home

Friday Evening Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 06:59:37 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

We're hunkering down for another huge snowstorm expected in a few hours.

There's no motive yet in the Binghamton, NY killings today.

President Obama is ready to lift travel and money transfer restrictions to Cuba.

The president has authority to loosen the restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba on his own. The new rules will affect an estimated 1.5 million Americans who have family members in Cuba. Other Americans are allowed to travel to Cuba but only if they qualify through particular cultural, educational and other programs.

Madonna's adoption application was denied by a Malawi judge today, she will appeal.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Judge Rejects Maximum Sentence for Latin Kings Gang Leader | Final Four Day >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Evening Open Thread | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Well, there is something Obama has done... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Romberry on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 07:15:33 PM EST
    ...that I can say I support whole heartedly.

    Credit where credit is due on the issue of lifting travel and money restrictions with Cuba. Bravo!

    An improvement... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 08:30:53 AM EST
    but I'd still like the right to vacation in Cuba.  Not enough, just scrap the whole stupid f*ckin' thing...I mean we can travel to commie China but we can't go to Cuba?  WTF?

    Parent
    Vacationing a right? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 10:06:31 AM EST
    I think you want to right to vacation in cuba by flying from the US.  You can fly from Toronto to Havana right now, speaking of rights.  I want the right to vacation in Aspen at a luxury resort for free.  I'll pretend I'm a congressman on a junket.  

    Parent
    Yep... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 10:26:58 AM EST
    I meant the right to travel directly to Cuba without the Canada or Mexico rigamaroll.

    I'm not an AIG exec or Cogress-critter, I don't expect the taxpayer to pay for it:)

    Parent

    Yankee and that other stadium are ACTIVE! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 07:41:04 PM EST
    Got the Yankee game being played at the new stadium on. FINALLY!!! Baseball season is here {grin} And my new TV has picture settings to optimize for sports, so I switched it on baseball  :)

    And a shout out to my downstairs neighbor and his visiting friend. Friend carried a 50lb box of meat up to the 4th floor for me! Neighbor helped with my other items while I carried my laundry. Saved me going up and down the stairs about 5 time {big grin}

    Is it true (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jen M on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 07:51:46 PM EST
    All the Yankees players have '666' stitched on the inside of their ballcaps?  

    Me, I'm a Cubs fan so let me just get this out of the way now:

    JUST WAIT TILL NEXT YEAR!

    There, now I can enjoy the season.

    Parent

    "And that other stadium".... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 08:35:26 AM EST
    Thank you for not using that god forsaken name!

    Parent
    I had started to type Shea (none / 0) (#81)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 12:26:56 PM EST
    outta habit, realized my mistake and just couldn't bring myself to call it the other one. Just seemed so wrong!

    Parent
    Go State! (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 08:18:03 PM EST
    Final Four tomorrow.  Check out this massive rally in support of the home team.

    Oh, and Go Villanova! so little Desmond can win the office pool! :)

    Well gosh (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 08:35:41 PM EST
    if most of the people who support bombing Iran are Jewish neocons, we don't have a problem, given that less than 2% of Americans are Jewish and the neocons are a small subset of those.  You'd see polls suggesting that 90+% of Americans oppose an attack on Iran.

    Lukewarm statement from the President (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 08:43:30 PM EST
    on the Iowa decision:

    The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive protection under the law.

    Superior to what we would have gotten from Bush--but that's not saying much. Unlike Pam, I think it was essential that he leave out the word "equal." The President, for the moment, does not support equal protection under the law. So this is just truth in statementing.

    That's kinda cute (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 08:57:28 PM EST
    "Protection under the law," just not "equal protection."  And here I thought Bill Clinton was the only politician in history who chose his words super-carefully.

    I don't particularly care to parse, but I would just as soon he had stopped after the first sentence.  If it's up to the states, then leave it at that.  But in my book, celebrating the basic American ideals of equality and tolerance is never untimely.

    Parent

    You know, I disagree with him about that too (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:00:25 PM EST
    Issues of basic human rights should not ever be left up to individual states. What if he said the same thing about abortion rights? Certain people who will yawn at this statement would be apoplectic, and rightly so.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:04:46 PM EST
    I happen to believe we will get to gay marriage sooner if the states are the battleground.  I hope you don't feel that holding that opinion makes me an enemy of human rights...

