home

Thursday Afternoon News and Open Thread

Here's the latest:

  • Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich will be indicted later this afternoon.
  • The House passed the tobacco regulation bill.
  • The Dow surges and stocks are up.
  • Vicente Carrillo Leyva, another suspected Mexican drug lord, has been arrested -- while exercising at a park.
    The announcement came as U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano were preparing to meet outside Mexico City this afternoon with top Mexican security officials to discuss how to staunch southbound smuggling of weapons to drug cartels from the United States.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Fraud: We Don't Need More Laws | Ward Churchill Wins Wrongful Termination Suit: $1.00 Damages >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Chris Dodd in trouble in CT (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:11:50 PM EST
    according to Quinnipiac, which has him trailing all of the possible Republican challengers:

    Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd trails former U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, a possible Republican challenger, 50 - 34 percent in the 2010 Senate race, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today, as voters disapprove 58 - 33 percent of the job the Democratic incumbent is doing, his lowest approval rating ever.

    Matched against two other possible Republican challengers, Sen. Dodd trails both State Sen. Sam Caligiuri 41 - 37 percent and former ambassador Tom Foley 43 - 35 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

    [snip]

    The incumbent's approval is down from 49 - 44 percent March 10.

    Dodd gets a negative 30 - 58 percent favorability rating, compared to 39 - 12 percent favorable for Simmons with 47 percent who don't know enough to form an opinion. More than 80 percent of Connecticut voters don't know enough about Caligiuri or Foley to form an opinion.

    [snip]

    "A 33 percent job approval is unheard of for a 30-year incumbent, especially a Democrat in a blue state. Sen. Christopher Dodd's numbers among Democrats are especially devastating. Since the AIG controversy, his approval rating among Democrats is down to 51 percent, and only 58 percent of Democrats say they will vote for him against Simmons, who at this point is the best known and strongest Republican challenger," said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, PhD.

    I think this is not the last poll we are going to be seeing where Dems up for election in 2010 are in t-r-o-u-b-l-e.


    Chris Dodd (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:32:43 PM EST
    may be something of a special case due to his extremely close ties to AIG and the financial industry in general.  Also, I'm not sure the people of Connecticut were thrilled with his vanity run for President.  He's had quite a bit of bad news of late and he's unfortunately way, way too tied to the proverbial "folks who got us into this mess."

    Parent
    If things continue as they are (none / 0) (#40)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:00:17 PM EST
    going, I predict 2010 will be an anti-incumbant year....

    Parent
    But Judd Gregg (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:20:24 PM EST
    is definitely not running in 2010

    Parent
    A 16 point deficit? Ouch. Just how tied (none / 0) (#26)
    by tigercourse on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:49:18 PM EST
    to AIG was he? You'd think he'd have to be the CEO to get numbers like that.

    Parent
    Dodd lied about theAIG (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:06:44 PM EST
    bonus issue in the stim bill.  He just lied. He issued three completely contradictory versions of how it got in there in less than a week.  I assume CT voters-- and media-- were following his statements more closely than most of us and are more aware of it.

    Parent
    Am I wrong or did Dodd attempt (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:48:50 PM EST
    to meet the expectations and desires of the Obama administration verses his own..... and thereby ended up labeled "a liar"?  And now he's going to take one for the Obama team for allowing the legislation that Obama requested pertaining to the bonus situation?  This was another "happening" I didn't dog for details because I was reading economic websites and blogs.

    Parent
    well (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by CST on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:55:25 PM EST
    i would say trying to meet those expectations is what got him in trouble with the bill.

    but he lied about it of his own accord.  the fact that it was in there is not his fault - but if you do something just tell it like it is.

    Parent

    Gotcha (none / 0) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 07:38:13 AM EST
    This is news? (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:18:57 PM EST
    that Barak, Hill, Chris and the whole gang are required by the system to line thier pockets every so often with the contributers largesse in order to stay in the game?

