And BTW (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:13:30 PM EST
    if the tax doesn't make a dent in the cost of raising children, what would be the big deal in foregoing it?

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#148)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:03:09 PM EST
    All I was asking for was the same deduction you have.  Color me crazy!  Why would it be my responsibility to adopt in order to get it?  LoL, why would I have to go that far out of my way to get the same deduction that you get just because you're capable of popping out kids?  LOL!  Outrageous, but typical.

    And although it costs a lot to raise kids, it certainly shouldn't be my responsibility to pay for well-heeled people's children.  Sorry.

    And good for the economy?  Our states our in deficit territory because of education.   I will speculate just like you have, and say that my tax savings spent would be just as good for the economy as it is for me to pay for your children. LOL, and our population explosion is a huge environmental hazard.  It is not making this country better.

    Parent

    Wow. Your post is peppered with (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:42:58 PM EST
    LOL's, but all I hear is a lot of anger toward people who can "pop out" kids.  

    I do think it's a little crazy to want a tax break for something you don't have, and a little odd that you see yourself as helping to support "well-heeled" people's children - what's the deal with that?

    Do you also resent the elderly and the blind, who get another exemption?  Do you think you should get those, too?

    And why would you want to adopt?  Well, here's an idea: because that's an option for people who want to be parents and who, for one reason or other, cannot have their own biological children.  I find it sad that you treat the prospect of adoption with such contempt - as if it were some icky thing you would have to do just to get a tax deduction, instead of the means by which otherwise childless people become parents.

    Here's the thing, Teresa: I didn't have kids for the tax deduction.  We had as many kids as we thought we could afford, although at times it was more than a stretch.  Whatever sacrifices we made over the years have been well worth the joy of seeing our kids grow and become the wonderful people we always hoped they would be.  And now that they are no longer our dependents, and we don't get the exemption, I'm not screaming about why I should have to give it up just because my kids are on their own.

    I'm sorry you have so much anger about this subject; maybe I would too if I were in your shoes.


    Parent

    Maybe that is the purpose of our... (none / 0) (#181)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 02:31:12 PM EST
    wacky convoluted system of taxation...turning American vs. American in defense of their perk deduction or decrying someone else's tax perk.  Turning rich vs middle vs poor, rural vs urban vs suburban, parents vs childless, smoker vs non-smoker, etc while we all get taxed to various degrees of death.

    I keep coming back to 50 bucks a head...it's not perfect but it's a helluva lot closer to fair.

    Parent

    I'd like (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:13:36 PM EST
    to be able to deduct my rent like homeowners can deduct their mortgage interest.

    Parent
    Hear you both... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:25:29 PM EST
    on the rent and the childlessness...I guess we need a lobby:)

    I keep coming back to running the fed on 50 bucks a head per year as the fairest way, and if that ain't enough sell some weapons and close some prisons and end some foreign occupations.  Enough with the special favors for the favored lifestyles....how 'bout some equality under the law.

    Parent

    Renters get a deduction (none / 0) (#134)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:28:28 PM EST
    in my state, on state taxes.  Work for it in your state.  

    Parent
    Minnesota has (none / 0) (#142)
    by eric on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:47:06 PM EST
    that, as well, but it is means tested.  If you make too much, you don't get any rental refund.

    Parent
    MN plan is better than a tax deduction (none / 0) (#154)
    by DFLer on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:15:58 PM EST
    Like Eric says, it's in the form of a cash rebate. I think it's though of as renters participating in part of the owners' rebate, as rental fees help owners' equity., etc. Comes in August. I try to think of it as a vacation fund, but usually end up paying rent with it!


    Parent
    All income tax deductions - (none / 0) (#177)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 02:20:18 PM EST
    including mortgage interest - are means tested.

    The more you make the less deductions you can take.

    Mortgage interest has the additional loss of deductibility when the mortgage amount exceeds 1.1million, iirc.

    Parent

    It's not a tax (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by eric on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 02:24:35 PM EST
    deduction.  It is a separate program.  And by means testing, I mean that if you make 50K, you get zero.  It is a Minnesota redistributive thing.

    Parent
    yeah, like eric says (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by DFLer on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 02:35:30 PM EST
    separate program, separate application form,
    Like DFLer said...not a tax deduction.

    like eric says is apparently my theme for the day. (3rd time)

    Parent

    You're losing me, (none / 0) (#187)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 03:09:19 PM EST
    mortgage interest is not deductable? Of course it is.

    And it's "means tested" or "progressive" in that the more you make the less you can deduct, and if your mortgage is over a certain amount you start losing that deduction.

    ...or are you not talking about something else?

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#190)
    by eric on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 03:38:20 PM EST
    we were talking about the specific program that we have here in MN whereby people can get a "Renter's Property Tax Refund".  It is meant to return to certain renters that portion of their rent that may be said to have been paid to cover the landlords property taxes.  It is "refunded" on a sliding scale basis.  Here is a LINK.

    If you are single, the maximum that you can make is $52,300.  If you really don't make much at all, it can amount to a healthy sum.  The maximum is $1,490.  Depending on what you make, and how much rent you paid, your refund will vary.

    Parent

    Ahhh, thanks. (none / 0) (#192)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 03:48:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Mortgage interest became (none / 0) (#174)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 02:07:35 PM EST
    deductible on income taxes when income taxes themselves were enacted in 1913. Tough one to do away with.

    Parent
    It drives (none / 0) (#180)
    by eric on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 02:26:34 PM EST
    to a great extent, the housing industry.  The ONLY reason that I have ever entertained the idea of buying a house is for the mortgage deduction.  But alas, my disdain for houses has kept me away.

    Parent
    We paid cash (none / 0) (#197)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 04:20:22 PM EST
    for our house. Extremely small, not a mansion by any means.

    The deduction wouldn't have helped us, and I was glad to get what we did.

    Now? In the process of divorce, so it's moot.

    Parent

    Painful. My sympathies. (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 04:31:08 PM EST


    Parent
    This kills (none / 0) (#116)
    by eric on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:53:11 AM EST
    my wife and I, as well.  The tax policies encourage people to have kids and buy houses.  I don't want to do either, so I pay - a lot.