    Parent
    If it's going to happen before I'm old and gray (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:07:20 PM EST
    it will be at the barrel of a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

    Parent
    Ah, but (none / 0) (#24)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:13:47 PM EST
    how many states decided to allow interracial marriage BEFORE Loving v. Virginia?  (Answer: 34 or so.)  It was hardly the first shot in the war.

    Parent
    What happens in CA with Prop 8 (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:18:18 PM EST
    will give a pretty good indication as to how long the wait will be. Because they legal issues there are now entirely different (thanks to the "progressive" reform also known as the initiative), I am not at all hopeful.

    In any case, fairness will be delayed. And that's not equal protection, so far as I'm concerned.

    Parent

    I heard (none / 0) (#35)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:36:57 PM EST
    That CA is bad.  According to my very progressive Lawyer friend in Ca, the right LEGAL decision would be to agree with prop 8 decision.

    Parent
    Well, that would be rewriting history (none / 0) (#23)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:13:44 PM EST
    of other reform movements in this country.  That very debate over strategy -- state-by-state vs. federal routes -- generally has meant many decades, even more than half a century or so for other causes.  So the first generations that fought for those reforms didn't live to see them.

    Andgarden can just leave room on his tombstone to chisel in the date when he no longer has to wait?

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:15:43 PM EST
    I have my personal belief about what strategy would be the most effective, but I would never, ever tell someone to be "patient" or urge them to refrain from a strategy that they believe in.  You know more history than I do, but I know enough to understand that it's a lot easier to counsel patience when you're not the one with your rights on the line.

    Parent
    Dont (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:51:42 PM EST
    live in a state like Ga do you? That being said, there is a definite advantage to it coming up through the states instead of it being issued by the supreme court.

    Parent
    Georgia is one of the best arguments (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:01:25 PM EST
    against the state-by-state route, historically.  Heck, even in the face of Constitutional amendments, Georgia still refused to abide by the law of the land and had to be taken all the way to the Supreme Court.  And at great cost, not only financially to reform movements but also in opportunity costs, so much more on their agendas.  And, of course, at cost to those denied their rights for years -- many who died waiting -- while Georgia played its states' rights games.

    The lessons of history, again and again, are to act like a country, not a lot of little fiefdoms.  See: the Civil War, the 14th Amendment (and that's not even one of the amendments that Georgia fought all the way).

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#40)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:53:21 PM EST
    and it may well take federal action to straighten out the most recalcitrant states, but I think it's impossible politically for the federal government to force a change like this down the throats of 49 or 50 states all at once.  That's my empirical belief at any rate.

    Parent
    Congress has rarely been able to do (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:56:22 PM EST
    that sort of thing. The Supreme Court can. But the current composition of the Court doesn't inspire confidence.

    Parent
    Yeah, (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:02:54 PM EST
    well I think the "forcing" only makes things worse in some ways. People in state like GA will get even worse if someone tries to force them. I'm more for the "shaming" of the state. When lots of other states have it people will look at GA and laugh at them. And then business won't locate here because their managers who are gay will not get equal treatment and on and on it'll go. Finally they'll get so tired of being the butt of jokes and losing business that they'll give in.

    I had a discussion with one gay guy who wanted GA to have marriage equality. I told him that he should move. It made him mad but I was being honest. No one in their right might thinks that Ga is going to allow gay marriage anytime in the next decade.

    Parent

    Lukewarm? You are too kind, sir. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:05:50 PM EST
    That's tepid.  Reads like it's said through gritted teeth.

    But Iowa?  Flatland of my forebears who had to flee to Nebraska for excitement (really; they helped to found a town of freeky radicals).  Sorry, MileHi, but I was trying to imagine a future flick called Brokeback Cornfield!  

    Parent

    I've always believed that "marriage" (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:12:40 PM EST
    was a religious term, and that while a marriage "blessed" by a religious institution is a wonderful thing, it is the recognition by the state - the civil side - that endows those who have been joined together with all the rights and privileges that accrue to couples as a result of their, well, union.

    I say this, of course, as a straight woman, married in the Episcopal Church with a license granted to my husband and I by the State of Maryland.  If we had opted out of a religious ceremony, and formalized our relationship at the County Courthouse, we would still have the legal rights accorded by the state.

    We've used the term "marriage" to encompass both the civil ceremony and the religious sacrament - it's like calling all facial tissue "Kleenex" even though it might really be "Puffs" or "Scotts" or whatever.

    What is the right thing to do?  In my mind, it is for the states to allow couples to formalize their relationships such that they all have the same rights, no matter whether those couples are both men, both women or one of each.