    Parent
    People are angry, (none / 0) (#38)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:58:48 PM EST
    and when they get a chance to exercise it, they will.

    I think Dodd's role as head of the Banking Committee is what is hurting him - a lot - but who knows what will happen over the next year?

    I will be just as interested to see how those who are rejecting stimulus money are affected come election time.

    Parent

    Best way for Dodd to beat this? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Joelarama on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:16:29 PM EST
    Push through legislation to protect consumers against credit card abuses.

    With no sweeteners for the banks.

    IMHO.

    Parent

    That would be a start (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:50:47 PM EST
    but in doing so would he be defying his President's economic recovery plan?  I mean, why isn't this already being done?

    Parent
    Pre-Bush legislation. (none / 0) (#91)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:55:29 PM EST
    Bankruptcy rules changed under Bush, Jr. favored credit card cos.

    Parent
    I know. I'm talking about caps on interest, (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Joelarama on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:58:19 PM EST
    fees, and abusive marketing practices, among other things not directly related to bankruptcy and chargeoffs.

    It's a place to start.

    Parent

    Yes it is. n/t (none / 0) (#94)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 05:02:29 PM EST
    Tracy (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CST on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:23:00 PM EST
    This one is for you.  Somewhere to take your next vacation.  I'd wait till the summer though.

    That's precious (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:12:46 PM EST
    and my mostly German genes rolls and dimples would blend right in :)

    Parent
    YouTube links please? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:30:23 PM EST
    Favor, please?  There are some of us on slow Internet connections or reading from work or are pressed for time or have other reasons why watching a YouTube video is somewhat dicey.  If you put up a YouTube or other video link, could you pretty please also put a sentence or two on what it's about so we have some way of knowing whether it's of enough personal interest to click through and take the time to watch?

    Arlen Specter (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:01:17 PM EST
    I have been so wrapped up in (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:04:48 PM EST
    investigating our economic situation that my memory of where Specter previously stood on privatizing Social Security eludes me.  And since Shelby is running around hollering about how he didn't vote for the banking and modernization act that made credit default swaps possible and I couldn't believe that so I looked it up and yes  indeed, he was the only Republican who didn't vote for it.......doesn't that mean that Specter did?  WTF man?  It's almost comical, but truly....your memory is like a lock box :)  What has Specter's previous stand been on privatizing Social Security?

    Parent
    Ambiguous, but generally opposed (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:15:02 PM EST
    It's an unpopular thing to be for in PA, and contributed mightily to the fact that Bush lost the state twice.

    Parent
    You are a jewel when it comes to (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:16:44 PM EST
    knowing and understanding your regional demographic.

    Parent
    ::blush:: (none / 0) (#78)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:26:58 PM EST
    Tim Pawlenty (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:04:52 PM EST
    May be in a jam from the Franken-Coleman fiasco

    I think this is (none / 0) (#25)
    by eric on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:48:58 PM EST
    a typical Politico manufactured controversy.  Pawlenty will sign the certificate if they put it in front of him.  It's the law.  And, if anyone has any doubts about when the certificate should issue, the Minnesota Supreme Court has already written that it will issue when the matter is decided in STATE court.

    LINK [pdf]

    Parent

    This really won't matter (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:04:10 PM EST
    If Coleman takes his case federal and a federal court issues a stay.  

    Parent
    Do you think (none / 0) (#50)
    by eric on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:10:21 PM EST
    they will find a Federal court that will second guess a state supreme court?  I don't.

    Parent
    32.2 million Americans... (none / 0) (#4)
    by desertswine on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:16:47 PM EST
    that 1 in 10, are on food stamps.

    Damn.... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:39:44 PM EST
    Even factoring in a little food stamp fraud, say 1 in 12 or 15 Americans truly can't feed themselves without assistance.  Scary.

    Since the master of the universe sector is on the dole because too much is not enough for them and less is off the table, I guess we'll have to jack the taxes on cigarettes and booze again to pay for the increased food stamp usage.  Maybe start a federal lottery and federal scratch-offs.  That way the poor can feed the poor and the welfare rich can skate...again.