    I think that we should be able to take a deduction for our cat.

    Parent

    Well, that's your choice (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:29:34 PM EST
    and according to many here -- see below -- it's perfectly okay for us to punish you for your choices.  Indeed, it's even exemplary of us to do so.

    Parent
    Ha. This is Bittner's theory. (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:53:52 AM EST
    If you choose to brew your own beer, do you get a tax break?  No.  Should you get a tax break for choosing to and having kids?  No.  

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:57:26 AM EST
    My children are now tax-paying citizens. They are generous contributors to charities, and they are doing valuable work for the communities they live in. Where would we be without the children? I think a tax break for those limited number of years while they are growing up is reasonable.


    Parent
    And I think it's (none / 0) (#155)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:18:32 PM EST
    reasonable to get a tax break because we without children don't put wear and tear on the communities we live in.  We limit the amount of police, fire, natural resource utilization, etc.

    I'm glad your kids pay taxes.  I think those who use resources in the world should pay the taxes for those resources....which is why I think the "childless tax" is sick.

    Parent

    I live by myself. Thus, no (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:42:38 PM EST
    domestic violence 911 calls.  Shouldn't that save me something--anything--on taxes?

    Parent
    Ok - No More Children (none / 0) (#161)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:36:03 PM EST
    We'll just fade away.

    Ever consider how many adult industries exist because children do?

    Things balance out. You have plenty of advantages that parents don't. But, "it's not fair" has become a national pass-time for many in this country. Why should I if they don't have to?  

    Find another tax deduction that fits your choices in life to make it even if it bothers you so much.

    Parent

    New Yorkers out of work (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:04:20 AM EST
    would be well served by quitting. But whatever. . .

    Parent
    I'm talking about self-employment... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:09:40 AM EST
    in the black market cigarette trade, one of the few growth industries in NY right now.

    I would hope even the most rabid anti-smoking zealots would be against such a regressive form of taxation on their fellow citizens....but I guess its a case of n.i.m.b.p.....Not In My Back Pocket.

    Parent

    Honestly, I have mixed feelings (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:12:17 AM EST
    about cigarette taxes. The problem is that most people who smoke are quite addicted to the product, so when they pay more in taxes, they are not exactly behaving rationally.

    The rational decision is to quit: nobody needs to smoke.

    Parent

    Nobody needs to read Talkleft either.... (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:20:05 AM EST
    but some of us enjoy it, so we do it.

    It is irrational to me to let the state extort you out of a personal lifestyle choice through excessive regressive taxation....it is more rational to dodge the tax when possible and continue the behavior you enjoy...at least by my logic.  IOW, It is more rational to live free.

    Parent

    crazy talk (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:21:47 AM EST


    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    But this particular lifestyle choice (as opposed to those who eat too much or other places they impose so-called" sin taxes) affects other people when you engage in it in public.

    What are these additional taxes for?

    Parent

    Beats me... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:38:06 AM EST
    the state never spends it like they say they will anyway...think lotto and education.

    The tax doesn't know if you're smoking in the privacy of your own home or a public place...not that I buy for a second that second hand smoke outdoors is any kind of threat, especially compared to the gas engines burning night and day outdoors.

    Parent

    Smoking taxes are for punishment (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:43:52 AM EST
    and not for programs to prevent smoking.  That is clear in my state, with some of the highest cig taxes in the country already, and more to come.  That revenue, plus the state's take from the suit against cig companies, was supposed to go for prevention programs.  Instead, the state has continuously raided the funds for . . . road builders, the biggest lobby in my state.  But the roads built are in obscure areas, while my paper this morn reports on those in the biggest urban area, which are in horrible condition.

    And the puritanical prohibitionists also keep putting together projections of cig tax revenue to base state budgets that then need bailing out as the revenue projections turn out to be unrealistic -- because the smokers cross state lines to buy cigs or order online.

    Prohibition didn't work and doesn't work -- and it only skews budgets badly, punishes the poor most of all . . . and leads to illegalities.  I do believe history taught us that already, but pols are in the business of ignoring history in many ways these days.

    Parent

    Although data show (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by BernieO on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:20:53 AM EST
    that raising the price of cigarettes has a significant role in reducing teen age smoking.

    Parent
    Smoking is bad for you and for me (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:25:43 AM EST
    The fact that higher cigarette taxes are usually used to pay for medical care seems entirely appropriate to me.

    Parent
    Smokers don't live as long... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:31:55 AM EST
    we're doing our part to combat over-population and not be a drain on Social Security...we should get a tax break.  

    Parent
    Except for the edge cases (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:39:07 AM EST
    of people who have long and painful cancers.

    But your point is part of the reason why the Japanese government supposedly used to encourage smoking. They knew it will kill, and that was a feature, not a bug.

    But I still stand by my point: if you don't like the taxes, don't smoke.

    Parent

    You're forgetting the third... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:46:36 AM EST
    and imo best option...dodge the tax when you can.

    Livin' free ain't easy, but it can be done with a little effort...and the black market is always happy to fill the void created by leecherous politicians....thank the sun god for the black market, without it I'd be screwed:)

    Parent

    But it's really not living free, it's (none / 0) (#52)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:03:06 AM EST
    just mooching off everyone else who does pay taxes.


    Parent
    The mooches here... (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:24:08 AM EST
    are the non-smokers, looking to smokers to close budget gaps.

    So quit moochin' non-smokers!

    Parent

    They use sin taxes (none / 0) (#141)
    by Fabian on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:43:00 PM EST
    to fund sports arenas in my state.

    I'm cool with that - don't smoke, rarely drink and couldn't care less about sports.  Doesn't hurt me, doesn't benefit me.

    It does unfairly target the chemically dependent though.  

    Parent

    'Leecherous' (none / 0) (#157)
    by daring grace on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:24:56 PM EST
    Love it, kdog.

    Thanks for brightening up a sunny day dimmed by the mountains of deadline paperwork I'm trying to plow through.