    What matters most?  The rights or the nomenclature?  If it were me, I would opt for the rights, whatever term was chosen to describe it - civil union, marriage, whatever.

    But, I'm coming at this as a straight married woman, who hasn't had to fight anyone or any institution - civil or religious - for the right to legalize my relationship - so...please don't yell at me if I've missed something; I truly believe that people who love each other and are committed to each other should be able to legally join together.

    Parent

    What's the term used (none / 0) (#27)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:16:17 PM EST
    in your state's laws?  Mine uses marriage in many ways for what you would call civil unions.

    So we could have hissy-fit legislative fights over clause over clause in state after state's laws . . . or we could fix it federally.  I opt for the latter.  (Obama does not.)

    Parent

    Oh, I definitely agree - I simply cannot (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:19:57 PM EST
    wrap my head around people being treated differently by virtue of crossing state lines - it just makes no sense to me.  I feel the same way about abortion and the right of women to choose; I am the same woman in Maryland as I am in any other state, so how come in one state I have control over my reproductive rights, but in another, I have to defer to some other authority?

    Equal isn't equal if it changes based on geography.

    Parent

    The President knows that perfectly well (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:21:58 PM EST
    so his statement is disingenuous.

    Parent
    I'd agree with you except for the fact (none / 0) (#29)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:19:23 PM EST
    that in the law, the term marriage and the legal rights granted under marriage are linked. You can't go down to the courthouse and get a civil union that gives you all the rights, responsibilities and protections of marriage, whether you are straight or gay.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:20:45 PM EST
    One way or the other "marriage" is going to have to take on a new meaning. Expanding it is easier than narrowing it.

    Parent
    I've (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:48:32 PM EST
    never seen anyone use so many words and say nothing really like Obama. This whole statement seems to be one that tries to please everyone.

    Parent
    Criticism of Obama coming from Pam, (none / 0) (#12)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 08:52:25 PM EST
    man that's rich. I wish his big supporters had bothered to hold him to anything back when it mattered.

    Parent
    WRT Pam, I don't think (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 08:58:37 PM EST
    that's quite fair. For others, I absolutely agree.

    Parent
    You know, you're right. I think my general (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:14:13 PM EST
    anger at some of her racial postings (the Clintons are huge racists if you didn't know) colored my opinion there. That and I don't read her blog too frequently.

    Parent
    The White House actually put out a (none / 0) (#19)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:08:08 PM EST
    corrected version, with EQUAL protection.

    Parent
    Well, what he says he wants is not (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:09:54 PM EST
    equal protection. So the first one is right.

    Parent
    True. (none / 0) (#21)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:10:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Huge snow storm (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Get real on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:24:33 PM EST
    Sorry to hear about the snowstorm.  Must be the global warming we have heard so much about.

    Ha ha! (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:32:57 PM EST
    Get it guys?  If there were REALLY global warming, it would never snow any more!  Right-wing humor, it's great stuff.

    Parent
    I believe the "in" term now (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:08:58 PM EST
    is "climate change." Makes every forecast/WAG prescient.

    Parent
    Well Yeah (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:16:42 PM EST
    Climatic instability is even a better term, with a long term result in higher global temperatures.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#54)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:29:59 PM EST
    I don't think "climate change" is intended as a hedge in case things happen to get cooler instead of warmer; I think it is just meant to encapsulate the idea that there is a lot more to be concerned about than just temperature changes.

    Parent
    Debatable, but who the hell really cares? (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 12:18:57 AM EST
    Humans will/can not do what is necessary to significantly affect climate change.

    Even if we stopped burning oil completely, 100%, today, the polar ice caps would be melted in 30 or 50 or 100 years, or whatever today's news says the new guesstimate is.

    Only wingnuts and moonbats use it as a political issue or a way of defining one another.

    Parent

    Hm (none / 0) (#68)
    by Steve M on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 12:34:21 AM EST
    I don't think the science has clearly established that it is an irreversible process.

    Are you trying to be both a moderate and an ideologue on this issue? :)

    Parent

    What? I think science has. (none / 0) (#73)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 08:28:41 AM EST
    Although, to be fair, "science" seems to change its mind pretty often. As an example, as of this week anyway, the polar ice caps'll be melted in 30 years, not 100. Probably we'll get an updated timeline again next week...

    Anyway, as to your question, I'm trying to be a realist.

    How about you?

    Parent

    Actually, I may sound more aggressive than (none / 0) (#74)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 08:30:10 AM EST
    I intended with that comment...I'm in a rush this AM.