    Parent

    Just wait until (none / 0) (#61)
    by NYShooter on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:54:08 PM EST
    one of Limbaugh's quislings sends him a picture of a food stamp recipient checking out at the market.

    What's THAT in the cart?? A bag of CHEETOS????

    Hair on fire! Brain explodes!

    "That's it folks; THERE'S where your money's going."

    Parent

    With all due respect (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by CoralGables on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 05:33:10 PM EST
    the ingredients in Cheetos are Enriched Corn Meal, Vegetable Oil, Whey, Salt, Cheddar Cheese, Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Maltodextrin, Disodium Phosphate, Sour Cream, Artificial Flavor, Monosodium Glutmate, Lactic Acid, Artificial Colors, Citric Acid and Contains Milk Ingredients.

    One could do far worse. And they come from a company based in Dallas, Texas that has won several awards from the Environmental Protection Agency. Why that's positively an American food group. I dare Rush to mess with Cheetos. Frito Lay would sic the Frito Bandito on him.

    Parent

    and back-atcha, respecfully, of course (none / 0) (#109)
    by NYShooter on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:17:05 PM EST
    just exactly what "artificial flavors" are in there?
    huh?

    The Army told me that too; I spent four years impersonating a eunuch. Heat, bugs, and the occasional .45 Cal whizzing by were bad enough, carrying the moniker, "limpy" was over the top.

    Parent

    come on (none / 0) (#110)
    by CoralGables on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:34:13 PM EST
    artificial flavors...you know, the things that make them taste like something they're not.

    I should have mentioned... I don't eat Cheetos, I'm not affiliated with Frito Lay, but I did grow up on Fritos and always loved the
    Frito Bandito

    Parent

    Which of those ingredients (none / 0) (#111)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:41:03 PM EST
    makes Cheetos glow in the dark?  That amazing orangey hue just doesn't look like it oughta be, y'know, food.  But I well remember that they were easy to find even in the middle of the night, without a flashlight. :-)

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#112)
    by CoralGables on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:51:59 PM EST
    that's a typo on the package and Disodium Phosphate should read Disodium Phosphorescence.

    Parent
    Question to all you internet savvy types. (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:20:11 PM EST
    I own a biz, and it has a website. Call it www.SUO.com.

    Anyway, I got this yesterday by email:

    Dear Manager

    We are shanghai wuyin net technology co.,ltd, an Service organization of Internet in China.

    Yesterday our registration department received an application form from Hong Kong JianCheng Co.,Ltd,  They have to register internet brand (SUO) and some in China and Asia's domain name. www.SUO.cn www.SUO.com.cn www.SUO.asia

    But we found that  Hong Kong JianCheng Co.,Ltd is not the original owner of the brand and trademark, and we realized that the brand and trademark belong to your company after confirmation.

    I need confirm a question with you that whether you authorized  Hong Kong JianCheng Co.,Ltd to register these domain name.

    If you had done that , We will work procedures in accordance with the company to help them complete the registration, If not, the registration of these domain name will bring your company some confusion, conflict of the market.

    I need your answer to do the next step work.

    Thank you with my work.

    Jerry Lan

    Shanghai Wuyin Net Technology Co.,Ltd

    My guess is that ultimately they want me to send them money to buy SUO.cn, SUO.com.cn and SUO.asia (none of which I have any interest in), or that Hong Kong JianCheng Co.,Ltd, is going to try to squat, or whatever, on those domains.

    Do you all think that is what they're up to?

    That or maybe they are (none / 0) (#11)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:27:31 PM EST
    on a phishing expedition.

    Haven't seen that version before - but my email provider catches almost all my spam.  

    Parent

    Ah, yes, phishing. Did not think of that. (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:36:25 PM EST
    You are smart (none / 0) (#16)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:36:43 PM EST
    I think the answer can be found here.  But in short, you are right.

    Parent
    This is a scam (none / 0) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:40:18 PM EST
    You can read more information about here.

    Or just google "Chinese domain name scam" and read tons on it.

    There is no need to pay any attention to that email you were sent.

    Parent

    Does anyone else see the humor (none / 0) (#23)
    by scribe on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:48:30 PM EST
    in the name of the Chinese Domain Name administrator?  From the linked article:

    China Internet Network Information Centre (CNNIC) administers Chinese domain names with ".cn", ".org.cn" and ".net.cn" suffixes. Part of CNNIC's role is to oversee domain name registration services through appointing authorised domain name registrars

    That's "CNNIC", pronounced "cynic".

    Parent

    Nice catch ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:52:24 PM EST
    that's classic computer scammer humor.

    Parent
    Thanks guys! (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:57:05 PM EST
    Domain name scams must be all the rage (none / 0) (#57)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:43:19 PM EST
    Dear sir,

    we are interested to buy your domain name ACT3SPA.COM and offer to buy it from you for 65% of the appraised market value.

    As of now we accept appraisals from either one of the following leading appraisal companies:

    sedo.com
    pozde.com
    moniker.com
    accuratedomains.com

    If you already have an appraisal please forward it to us.

    As soon as we have received your appraisal we will send you our payment (we use Paypal for amounts less than $2,000 and escrow.com for amounts above $2,000) as well as further instructions on how to complete the transfer of the domain name.

    We appreciate your business,

    Thanks,

    Mark Brown

    That's the one I got a few days ago. I think I paid $10.00 for the domain name and never put up a site. It should expire really soon, so not sure what these guys were actually after....unless they own the appraisal businesses they listed. Of course, there's a fee for getting the appraisal done.

    Parent

    I hope the FDA doesn't ruin... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:20:56 PM EST
    my beloved Reds if this thing passes...I have a sneaking suspicion all the real nasty stuff is what makes 'em so good.

    And I'm sure Leyva's successor is already wheeling and dealing and kidnapping and killing...that or Leyva will run things from his cell.  Arresting these thugs is an excercise in futility, we need to hit 'em where it hurts...in the pocketbook.

    There's nothing (none / 0) (#32)
    by eric on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:54:39 PM EST
    really too bad in there.  At least not by way of additives.  The one thing that you would probably not want them to change would be the processing with ammonia.  That alters the PH and makes the nicotine more bio-available.

    LINK

    Parent

    Interesting.... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:00:44 PM EST
    Thanks E.

    Parent
    I used (none / 0) (#48)
    by eric on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:06:14 PM EST
    to be a tobacco lawyer.  :)

    BTW, Camel Lights is my choice.

    Parent

    Have you smoked any Canadian cigs? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:11:08 PM EST
    See I used to have this cig habit too and I had this friend who smoked and was a healthfood vitamin freak and she always smoked cigs from Canada because they didn't have all the crud in them.  They were really quite nice, and the tobacco was slightly moist and not all nasty parched dried out.  She did tell me though that I would probably have to jones off of all the added crud in my Marlboro 100's if I tried to switch...why ruin a good thing?  I mean if I was going to jones it had better be to quit completely.

    Parent
    It remains to be seen how FDA will consider (none / 0) (#73)
    by Joelarama on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:18:54 PM EST
    cigarettes "safe and effective."

    Unless the legislation, which I have not read, calls for some other standard.

    Parent

    I wish Obama had not done this (none / 0) (#9)
    by iceblinkjm on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:23:45 PM EST
    Done What? (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:29:15 PM EST
    Taken part in a G20 family photo?

    Parent
    bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia... (none / 0) (#17)
    by iceblinkjm on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:39:25 PM EST
    I did not know that POTUS were subjects of his Royal Barbarian.

    Parent
    Watch out (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:43:05 PM EST
    Those secret Muslim rumors will start flying again!

    Parent
    He bowed down to the Queen too... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:48:44 PM EST
    Cream City said "when in Rome", and I can understand that, but I'd prefer "With all due respect to your traditions, America does not recognize royalty, only democratically elected leaders."  

    Our leaders can still be polite, but I don't want them bowing or kissing rings or any of that crap that should have been retired to the scrap heap of history long ago.  If other countries wanna roll that way, fine, but we don't have to play that tired game.

    Parent

    People treat our President's with a large (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by tigercourse on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:50:18 PM EST
    degree of deference. Perhaps it's a little healthy humbling for them to treat someone else the same way.

    Parent
    he should treat his boss that way... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:58:29 PM EST
    that would be us...f*ck the Queen.  She's almost as big a drain on the UK as our royalty, AIG execs.

    I wonder why the Brits keep the royals around...illusions of grandeur?

    Parent

    God save the Queen (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by eric on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:05:18 PM EST
    God save the queen
    She ain't no human being
    There is no future
    In England's dreaming

    Sex Pistols

    Parent

    Probably (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:53:53 PM EST
    The same reason they keep the Dalai lama, or the Pope around, tradition, continuity, identity, and power both symbolic and real.

    There is something impressive when someone says that they are a sixth generation ironworker, furniture maker or musician. More often than not the skills increase over generations. Not sure how that translates to royalty but there you have it.

    Parent

    tigercourse I'm sorry (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:28:35 PM EST
    but after no WMD's at rather pick my big toenail than show a degree of deference to Dubya.  If you ever see some woman on CNN being berated for taking off her shoe and picking at her big toe in the presence of our 43rd president that'll be me.

    Parent
    For my part (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:52:59 PM EST
    I see nothing wrong in showing respect out of personal choice, as opposed to a sense of obligation.  Subjects bow to the monarch because they're afraid they'll be thrown in the dungeon if they don't; an expression of respect from a non-subject or fellow head of state is more sincere because they have no such worries.

    I feel like we fought a revolution not just because we didn't want to bow to kings, but because we didn't want to be FORCED to bow to kings.  There's something cool and American about saying "you know, I don't have to follow your rules, but I'm going to do it anyway just to be a nice guy."

    Parent

    So, when your children's little friends (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:58:54 PM EST
    start coming to your house and jumping on your furniture, you will be just fine with that because they don't have to follow your rules?

    Unfortunately, we learn "please" and "thank you" from an early age because we do think there is value in showing respect for others and not just to be labeled a 'good guy'.

    Trust me, if the Saudi's were to come over here and drive on our roads the way they drive on theirs, you would be screaming for some respect.

    Do you stand when the judge enters the courtroom? Do you refer to him/her as "your honor"?


    Parent

    Hm (none / 0) (#85)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:41:57 PM EST
    This is an unnecessarily confrontational comment IMO.  I don't know where you got any of that stuff from.

    Parent
    point taken and your quite reasonable but I still (none / 0) (#34)
    by iceblinkjm on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:56:05 PM EST
    would not have bowed and given the man such respect. His record and his family are simply atrocious. They don't deserve such respect.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:00:37 PM EST
    to the extent your point is that Saudi Arabia is a special case, I can't really disagree with you.  A friend's mother lived there for several years (and raised her daughters there!) and I can't really imagine how she managed.  Although it's important to remember that the Saudi attitude towards women isn't some kind of top-down thing from the royal family; in fact, in many cases its the royals who turn out to be the most liberal folks in the room.  But they're certainly at fault for giving in to the unacceptable demands of the hardline clerics and their fundamentalist followers.

    I wouldn't spit in the man's eye - hey, we need good relationships with these countries, including some countries we don't like much at all - but it's still somewhat galling to see them treated with respect, sure.  I didn't love it when Bush was holding hands with Prince Abdullah.

    Parent

    There are some excellent books on the (none / 0) (#59)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:51:29 PM EST
    Saudi's. Unless I misread what you've said, you don't have a clear understanding of the country or the royalty.

    I lived there for two years. As a woman, I had to abide by most of the cultural restrictions, but I found it to be a country much more respectful of women than you suggest.  

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:56:57 PM EST
    I wasn't there personally, but I certainly found my friend's stories appalling.

    I would also note that this was a couple decades ago that she was raising her kids over there.

    Parent

    Yes, indeed, (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:01:38 PM EST
    a couple of decades ago for me, too. My daughter was there, as well.

    Americans in Saudi had it pretty nice.


    Parent

    Clarify, though, (none / 0) (#66)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:05:54 PM EST
    you make it sound like she was a single mother.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#83)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:40:32 PM EST
    Dad worked for one of the oil companies, which I assume is why they were there in the first place.  But I don't get the sense that he had much involvement with raising the girls.

    Parent
    The oil company people, (none / 0) (#89)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:52:50 PM EST
    especially ARAMCO folks lived very well and were in protected compounds where they could buy pork and all the forbidden things.

    Doesn't stop people from forming negative opinions and telling tales that would make things sound bad enough to fit the dislike they had for the life.

    During the GHWB Desert Sand invasion many Americans (women and children) in Dhahran were forced to evacuate the ARAMCO compound and come home. They were very upset and wanted to return asap.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:02:08 PM EST
    And you will never become a dignitary or head of state either. Too much sacrifice of personal freedom for you to take that job.

    Parent
    I'll let that one go without comment since this is (2.00 / 1) (#49)
    by iceblinkjm on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:08:03 PM EST
    the internet and your nobody to me.

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:15:35 PM EST
    That you took that as an insult, it certainly was not intended to be one. Do you have ambitions to become a world leader? If you do, you will never be able to spit in the face of a dictator, autocrat, or general tyrant. Usually that behavior is saved for the worst types of fascists, and I do not see you striving towards that.

    Parent
    You know what? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 05:53:45 PM EST
    I know the Saudis are the absolute scum of the earth but that's the way it goes when you're President. You have to do all this protocol whether it's the Queen of England or the slimy Sauds. IMO, if you really don't want to be put in this position then maybe they should be handled by the state department or something.

    Parent
    There ya go. I like that (none / 0) (#46)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:04:53 PM EST
    answer the best, Steve M.  We have the freedom to choose to respect traditions of others, even some that used to be the traditions of the British lands here, the eastern seaboard.

    My part of the country -- and yours in your youth -- was so briefly British (we were under the French flag for a century or so) that maybe it's more of a Yankee thing to be so worried about acknowledging those traditions.

    Parent

    Then (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:02:29 PM EST
    Back here at home, no one should stand when POTUS enters a room.

    Parent
    I wouldn't... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:26:18 PM EST
    unless I was getting up to introduce myself.

    I didn't join the Army because I don't salute out of obligation...only out of genuine respect, which must be earned and not bestowed.

    Parent

    Jed Bartlett would have issues (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:19:38 PM EST
    One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-A$$ Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.


    Parent
    All that saluting :) (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:23:13 PM EST
    Sometimes I salute my husband and it makes him hiss at me because supposedly I don't even do it right :)  There is an actual way to properly salute and soldiers in basic or in officer candidate school stand in front mirrors practicing saluting.  I think it's a riot.

    Parent
    My husband would rather eat his own feces (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:25:22 PM EST
    than ever fail to stand when the POTUS enters.  I could be distracted though and not get it done and I'd be okay with that :)

    Parent
    The nuns trained me well. (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by caseyOR on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 05:43:48 PM EST
    When I was a wee Catholic schoolgirl, we stood up whenever any adult entered the classroom. And we practically bolted down the hallway in order to hold the door open for the nuns while greeting them with the all purpose "morning, S'ter."

    To this day, I stand when just about anyone enters a room, and I hold the door for everyone. I am also very consistent with my "yes, ma'ams" and "no, sirs".

    Parent

    Of course we recognize royalty, we just (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:45:33 PM EST
    don't have any here. We most certainly recognize and respect royalty throughout the world, though.

    Parent
    he dipped his head at the Queen and she nodded (none / 0) (#28)
    by iceblinkjm on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:50:19 PM EST
    back as equals. He flat out BOWED at the King as any subject would. BIG difference.

    Parent
    I can see where this one ... (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:15:05 PM EST
    is going.  Big shock and outrage on Fox, the wingers on the march.  

    It's the end of the world ... Obama bowed.

    We hear from all fronts on this.  Silly attacks.  Silly defenses.

    Then ...

    Video is "unearthed" of Bush, Reagan, Clinton, etc. doing the same thing.

    Initial claims all prove to be spurious.  Much time, video and ink has been wasted.

    Economy still not fixed.  Not a single additional person has healthcare.  And so on.

    So why don't we avoid all that.  And just stop talking about such an erroneous issue right now.


    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#54)
    by eric on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:19:28 PM EST
    its like when Nancy Pelosi wore a scarf on her head when she went to Syria.  Turns out ALL women cover their heads like this, including Conaleeza.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:00:00 PM EST
    Maybe you think that Obama believes he is a subject of King Abdullah, I do not think Obama sees it that way, nor do most people.

    He was being polite american style, not so different from Michele putting her arm around the Queen.

    Technically both mistakes, but charming, I am sure, from the other countries perspective. That is always the luxury of the foreigner. Ex pats get a lot of slack and have great freedom exactly because they are not subjects to whom the rules are relentlessly applied.

    Parent

    But did he (none / 0) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:54:40 PM EST
    buy him an iPod, as he did for the queen?  

    iPod is the new diplomacy.

    Parent

    I am sure he already has one made out of (none / 0) (#35)
    by iceblinkjm on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:56:46 PM EST
    solid gold and encrusted with jewels...

    Parent
    All I saw Obama do was... (none / 0) (#29)
    by desertswine on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:51:23 PM EST
    to shake hands with a bunch of Zombies.

    Parent
    The bow? Ah, let's just look at it (none / 0) (#20)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:40:18 PM EST
    as a sign of respect from a new leader to a longtime leader.  Or from a younger man to an older woman.  If he goes to Japan -- or meets an entourage of Japanese in our country -- I would bet and frankly hope that he would bow, too.

    If the 2008 campaign is supposed to be so over, then the American Revolution really, really is over.  Besides, we won.  So we can be gracious winners -- especially when we need the Brits again now.:-)

    Parent

    Oh, the link didn't work (none / 0) (#21)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:42:19 PM EST
    for me but brought up the comments there, and I presumed wrongly that this was about Obama's bow to Queen Elizabeth.

    Bowing to another world leader . . . ah, well, too.  The Muslim thing again?  That is so over, too, except for the rabid righties who will see what isn't there, anyway.

    Parent

    Meet The Beeetlez (none / 0) (#53)
    by SOS on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:17:22 PM EST
    Can't buy me love (none / 0) (#55)
    by SOS on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:22:58 PM EST
    no!

    Parent
    Interesting day in Chicago: (none / 0) (#79)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:26:59 PM EST
    The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is in town today to observe Chicago's bid to host the '16 Olympics.  They have been greeted with the indictment of our former governor and a protest march by to Frateranal Order of Police.  The Daley Center (city hall) was surrounded.  Oh, as my office is a block away, I also observed other "interesting" characters, such as a man in rainbow stretch-pants, no shoes, with a windmill on his head, riding a bike festooned with the American flag.  
    Ah, it's going to Rio....

    Correction (none / 0) (#81)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:29:40 PM EST
    "impending indictment" of our former governor...

    Parent
    Now... (none / 0) (#93)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:59:51 PM EST
    "indicted" former governor...

    Parent
    The usual superficial nonsense is (none / 0) (#82)
    by Joelarama on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:36:29 PM EST
    captivating the media in the U.K. and U.S. during the G20 summit, in the depths of a world recession.

    And, this time, the New York Times notices the nonsense.  Progress?

    http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/hugs-and-high-jinks-and-protocol-be-damned/


    Chris Matthews just had (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:40:54 PM EST
    Hitchens as his guest.  I was hoping all the faux progressives who loved them some Hitchens were watching.  He was defending Bush and Bush's war.  Funny how conservative elites like Hitchens and Matthews were adored by (some) progressives just because they so hated Hillary Clinton and were willing and able to broadcast their misogynistic garbage on air.  

    And Matthews was drooling over Reagan today.  WHY?  Well he was giving the "Hardball" award to Obama for "standing his ground in these hard economic times"  and compared it to how Ronald Reagan stood his ground and fired those Patco workers.  Any progressive who still insists Matthews is anything but an elitist conservative, a Reagan loving millionaire pundit boy needs to watch today's show.

    Hitchens!?!?!? (none / 0) (#86)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:44:33 PM EST
    How does he have a voice?  Hide your scotch!

    Parent
    I'm beginning (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 06:01:51 PM EST
    to think, unfortunately, that maybe the wingers were onto something when they were talking about how the press hates this country. Maybe they don't hate the country but they sure do hate the middle class no matter how much they protest.

    Parent
    Thanks goodness I'm not one of those (none / 0) (#102)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 06:07:22 PM EST
    progressives! Methinks my new TeeVee wouldn't last the broadcast . . . .

    Parent
    Something (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 06:09:47 PM EST
    to think about: Remember how Tweety and Hitchens were huge Bush apologists for years and years. I guess they'll make excuse after excuse for Obama like the did with Bush until the approval ratings go down. They are so out of touch that presidential approval ratings are the only thing they understand.

    Parent
    The "awwww" story of the day (none / 0) (#95)
    by NJDem on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 05:30:07 PM EST
    Awwww (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 05:40:27 PM EST
    Reminds me of this one.

    Parent
    The spots win . . . . (none / 0) (#101)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 06:05:15 PM EST
    only because of the belly up pic! O.M.G. what I wouldn't give to raspberry those bellies :P The lil' striper is very adorable though and I would be more than happy spending my day cuddling with him/her. {sigh} I'm really in the wrong profession . . . .

    Parent
    Definitely go "awwww" n/t (none / 0) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 06:14:31 PM EST
    Dr Jess Fiedorowicz for Q&A tonite/ Corrente (none / 0) (#104)
    by jawbone on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 06:10:11 PM EST
    PSA of the Day: Single payer advocate and activist Dr. Jess Fiedorowicz of the Physicians for a National Health Program will be on CorrenteWire.com for Q&A tonight, Thursday, April 2, 8-10 p.m. CT (9-11 ET/6-8 PT).

    Dr. Fiedorowicz was at the Des Moines WH healtcare forum Lambert blogged about yesterday, the one where the WH blogger somehow left out all mention of this single payer advodate's appearance, comments, and questions.

    There's a post stickied at the top where you can begin posting questions. Dr. Feidorowicz took some questions this morning and has dropped in off and on since then. He knows his subject.

    Sorry to be kinda late to post about this, but hope you get there with good questions, thoughts.

    I would love nothing more than to (none / 0) (#106)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 07:20:37 PM EST
    ask the good doctor some questions - I read through the earlier blogging -  but alas, I have tried twice now to be approved for commenting - since last October - and...

    ::crickets::

    Even managed to snag lambert here one evening, e-mailed him at his request and...

    ::crickets::

    It's quite the exclusive site, apparently.


    Parent

    Done, Anne, apologies (none / 0) (#107)
    by lambert on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 07:34:18 PM EST
    One guy, too much work. I do a batch, sort out the spammers and the Russians, take hours, I fall behind again....

    Anyhow, you should be in now, and he's coming back at 9PM EST.

    Parent

    Yay! Finally...and thank you! (none / 0) (#108)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 07:41:31 PM EST
    It's been killing me not to be able to comment!

    Parent