    Parent

    Vonnegut at 81 (none / 0) (#186)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 02:58:30 PM EST
    Vonnegut "Well, I smoke a lot, you know."

    Webster: Pall Malls?

    Vonnegut "I've got a lawsuit against Brown & Willliamson now. Because I have been chain-smoking Pall Malls since I was 11. And on their package they promised to kill me." (laughs)

    link

    Parent

    It's a dumb idea (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:46:26 AM EST
    It falls disproportionally on lower-income folks, and the higher they push the taxes, the less people smoke over time and the less revenue comes in.  It's an easy way to fund something short-term, but it's just pushing the problem of funding down the road a bit.

    Parent
    As fewer people smoke (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:49:03 AM EST
    we'll find other sources of revenue. But if in the mean time we get fewer smokers, well, that's a good thing.

    Parent
    Maybe that's the point (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:52:37 AM EST
    As fewer people smoke, fewer people will also need health care services related to smoking-caused illnesses to be borne by the taxpayers.

    It's a short-term financial gain that also serves a pulbic health policy.

    Parent

    So is processed and fast food (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:58:41 AM EST
    and you don't see them get slapped with higher taxes. Type 2 Diabetes anyone . . . ?

    Parent
    Supertaxing food is harder IMO (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:00:44 AM EST
    The difference is that you have to eat to live, but you don't have to smoke.

    Parent
    You choose what you eat (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:11:40 AM EST
    crap food or healthier food. Super size that? You don't need to eat (and overeat!) crap food to live. When you are in the grocery store, you don't need to buy that box of crap food for your family. The healthy option is right there. You don't even have to leave the store to find it.

    Parent
    You could supertax certain foods (none / 0) (#70)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:14:30 AM EST
    The problem is, some essentials are very unhealthy when over consumed. How much would you take whole milk? Butter? Ground beef?

    Parent
    Depends (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:25:26 AM EST
    not all whole milk, butter etc is created equal. Grass fed beef has good fat where as corn fed, bad fat. So, there, I would start taxing producers more also. We need to readjust our priorities when it comes to what we spend on food and how we produce it. The crap food needs to be phased out and good food producers need the subsidies (imo  ;) ) Dairy product producers needs to be brought under control before they totally destroy "real" dairy products. Would you like some MPC in your yogurt? It's already in some of your cheeses . . .

    Parent
    Excellent points (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:29:18 AM EST
    I have found two brands of yoghurt that don't have the first 8 ingredients from the sugar family. How these companies can be allowed to make a perfectly good and healthy food into a dangerous product to injest is beyond me. When it's a dairy product, I shouldn't have to read the labels...they should be natural and healthy.


    Parent
    Now they want to add MPC to it (none / 0) (#97)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:38:28 AM EST
    I agree on the label reading. It's just plain nuts. And the label you read last week, may not be the same one you are reading this week. Nobody is going to tell you if they get their way and start adding this sh!t to yogurt. It's just going to show up on your label at some point.

    Parent
    Now this is just elitist to me (none / 0) (#83)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:27:59 AM EST
    "let them eat organic produce!"

    Parent
    You have a problem with everyone (none / 0) (#93)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:34:53 AM EST
    having access to healthy food?! I didn't say a word about organic, but we can produce our food in much healthier ways. We don't need to add filler ingredients and empty calories to everything, nor do we need to create seeds that can withstand massive amounts of pesticides. Your attitude is what keeps poor people eating crap food.

    Parent
    nycstray, you must be (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:40:17 AM EST
    an Alice Waters fan; I just love her and think her ideas about good, healthy, fresh food, free of chemicals and additives, etc. should be the standard we work toward.

    It really should be cheaper to eat well than to eat poorly; the ingredients for a salad should not cost more than a box of mac and cheese.

    Parent

    Did you see her (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by NJDem on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:50:05 AM EST
    on 60 Minutes last night?  Organic/slow food is still cost-prohibitive for most and it's often better to buy local than organic, but her ideas really could revolutionize how we eat and our basic health.  

    I love the idea of a garden at the White House and her school program was innovative too.  It got me thinking about my old Home Ec classes and wondering if they still include that as part of the curriculum.  School has gotten to be so much more about standardized tests than preparing kids for the real world--knowing how to make something other than ramen noodles would probably be a good investment...    

    Parent

    {grin} Busted! (none / 0) (#110)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:47:59 AM EST
    What I think gets missed, is there are models that can be grown as ways to get better food into the communities. I know I spend less getting my food through CSAs etc than going to the grocery store. "They" have convinced so many that we need all this crap food and we don't have time to cook etc. And that "we" can't afford good food. It just makes me nuts. It's really Not.That.Hard. or expensive to eat a healthy, SAFE diet.

    Parent
    I think we should get food to as many (none / 0) (#94)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:37:00 AM EST
    poor people as possible.

    If that means extensive genetic modification of crops, I'm 100% for it.

    I don't have patience for anti-science on the right or the left.

    Parent

    Anti-science?! (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:41:12 AM EST
    lol!~ sorry, that's not what this is.

    I think we can agree on getting as much food as possible to poor people. I just happen to think they deserve better food than you do  ;)

    Parent

    Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:03:27 AM EST



    Parent
    You need to quit smoking... (none / 0) (#120)
    by desertswine on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:57:04 AM EST
    kdog, if for no other reason than your own health. I, for one, would like to go on reading your comments for a long, long, time.

    Parent
    Thanks for the kinds words... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:40:27 PM EST
    but I enjoy it too much d'wine...and who wants to live forever?  

    Each individual has to make their own such choices...I'm a firm believer in quality over quantity...you could never smoke, only drink occasionally, never do drugs, avoid red meat, eat rice cakes and soybeans everyday and live to be 90...but why on earth would anyone want that?

    Nah...I plan on getting all the pleasure I can out of this vessel....but to each their own, and to each reasonable taxation:)

    Parent

    Well, kdog, I've grown kinda (none / 0) (#168)
    by caseyOR on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:44:54 PM EST
    fond of you. So, I'd like you to be around for a long time. I know smoking is a choice you get to make, but the consequences can be horrific.

    I watched my dad die a miserable and excruciatingly painful death from lung cancer. It was horrible, and I certainly would not wish that on you, or anyone.

    Parent

    That is the risk... (none / 0) (#172)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:58:34 PM EST
    but I don't plan on a slow painful death of any sort casey...I'll call Dr. Kevorkian before I let that happen.

    Sorry for your loss, I too know what it is like to witness a slow painful death of a loved one.  Death comes for us all, one way or another, all the more reason to find all the joys you can in this crazy cruel world.

    Parent

    No one's being forced to smoke; (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:37:41 AM EST
    it's an entirely voluntary activity; I'd be fine with raising the tax on alcohol - that's a voluntary activity, too.

    The problem I have with cigarette taxes is that they exemplify the law of diminishing returns: the higher the taxes go, and the more expensive it is to smoke, the more people do decide to quit and others decide it's too expensive to ever start, and so the revenue isn't what it was projected to be; in that sense, it's a stupid tax.  From a health and environment perspective (I HATE it when people treat the world as their own personal ashtray, flicking butts wherever they happen to be), the taxes are probably increasing the number of non-smokers, which is good.

    Parent

    No one's forced to have kids (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:32:26 PM EST
    and yet that gets a defense above.  See the illogic?

    Parent
    Why single out this.. (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:41:17 AM EST
    voluntary activity?  Why not tax watching television, or reading blogs, or any number of leisure activities?

    Oh yeah, I remember, smokers are the "kick the dog" du jour.

    Parent

    Puritans (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:44:49 AM EST
    always have had to have their witch hunts.

    Parent
    I can't wait... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:50:31 AM EST
    till they find something else to pick on...I'm beginning to think its personal, everything I enjoy is the object of scorn of puritans it seems...reefer, gambling, cigarettes...if they propose a tax on casual sex I'm doomed:)

    Parent
    when they legalize pot (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:06:41 AM EST
    they will move on to that.


    Parent
    Maybe it's a little bit puritanical (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:47:56 AM EST
    I do get a little bit of satisfaction out of smokers complaining about high taxes. I just think about the last time I had smoke blown in my face in public. It wasn't that long ago.

    Parent
    The horrors of a free country... (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:53:53 AM EST
    you poor thing:)

    It's probably how I feel when I get a whiff of most perfumes and colognes...but I chalk it up as a cost of living in a free country that I gladly pay.

    Parent

    No, it's worse than that (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:55:55 AM EST
    Cigarette smoke is widely acknowledged to be specifically harmful--except by industry hacks.

    So, yes, I'll think of it that way. The tax is public retribution for the extent annoying smokers diminish the quality of my life.

    Parent

    Since smoking is (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:57:32 AM EST
    now forbidden pretty much everywhere it could impinge on non-smokers, I'm wondering where it is your quality of life is being diminished?

    Parent
    You ever walked in the sidewalk (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:59:23 AM EST
    in a city behind a smoker? Stood outside of a building where people were smoking?

    It's still a concern in cities.

    Parent

    which city? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by CST on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:15:19 AM EST
    depends on where you live I think.

    I almost never see anyone smoking in public anymore.  Not sure why, maybe there just aren't that many smokers.

    I'm in a funny spot, since I've never smoked butts, but pretty much everyone I hang out with does.  So second-hand doesn't bother me as much as it does a lot of people.

    I think location restriction laws are fine (even my smoker friends like to breathe in bars).  But prices in NY do seem a bit excessive.

    Parent

    Walk down the street in Manhattan some time (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:16:47 AM EST
    it wont take long for you to be caught behind a slow walker with a cigarette.

    Parent
    So Manhattan needs to crack down (none / 0) (#82)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:27:26 AM EST
    on this.  Where is Rudy Giuliani when you really need him? :-)

    Parent
    I doubt it's impossible to stop (none / 0) (#84)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:29:09 AM EST
    unless you ban all smoking in public places.

    If I had my way, there would be pretty much no place in a built up area where it would be legal to smoke.

    Parent

    So freedom in this country is based solely (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:44:27 AM EST
    on what you want and/or approve of. Sounds just where we're headed.


    Parent
    And you're incapable of (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:39:30 PM EST
    stepping a few feet to the side?  This does not seem to me like inordinate hardship.  Enclosed spaces one is trapped in willy-nilly are one thing, the odd puff of smoke outdoors quite another.

    Parent
    I think there's no excuse (5.00 / 0) (#202)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 05:17:46 PM EST
    for letting a massive cloud of poison flow from the back of your head. Sorry.

    Parent
    IMO the pedestrians of (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 03:16:57 PM EST
    Manhattan walking on the sidewalks with open umbrellas on a rainy day:  much more hazardous.  Such a sense of entitlement.

    Parent
    Please... (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:43:53 AM EST
    ...do not presume to tell kdog, or anyone, how perfumes/colognes effect them.  They give me an instant, skull-crushing, want to chop my head off to make the pain go away migraine.  And, usually I'm in an enviroment where I can't escape--the office, on a bus and the like.

    I'll take smoke over perfume/colognes anyday.  Especially when some people tend to think that liberal application is a subsitute for good hygene.

    Parent

    I'm right there with ya (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:52:57 AM EST
    there's one men's brand of aftershave that just makes my head explode. Other's get me a tad slower, but the end result is the same. And it's like the smell lingers in your nose . . . Thankfully, I don't have to do the commute thing, so I miss getting trapped on the subway with it now. Some of those scents just need to go away!

    Parent
    These new.... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:06:20 PM EST
    "body sprays" that are all the rage are particularly foul, imo...but freedom means putting up with unpleasant sights and smells.

    Parent
    They are gross (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:08:56 PM EST
    There's a guy who works down the hall from me who sprays cologne / body spray on himself after he goes out for a smoke, so the whole hallway reeks for hours. He apparently thinks A) his cologne smells good,and b) it covers up the smoke smell.

    Parent
    If certain substances (none / 0) (#114)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:50:46 AM EST
    are demonstrated to be harmful to many or most people they should probably be banned.

    As far as I know, perfume doesn't satisfy that criterion.

    Parent

    So, by your "logic"... (none / 0) (#159)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:28:57 PM EST
    ...we should ban all buildings as the off-loading of chemicals from wallboard, carpet, paint and the like have proven to be toxic.  

    Parent
    Ban, ban, ban.... (3.66 / 3) (#163)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:37:39 PM EST
    instead of learn to compromise to better live together.

    I'm so tired of the ban, ban, ban song and dance.

    Parent

    Well, when I bought my TV, I paid (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:56:59 AM EST
    sales tax, and my DirecTV bill has federal taxes on it, as does my phone bill.  If I buy a book, I pay sales tax on it; if I get books from the library, my property and income taxes are making that possible.  Movies?  Sales tax.  Blogs?  Look at your cable or phone bill - you're paying taxes.

    There really isn't much that we don't pay some kind of tax on, as we use it or consume it, so playing poor-pitiful-me because of the cigarette tax just seems kind of whiney.

    Parent

    It's all in the rates... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:59:15 AM EST
    I don't think the state is making more than DirecTV on your subscription, where the state is making more per pack than Phillip Morris and the retailer combined...the definition of excessive.

    I'm more than happy to pay some tax, but not these tyrannical rates....I'll give the more honest outfit, the mob, the business.

    Parent

    Thanks for keeping up (none / 0) (#95)
    by NJDem on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:37:19 AM EST
    the good fight for some of us more libertarian folks on the blog kdog!      

    I'm sure you've read: "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do : The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country," by Peter McWilliams--it's recommended reading for everyone.  

    In other news...Obama to be on Jay Leno this week.    

    Parent

    Are you making that up? (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:49:11 AM EST
    In other news...Obama to be on Jay Leno this week.
     

    I sincerely hope Leno is going to the WH and Air Force One is not going to taxi Obama to California for this. Nothing surprises me with how priorities seem to fall in this administration.


    Parent

    Wish I was, (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by NJDem on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:56:20 AM EST
    and no, Obama's going to Jay.  I wasn't going to post the link b/c it was Fox, but here goes:

    I hate to say this, but it seems Obama may be trying to beat Bush's record of least amount of time spent in the actual WH...

    Parent

    Obama is "in" DC, not (none / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:57:49 AM EST
    "of" DC.

    Parent
    Ha (none / 0) (#128)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:12:19 PM EST
    There are conflicting reports of why Obama is skipping the annual Gridiron Dinner (something no president has done in his first year since Grover Cleveland)

    The rejection was heightened by the that's-the-night-I-wash-my-hair explanation the Gridiron got from Obama.

    At first, Gridiron members heard through back channels that the Obama family would be in Chicago during the Obama daughters' spring break from school. Then, on Friday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said at his daily briefing that the family would actually be in Camp David on March 21, the night of the dinner.

    That's not exactly out of town by presidential standards -- in fact, it is about a 20-minute helicopter ride if Obama had decided the event were important enough.

    According to one member, "We got the impression from talking to our senior members who had talked to senior people at the White House that Mrs. Obama had made the decision about the family's spring break and no one on the senior staff was about to challenge that."

    A White House official said this is untrue -- Obama made the decision and it should not be pinned unfairly on the first lady.

    The White House said larger meaning should not be read into Obama's choice. An official told POLITICO via e-mail, "The assumption was we would do this -- then we found out the girls would have spring break -- it was as simple as that."



    Parent
    Yeah, I was going to (none / 0) (#137)
    by NJDem on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:30:44 PM EST
    bring up the dinner--but I didn't want to "pile on."  

    Also, I'm surprised no one brought up this:

    Administration Is Open to Taxing Health Benefits

    Oh, and here's an update--seemingly only found on overseas media--about what would have otherwise been named Giftgate.  Seems the problem has been addressed.  Good.  

    Parent

    Interesting book title. (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:39:54 AM EST
    When I interviewed for DDA position, I was asked:  will you be able to prosecute "victimless crimes"?  What the heck is that.  Example:  prostitution.  

    Parent
    What was your answer? (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:08:19 PM EST
    On second thought, don't tell me...I like you and wanna keep on liking you:)

    When I served on a grand jury we heard a prostitution case, I asked the assistant DA who was the victim of the so-called "crime"...after 10 minutes of the ADA tying herself in knots trying to explain it the whole grand jury had a good chuckle. Then my fellow jurors proceeded to vote true bill on it despite my best efforts to convince them otherwise.  I told the ADA straight out I would not vote true bill for any victimless crimes...I'm pretty sure they're still talking about me around the DA offices' water cooler...I must say it was great fun to be a pain in their arse for a change:)

    Parent

    The only case I prosecuted (none / 0) (#139)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:40:02 PM EST
    involving a prostitute was a case I called:  rape of the prostitute.  Got a guilty plea to possession of MJ for sale because alleged rapist, whom the vice squad encountered walking downtown, had a suspicious bulge in his undies.

    Parent
    I'd call that a straight up rape case... (none / 0) (#147)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:00:12 PM EST
    the occupation of the victim is of no consequence.

    Though it could be argued that the prohibition of prostitution leaves sex workers less likely to report sexual assault and rape.

    Parent

    I haven't... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:45:43 AM EST
    but I like the title...thanks for the reco and the words of support.

    Parent
    Mmmmm (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:53:36 AM EST
    Your watching TV or reading blogs does not a) affect any part of mine or anyone else's health,and b) does not emit a foul odor.

    Parent
    How is my smoking effecting your health.... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:57:04 AM EST
    please enlighten me...have you been crashing on my couch or something?

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:00:14 AM EST
    But even one whiff of the carcinogens your cigarette emits does some damage, so if I'm sitting next to you in a restaurant and you are smoking, you are hurting me and everyone around you.

    Parent
    And what about the emmisions... (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:04:06 AM EST
    from all those gasoline engines on the streets?

    I'm sorry jb, anyone complaing about second-hand smoke who isn't complaining about the gas engine just has an anti-smoking axe to grind.  

    Smoking has been banned in restaurants and bars where I live for years.

    Parent

    You're just wrong about that (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:06:43 AM EST
    I can't remember a time--ever--when exhaust fumes were more annoying than second hand smoke.

    You want to satisfy me? Ban smoking within 100 meters of other people.

    Parent

    Ever been to LA during a smog alert? (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:14:13 AM EST
    Those are sheer hell for me . . .

    And no, I don't drive and have never had a DL or car  ;)

    Parent

    Nope, I haven't (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:15:54 AM EST
    But it's absolutely true that we are too reliant on road transport.

    I am in favor of a massive increase in the gas tax.

    Parent

    I would be too if I lived (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:18:51 AM EST
    in Manhattan.

    Parent
    People who live in big cities (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:21:26 AM EST
    don't get their fair share of infrastructure spending.

    Parent
    Should google that (none / 0) (#136)
    by Fabian on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:30:03 PM EST
    Which state has the most miles of paved road per resident?

    I'd guess Texas, but I'd probably be wrong.  

    Parent

    Oh, I agree (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:07:38 AM EST
    about the gas engine, but that's a longer term fix, and the smoking issue is a little easier to implement. I've never gone home from a garage and had to shower and wash my hair immediately because the stench was so great like I have from bars and restaurants.

    I've also never kissed anyone that tasted like a muffler.

    Parent

    Try commuting on a freeway (none / 0) (#199)
    by sj on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 05:05:03 PM EST
    Keeping all the vents closed and using the air conditioning helps the driver (until the windshield starts to fog up) but adds to the overall problem.  And get in the midst of diesel users in the summer and just try not to notice.  

    As for the kissing?  There's all sorts of bad breath.  I'm assuming if you don't like the kissing experience that you don't repeat it.  What's the problem?

    Parent

    i've been on lots of freeways (none / 0) (#201)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 05:14:16 PM EST
    Growing up in Detroit gave me that experience.  And you can even smell cigarette smoke through the vents from the driver ahead you.

    It's not the bad breath in the kissing - it's the odor from the whole body from a smoker - their hair, their hands, their skin, their clothes (and yes, their breath) - it reeks.

    Parent

    It's fascinating (none / 0) (#21)
    by Fabian on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:28:23 AM EST
    to have watched changes in the attitudes people had to their cigarette smoking.  At first, they denied there was anything bad about it.  Eventually, they confessed that smoking was not good for their health.  Then they denied they were actually addicts because that's a dirty word.  They smoked because they liked it, not because they couldn't quit.

    Now people may admit that they would like to quit, but it's "not easy".  A few might admit that they are addicted, but rarely do so voluntarily.

    If it helps get the concept of addiction out into the open, I'm all for it.  

    Parent

    $54 for a carton (none / 0) (#55)
    by eric on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:04:24 AM EST
    of Marlboros.  Jeez that's high.  Just guessing, I bet Kdog is a Marb Reds guy.

    Parent
    Ding ding ding... (3.66 / 3) (#88)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:30:02 AM EST
    Marlboro Reds all the way...and I paid 75 bucks for a carton last week if you though it was rough in the steel belt.  Compared to around 25 a carton just over ten years ago...and it's almost all new taxes.  I would hope even rabid anti-smokers would call that excessive and tyrannical, but I understimate the unfathomable love people seem to have for big brother as opposed to their neighbor.

    Parent
    Hey,kdog. Do you,, perchance, (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:41:23 AM EST
    have a deep, raspy cough?  

    Parent
    Not really.... (none / 0) (#113)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:50:08 AM EST
    aside from occasionally hocking some mean loogies in the morning after a night of smoking to excess...but I'm working on it oculus:)

    And I'll challenge any non-smoker to keep up with me on the b-ball court...I might not have any handle, or a consistent jump shot...but I can run health nuts into the ground consistently.

    Parent

    I ask because one of my (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:59:06 AM EST
    adult offspring, who has smoed for about 20 years, stopped in Nov. '08.  Cough seems to have disappeared.  Yeah.

    Parent
    I do (none / 0) (#117)
    by CST on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:53:20 AM EST
    grrr

    I need a vacation.

    Parent

    You can roll your own... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Fabian on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:27:12 PM EST
    Loose tobacco and rolling papers are readily available.  Cheaper too.

    It must not be the price that's the real issue then, or even the taxes.  

    Who has more power - Big Brother or Madison Avenue?  If we had a cage match between Advertising & the Government, who would win?

    Parent

    I do on occasion... (3.00 / 1) (#151)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:10:07 PM EST
    roll my own, but I like the additive-loaded Marlboros better.

    I'd rather make the decision than have the taxman make it for me.

    Parent

    I'm thinking (none / 0) (#57)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:06:12 AM EST
    Camels - unfiltered.

    Parent
    Has anyone heard of "letter marks"? (none / 0) (#12)
    by BernieO on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:08:41 AM EST
    I just heard a discussion of earmark reform on the Diane Rehm show. When asked how Senators like McCain or Reps like Jeff Flake who rarely use earmarks get money to their constituents she said they use lettermarks - i.e. letters sent to agencies suggesting money be spent on specific projects in their districts. Everyone agreed that this process often works and is even less transparent than earmarks. The only way to find out how much money gets allocated this way is through a FOIA request for all letters from that person to a particular agency.

    Something else our lazy mainstream media folks neglects to tell us. I wonder how many of them even know about this.

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:17:48 AM EST
    I have no problem with them requesting money for their districts - it's what they are supposed to do - represent their states.  I don't have a problem with "earmarks" per se - I have a problem with them when they are put in appropriation bills that are for basic functions to keep the government running.  A bill that will keep the lights on and heat on in federal courthouses should not be bogged down with money for a dog run park in Alabama or Idaho, IMO. They are the equivalent of those horris riders the critters put on bills they don't like in the hopes it will kill a bill - it shouldn't be allowed.

    Parent
    Just thinking about this (none / 0) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:55:15 AM EST
    the other day. Not so much "lettermarks" per se but the fact that without earmarks, you're going to end up with much, much more pressure put on federal agencies by legislators to fund projects in their districts.  It's not clear to me that that's a better thing or less vulnerable to corruption.

    I started wondering whether it would make more sense to formalize earmarks-- ie, each state's delegation is allowed to specify X percent and no more, leave it up to them to fight over how to distribute that.

    It really is not unreasonable or unfair, I think, for representatives to try to ensure that the federal bureaucracy funds a few key projects in their areas, particularly when you have from time to time a federal government as hyper-politicized as the one we just got out from underneath.  I wonder how much federal money, for example, Massachusetts would have gotten over the last eight years if it weren't for earmarks.


    Parent

    Back to work today (none / 0) (#14)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:11:33 AM EST
    after my 4-day arbitration hearing last week.  It feels like returning from a vacation, in the sense of work piled up and such... but there was no vacation.

    Arbitration for what? (none / 0) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:55:55 AM EST


    Parent
    Much of my practice (none / 0) (#144)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:51:18 PM EST
    involves securities industry arbitrations.  It's like a trial without the courtroom.  I still have a sore throat from a little too much yelling.

    Parent
    Ooohh (none / 0) (#165)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:41:21 PM EST
    my sympathies.  Hope it pays well, at least!


    Parent
    I bet that's loads of fun right now (none / 0) (#195)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 04:06:39 PM EST


    Parent
    We are crazy busy (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 05:13:07 PM EST
    The statute of limitations for suing your broker is 6 years, so we were just finishing up the last bunch of cases from the tech crash, and now we have a whole new recession to worry about.

    Of course, in the old cases the customers would always argue "how could you put my money in those risky tech stocks and telecoms, instead of safe investments like real estate?"  Nowadays it's the opposite argument.

    Parent

    How's the baby watch going? (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:13:40 AM EST


    Parent
    Any day now! (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:50:32 PM EST
    Contractions come along every now and then.  I'll be surprised if I'm still at work come Friday.

    Parent
    Senate recount trial: Now it's up to the judges (none / 0) (#23)
    by DFLer on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:35:17 AM EST
    I love Team Coleman's final arguments:

    Strib


    During closing arguments, Republican Norm Coleman and his lawyers urged the judges to bend their rules, which have hampered his case, and rely more on "common sense" in deciding which disputed ballots deserve to be counted.

    But lawyers for DFLer Al Franken said Coleman failed to meet requirements to prove that election problems deprived him of enough valid ballots to have tipped the balance.

    "The law requires proof that an error did, in fact, change the outcome," Franken lawyer Kevin Hamilton told the three-judge panel. "That is exactly what is missing from the record."
    Wasn't the basic gist (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:04:56 AM EST
    (ala Bush v. Gore) that different counties counted questionable ballots different ways?

    Parent
    Florida (none / 0) (#86)
    by eric on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:29:19 AM EST
    didn't have clearly articulated standards.  Minnesota does, and it was all written down in a recount manual.  PDF of the Recount Guide.

    Coleman's attempts to try to trigger some kind of equal protection challenge is about as laughable as the decision in Bush v. Gore, itself.

    Parent

    Pre Huffington Post: Coleman (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:31:19 AM EST
    to replace Steele?

    Parent
    Kind of funny. . . (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:09:50 PM EST
    Swapping coal for steel.  What's next, dog poop?

    Parent
    Like eric says (none / 0) (#156)
    by DFLer on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:24:43 PM EST
    Besides, Team Coleman is basically asking the judges to ignore the roolz. That's what I find ludicrous. Also, re equal protection argument. Wouldn't this require every state to have exactly the election laws and procedures?

    Criticizing what he called "hyper-technical restrictions" on absentee ballots, Coleman said Friedberg did a good job "talking about common sense."

    BTW, one of those "hyper-technical restrictions"  violated by some of the rejected absentee ballots was being registered to vote. The other "hyper-technical restrictions" was having the witness to your absentee ballot being a registered voter. Picky picky, heh Norm?

    The people of MN will not tolerate a doesy over, imo.


    Parent

    Don Imus (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:08:20 AM EST
    Has prostate cancer.

    so (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:09:47 AM EST
    is Jackie Mason a racist?

    That's beyond cryptic! (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:14:29 AM EST


    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:17:23 AM EST
    How Dare You Say I'm Racist

    Parent
    um, sorry again (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:18:55 AM EST
    Link

    Parent
    Babelfish doesn't have (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:29:48 AM EST
    a "Yiddish to English" option.  German "swarze" to English produces:  black one.  That doesn't sound too good.

    Parent
    it was a serious question afaic (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:32:20 AM EST
    I have jewish friends - I lived in NY for many years - who are not racists at all who use the word all the time.  I never thought of it as particularly racist.  but I am no linguist.


    Parent
    Yes, (none / 0) (#104)
    by NJDem on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:42:15 AM EST
    it's a lingual-cultural thing.  While it could be offensive depending on connotation (like with anything), it is most often not meant anyway but the way a Spanish speaker says Negro/a.  

    Parent
    It's not racist (none / 0) (#145)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:53:23 PM EST
    although it's certainly colloquial.  It's just a term for black people, it can be used with good or bad intent.

    Parent
    I "babelfished" (none / 0) (#169)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:48:00 PM EST
    "Swartzenegger."  Seems to mean:  more of the same.  

    Parent
    My German Grandmother would (none / 0) (#146)
    by tigercourse on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:57:03 PM EST
    occasionally use that term when her english slipped.

    Parent
    Contrarian View of AIG's Bonuses.. (none / 0) (#80)
    by santarita on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:24:46 AM EST
    Bernanke last night said that as the majority (and hence controlling) stockholder of AIG, the government's intent is to pursue an orderly liquidation of AIG.  

    An orderly liquidation generally means that business units are kept in business so that they can be sold as on-going businesses because on-going businesses generally are bought at a higher price than defunct businesses.

    On-going businesses require competent staff.  AIG staff must be feeling very insecure about their future right now.  So bonuses to appropriate people may make sense in order to retain their services.

    This doesn't mean that senior management deserve huge bonuses. They don't.  But the grunts doing the work in the various business units probably do.

    well (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by CST on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:31:10 AM EST
    I would be fine with the "grunts" getting paid, at least the ones that are actually profitable.

    But the range on these bonuses is way too wide.

    No one deserves a $6 million bonus.  And from what I read in the Globe, most of these bonuses are going to the exact people who got us into this mess, who quite frankly, should probably be fired.

    This is the part I have a problem with:

    "The bonuses will be paid to executives at American International Group's Financial Products division, the unit that wrote trillions of dollars' worth of credit-default swaps that protected investors from defaults on bond backed by subprime mortgages"

    and

    "The bonus plan covers 400 employees, and the bonuses range from $1,000 to $6.5 million. About seven executives at the financial products unit were entitled to receive more than $3 million in bonuses."

    emphasis mine


    Parent

    Regardless of what the contracts say.... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:38:24 AM EST
    all these clowns are entitled to is a bonus on a negative number...aka nada.

    Do we have to spell it out for them like children?  There would be no AIG today if not for the taxpayer, pay your bonuses if and when you return every penny taken from the taxpayer, plus interest.  

    Parent

    its interesting (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:41:48 AM EST
    that many of the same people who are saying these contracts MUST be honored are the same people who are saying GM should file bankruptcy to get out of the obligations of their union contracts.
    in other words contracts are much more important if you make a couple a hundred thousand bucks a year than if you are just a working stiff.
     

    Parent
    That is very telling... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 11:59:17 AM EST
    It's one big Orwellian "Animal Farm" out there brother...some animals are more equal than others, some contracts are more binding than others, some are more susceptible to failure than others, etc, etc, etc.

    Parent
    It's Official - Seattle P.I. stops printing Wed. (none / 0) (#130)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:23:37 PM EST
    link

    Sad, to say the least. It's rival, The Seattle Times is hardly worth reading. I do wonder, though, if Hearst can be trusted to run an online-only P.I. as a going concern. I think the reporters might have been better off creating their own operation.

    Rumor has it... (none / 0) (#133)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:27:51 PM EST
    ...that the Times is not long for this world either.  Seattle could well be the first major city without a daily printed newspaper.

    Parent
    First they lose the Sonics... (none / 0) (#152)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:12:23 PM EST
    then all their daily papers...sucks to be a Seattlite right now.

    Parent
    Hey, they've got a new (none / 0) (#170)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:49:46 PM EST
    baseball part AND Ken Griffey, Jr.

    Parent
    Who, I predict... (none / 0) (#171)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:56:36 PM EST
    ...will land on the DL sometime around May.  

    They did sell out Opening Day at Safeco Field in a couple of hours due in large part to Jr.  I just don't have any faith that he's going to help them win a lot of games.  

    Parent

    Amazing (none / 0) (#173)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 02:04:58 PM EST
    Jr was very outspoken about how much he hated Seattle (he lived in Florida) and the Mariners. Believed he was carrying the team single-handedly and never even thought to offer an explanation for why the team did so much better when he was benched with injuries. Why they have brought him back is a mystery. Never even heard his name when he played elsewhere, so he hasn't gotten better over the years.

    Safeco field isn't new.

    Parent

    No mystery... (none / 0) (#175)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 02:10:20 PM EST
    ...it's all about getting butts in the seats. And buying jersey's and all the lovely food/drink stuffs at the ball park.  

    Parent
    I've read articles attributing (none / 0) (#178)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 02:24:30 PM EST
    the Mariners' acquiring a new venue to having Griffey on the team in his younger years.  

    Parent
    My recollection is that the Kingdome (none / 0) (#184)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 02:43:25 PM EST
    had become too costly to maintain and ceiling tiles were randomly falling onto the field.

    Griffey left the Mariners after one season in the new stadium. He was a spoiled brat IMO:

    Junior even manipulated and minimized what little chance Seattle had to keep him around for the 2000 season, making it clear his presence in the clubhouse would have made Randy Johnson's unhappy time with the Mariners in 1998 look like Camelot.

    I thought he was a morale breaker, and I don't recall much local distress over his departure.


    Parent

    I'd be surprised is Griffey (none / 0) (#176)
    by caseyOR on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 02:18:32 PM EST
    even makes it to opening day before going on the DL. I am not hopeful about the Mariners' season.

    On the other hand, I do have my beloved Cubbies. I know that by the end of the season they will have crushed my spirit and broken my heart, but I'm hoping it's another good ride.

    Parent

    After the way Howard Schultz and Clay Bennett (none / 0) (#196)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 04:10:59 PM EST
    lied and screwed us Seattleites seven ways from Sunday, I don't miss the Sonics a bit. Haven't even been to a game since 1998.

    Parent
    great art (none / 0) (#182)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 02:32:53 PM EST
    Link

    but obviously
    I like the story book.

    College Football in March (none / 0) (#185)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 02:58:23 PM EST
    The top recruit in the nation, Bryce Brown according to scout.com, has finally chosen a school, and in doing so reneged on his verbal commitment to the Miami Hurricanes and will be a Tennessee Volunteer.

    Madoff's wife may not be able to keep assets (none / 0) (#189)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 03:25:08 PM EST
    This is good news for those who thought neither Mr nor Mrs Madoff should be allowed to live wealthy with the money they stole.

    Yikes! And we think March Madness is crazy (none / 0) (#191)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 03:48:20 PM EST
    Link

    The Associated Press 3/16/09
    BAGHDAD -- Police say an Iraqi soccer player has been shot dead just as he was about to kick what could have been the tying goal in a weekend game south of Baghdad.

    Police Maj. Muthanna Khalid says a striker from the Buhairat amateur team was facing only the goalie during a Sunday match in Hillah when a supporter of the rival Sinjar club shot him in the head in the final minute of play.

    Sinjar was leading 1-0 when the shooting occurred. Khalid said a spectator was arrested.

    More Iraqis are turning out for sports events now that security is improving. Major matches in Baghdad are heavily guarded but security in amateur games in smaller cities is often lax.
    Monday Morning Open Thread | 203 comments (203 topical)