    Parent
    and.. (none / 0) (#66)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 11:42:33 PM EST
    If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?  Same thinking.

    Parent
    This makes my head hurt; (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:23:34 PM EST
    must be the spike in my blood pressure.

    I just think it is beyond odd - it's just plain insulting to the intelligence - that Geithner has been sold to us as someone - practically the only one - with the knowledge and experience to dig us out of this crisis - so much so that we had to pretend that his tax "difficulties" weren't really that much of a concern - but what almost no one talks about is that he had a front-row seat with backstage passes - and he didn't do anything to stop this crisis from happening.  If his attitude then was that he would only be hurting the system by regulating it, why the hell is he in the position he now holds?  To ensure that the system is protected from the kind of regulation that could have prevented this crisis?

    It bothers me that they continue to think we are just that stupid that we can't figure these things out.

    ummm . . . . . (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:32:29 PM EST
    that Geithner has been sold to us as someone - practically the only one - with the knowledge and experience to dig us out of this crisis

    isn't that why they had to pay the "retention bonuses"? They were they only guys who could understand the contracts and . . . .

    Parent

    Black on Moyers: Geithner covering up huge fraud (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by lambert on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:59:36 PM EST
    I posted a large extract from the Moyers transcript, which of course was deleted, so the thread of which that extract was the head has no context. Therefore, I repost a link and two short blockquotes.

    BILL MOYERS: Why are they firing the president of G.M. and not firing the head of all these banks that are involved?

    WILLIAM K. BLACK: There are two reasons. One, they're much closer to the bankers. These are people from the banking industry. And they have a lot more sympathy. In fact, they're outright hostile to autoworkers, as you can see. They want to bash all of their contracts. But when they get to banking, they say, "Contracts, sacred.' But the other element of your question is we don't want to change the bankers, because if we do, if we put honest people in, who didn't cause the problem, their first job would be to find the scope of the problem. And that would destroy the cover up.

    And:

    WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, certainly in the financial sphere, I am [disappointed]. I think, first, the policies are substantively bad. Second, I think they completely lack integrity. Third, they violate the rule of law. This is being done just like Secretary Paulson did it. In violation of the law. We adopted a law after the Savings and Loan crisis, called the Prompt Corrective Action Law. And it requires them to close these institutions. And they're refusing to obey the law.

    Naked Capitalism has been on this for monrths so it's good to see it break out into the mainstream. And here's hoping the legal expertise on TL can help clarify the issues.

    thanks, Lambert (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 11:05:08 PM EST
    for reposting.

    Parent
    You're welcome (none / 0) (#63)
    by lambert on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 11:24:29 PM EST
    One of those [slaps forehead] moments....

    The transcript goes on to Greenwald, so it's sort  of a two-fer on this whole new radicall notion of the "rule of law," if I've got the phrase right.

    Parent

    Should Obama be able to control the internet? (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 01:20:13 AM EST
    And have access to all our private records on the internet?  I find this scary.
    This sounds way too much like something Bush would have done!  

    Guess we can forget any major (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 10:30:42 AM EST
    revisions (or, total revoking) to that Patriot Act.


    Parent
    I agree... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 08:46:31 AM EST
    sounds spooky...why would they wanna have the power to pull the plug on the whole internet, as well as access to all the records without a warrant?

    Like one of the critics in the article said, it may well make the internet more vulnerable to cyber-attack by giving one entity access to everything...so its gotta be about reading our emails, or if it gets hairy out there, shutting down our email.

    Parent

    NYT reports Larry Summers reaps millions (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by shoephone on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 01:54:12 AM EST
    of dollars from Wall Street firms getting bailouts. Ain't oversight wunnerful?

    The NYT calls him a top economic (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by tigercourse on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 02:24:55 AM EST
    advisor. He's not. He's THE top economic advisor. Summers is basically running the show, with Geitner as his deputy because he was too contoversial to get the Treasury job.

    I have to say, Obama's team of rivals is a team of bull#^%*.

    Parent

    I like Rick Steves. But while he's praising (3.33 / 3) (#11)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 08:44:57 PM EST
    Iran's family values, he should keep in mind that if his name was Rebecca Steves, it would have been a different trip.

    Predicted low tonight: 52 degrees. (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 07:07:48 PM EST
    Deosn't seem all that cold, but at Petco Park, upper box, for Angels/Padres exhibition game?  I'm taking lots of layers.

    62 Degrees NYC (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:56:29 PM EST
    And the air smells like flowers. It rained really hard during the day, which cleansed the air and stirred up the spring.

    Parent
    You made me look! (none / 0) (#48)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:03:36 PM EST
    I just checked the temp. Warmer than when I was doing the laundry earlier today. No matter how long I live here, I will never get used to the nighttime warm ups. Not that I'm complaining mind you. Comfy temps for the upcoming walk my dog's going to want/need :)

    So, have we seen the last of the wind chills for the season? {pretty please!!}

    Parent

    Weird weather day today. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:07:42 PM EST
    Raining until sometime after lunch, then sun came out and it got warm - it was 70 when I left the office a little before 5:00.

    But on the way home, sun shining, there were some clouds that started spitting out rain, and lo and behold - there was the rainbow!  Really something magical about that - but kind of dangerous to be marveling at while on the expressway, lol.  There were these dark clouds and some lit up by the sun bright white, and the rainbow sort of peeking out between these clouds.

    Something about the light made the new green of the willows and the yellow of the forsythia just pop like neon.

    Must have a front coming through because around 7:00, it got very windy - lights dimmed a couple times.

    But, it's not snowing, so we've got that going for us!

    Parent

    Minnesota lifts moratorium on nuclear energy (none / 0) (#5)
    by magster on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 07:57:40 PM EST
    on 30th anniversary of Three Mile Island.  There were some interesting diaries on Kos about nuclear energy.  They prompted me to read the Wikipedia articles on both Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.  The level of human error (and error combined with corruption at Chernobyl) makes it clear that nuclear energy will never be safe as long as there is a human element.

    Take off your blinders. (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:01:27 PM EST


    Parent
    The (none / 0) (#72)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 05:41:29 AM EST
    same with driving.  No to cars and horse drawn wagons.

    Parent
    Ummmmmm (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 08:44:11 PM EST


    Anyone catch (none / 0) (#36)
    by NJDem on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:41:52 PM EST
    Friday Nights Light tonight?

    Yes, I did. (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 10:41:28 AM EST
    Season finale next week.

    Parent
    The first (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:57:17 PM EST
    sentence says it all. Why does the head of GM get the axe when the bankers who are even worse get preferential treatment? Makes me mad.

    But don't stop there, huh? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:03:35 PM EST
    This is fraud.  We are being cheated.  Finally, it has been said in such a significant venue.

    Parent
    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:05:09 PM EST
    Cheating is almost too polite of a word. I think scammed might be a better word.

    Parent
    Fraud is illegal. They broke the law (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by lambert on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:41:08 PM EST
    (and both administrations broke the law as well; see the transcript).

    That's why "cheating" isn't the right word; these people should be prosecuted, just like the people were in the much smaller Enron and S&L scandals.

    Also, it's hard to believe that the fraudulent nature of the mortgages won't also affect all the derivatives based on those mortgages. Why should we pay 100 cents on the dollar for them?

    Parent

    transcript deleted (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:40:13 PM EST
    please don't reprint transcripts and articles here. Just link in html format.

    Parent
    Oh, sorry. Here's the link (none / 0) (#58)
    by lambert on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:43:49 PM EST
    Voila, A short quote:

    BILL MOYERS: Yeah. Are you saying that Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, and others in the administration, with the banks, are engaged in a cover up to keep us from knowing what went wrong?

    WILLIAM K. BLACK: Absolutely.


    Now I can see how posting transcripts would get out of hand rapidly. My bad.

    Parent
    Sorry to hear about yet another snow storm! (none / 0) (#61)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 11:06:47 PM EST
    You don't deserve to have winter lasting well into spring!  It's no fair!  

    I bet the spring skiing is going to be mahvalis. (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 11:34:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Where's my snowstorm??? (none / 0) (#82)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 07:22:00 PM EST
    I was promised a snowstorm!  

    Huh?  It went to Wyoming instead?  What a gyp!

    Darn that global climate change.

    You want ours? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 10:59:56 PM EST
    Four to seven inches tomorrow, thirty-mile-per-hour winds.  And it's all my fault, I'm told, because I got sick of seeing the shovels (yes, plural -- for different weights of snow, different widths of walks) and put them away.

    Mea culpa, Midwest.  What was I thinking?  It's only April.

    Parent

    Actually... (none / 0) (#85)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 10:37:01 AM EST
    ...that's the one that we were supposed to get.  It went North and East instead.  

    I was very much looking forward to waking up to a foot of snow, putting on the X-C skiis and tooling around the park.   But nooooo...

    Parent

    Friday Evening Open Thread | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment