home

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

I have been reading with some amusement the back and forth between Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher and their readers on L'Affaire Olbermann (did Immelt make a deal with Murdoch to silence Olbermann's attacks on BillO in exchange for BillO not covering GE?)

My disdain for Olbermann is a matter of record, and the journalistic value of Olbermann's attacks of BillO (or BillO's "reporting" on GE for that matter) seems dubious to me. But the principle matters. Glenn and Jane are right about that. The idea of the corporate interest of a journalistic enterprise driving editorial content is anathema to principled journalism. But when it comes to Olbermann and BillO, I can't get too worked up. Neither are really journalists (though Olbermann has less of a need to depart from reality, for as Rob Cordrry famously remarked, "the facts have a liberal bias.")

Speaking of non-journalists, Arianna has her Clinton Hate on again.

This is an Open Thread.

< Journalists Ling And Lee Now Home | Sotomayor Confirmation Debate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    a huge storm rolled (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 09:56:34 AM EST
    through yesterday morning.  at lunch my neighbor called and said "you have a tree on your house"

    I said "oh sh!t" and dashed home.  

    turns out I had parts (very large TREE sized parts) of three different trees down in my yard and on my house.  good news is no permanent damage to the house.  knocked out the power.  finally got that back at about 8 last night.

    found the dog hiding under the bed.

    Wow - glad your dog is OK (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:19:01 AM EST
    I imagine he is traumatized though! Sorry - hope your roof dmage isn't too bad, or that you needed a new roof anyway and this is a good way to get it covered by insurance!

    Parent
    could have been way worse (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:22:16 AM EST
    lots of damage in my little town.  the silver lining - the tree on public property that was quickly encroaching on my Dish signal is laying on its side with its roots in the air.

    I just have a huge mess to clean up.  and lots of fire wood.

    Parent

    There you go! (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:26:48 AM EST
    You will be ready for winter.

    Parent
    Sorry to hear that. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:49:41 AM EST
    We keep getting visits by tree companies offering us quotes.  We have six huge black cherries - two dead, three dying.  They are short lived trees, so these are natural deaths.

    Cherries rot in place.  Literally.  They decay so rapidly that they shed smaller and bigger chunks all the time.  Ike didn't budge any of them and neither did any later wind or ice storms.  They do look a sight - standing tall, dark and barren, even though they aren't dangerous at all.

    Two white pines did fall down.  They are tall, spindly and top heavy - and not on my property unless they are horizontal.  The last estimate for 5 tree removal I got yesterday was $1500.  Decided to get an estimate for the pines, in case more come down - $250 each.  (Brush chipped, returned and wood cut and stacked.)

    The power company is pruning trees ruthlessly this year - Ike cost them dearly.  

    Parent

    my house (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:54:06 AM EST
    which I currently rent but am considering buying is surrounded by huge trees.  with the wind and tornados here I have worried about what happened yesterday since I moved in.

    I love trees and am the last person to cut one down but I would consider some of the ones in my yard if I owned the house.

    the good news it all the ones that can easily take out the power went down yesterday in one fell swoop of a domino effect.

    Parent

    Certified Arborist. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:00:35 PM EST
    Anyone can cut a tree down, but it takes a certified arborist to tell you if a tree ought to be cut down.  

    The worst trees are the ones that are fully leafed out - they present maximum resistance to the wind.  Dead trees present very little resistance.  (Look at palms in high winds - note how they evolved to present minimum resistance to high winds.)

    Things to look for - obvious rot, fungus, sap stains, sap oozing, hollow limbs or trunk, die back in the crown.  Also - any significant removal of trees on the windward side.  The pines fell because a stand of second growth trees were removed for the housing development. It was a wind break hundreds of feet wide.

    Silver maples.  Silver maples can be maintained to minimize the breakage they are notoriously prone to - but it will cost you hundreds of dollars every 2-3 years.  

    Parent

    Also worth considering (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:08:19 PM EST
    after safety is that many species of birds that nest in holes in dead trees are declining dramatically because we humans keep cutting down the messy-looking things.

    I have a very ugly near-dead old paper birch on my property that kinda spoils the view in one direction, but the birds make heavy use of it for nesting and bug-hunting, so every time I think of having it taken down, I think of the birds and figure I'll just let it fall down in its own time.

    If it were near my house, obviously, that's a different story.  But if a dead or dying tree isn't threatening anything, please consider just leaving it up.  Plenty of time to hire someone or cut it up and take it away yourself after it comes down on its own.

    Parent

    There is that. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:28:30 PM EST
    And there is what arborists are concerned with - trees that pose a threat to people or property.  My trees won't fall on anyone's house or car, nor should anyone but a trespasser be injured by them.

    Doesn't hurt to make sure you are covered in terms of liability.  

    Parent

    well (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:17:24 PM EST
    I now own two chain saws.  a regular and one on a 15 foot pole.

    what could go wrong?

    in case of zombie attack Im covered.  as long as they are in reach of an extension cord.


    Parent

    Take good care (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:52:24 AM EST
    so far in life (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:54:36 AM EST
    I have avoided chain saws.  seems no more.
    be afraid.

    Parent
    Very close to a page out of our own (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:08:38 AM EST
    lives.  We didn't prune or go through much around here at first and the first major storm sent us a lesson.  Now when the health of something is challenged or its just getting overgrown, we prune or replace pretty fearlessly.  I suppose we could call it forest management.  Then we even started replacing some trees that were less desireable with others that fruit or you can make things out of and the tree easily grows back.  Some fungus came through and killed the heck out of parts of our mature dogwoods, we didn't want to let them go when half of the tree was still trying to fight the good fight but discovered the hard way that to avoid possible damages we sort of had to.

    Parent
    Oh yeah, one warning (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:12:01 AM EST
    my spouse did take out the powerlines one weekend afternoon/evening last football season.  I think he outed power right before a Southern college game and I think our name is still mud or at least DIY idiots in the neighborhood.

    Parent
    ha (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:17:50 AM EST
    if I did that I would have bigger problems than trees in my yard.  point taken.

    I will be careful


    Parent

    Make sure the chain is sharp. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:20:00 PM EST
    My husband borrowed a chainsaw to deal with the downed pines this spring.  The blade had supposedly been resharpened recently.  I told him after watching him struggling, that he should have bought a new chain for it and considered fair exchange for borrowing it.  He refused of course - he just has to learn the hard way.  

    The pines were really easy to deal with.  They were so tall and fell so far that most of the tree was supported on limbs that had sunk securely into the ground.

    Parent

    hopefully (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:21:43 PM EST
    I will have pictures tomorrow.


    Parent
    I have a 14" and a 24" (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:27:59 PM EST
    and lots and lots of trees. I never loan chain saws because most people who don't own one don't have the experience and training to use one.. Instead I will do what the neighbor needs done... besides...blood causes the chain to rust and bone dulls it quickly

    Parent
    well (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:32:40 PM EST
    I now own two and have absolutely no training or experience.

    hmmmm

    Parent

    I speak of the kind (none / 0) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:56:57 PM EST
    that you yank on a cord to start....and go put put put put put

    ;-)

    Parent

    You have a brain (none / 0) (#160)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 06:04:23 PM EST
    and can read instructions and likely have a healthy respect for anything that can carve up solid wood.  Just make sure you have secure footing and you'll probably do fine.  

    Parent
    started suspecting (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:26:35 AM EST
    that Olberman and OReilly are really the same person.

    mmmm...have they ever been seen together? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:28:35 AM EST
    You may be on to something. Does KO use a loofah?

    Parent
    Arianna's obsession. (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:28:15 AM EST
    Bill Clinton goes to North Korea and secures the release of two Americans. This is at least a signal that North Korea is interested in some kind of relationship with the United States. A possible defusing of a nuclear threat. Cooperation between the Clintons and the Obama White House. Not bad.

    So how does the very strange Arianna Huffington sum it up?
    "Bill Clinton upstages Hillary."

    Arianna Murdoch.


    That is exactly what I thought (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:33:27 AM EST
    when I saw her headline.

    What the heck is Arianna's problem?  


    Parent

    What the heck is Arianna's problem? (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by SOS on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:02:28 PM EST
    Her ego

    Parent
    She married someone she thought (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    would be a very successful politician and it did not work out that way. My armchair psychologist thinks she doth project too much.

    Parent
    I think Arianna's (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:21:45 PM EST
    either jealous of Hillary.
    Or she has one hell of a crush on Hillary.

    Or both.

    Parent

    So, what's Maureen Dowd's problem? (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:36:33 PM EST
    She has a column today that makes Arianna's look, well, not so bad.

    Here's a portion of today's MoDo stylings:

    Maybe it was some clever North Korean revenge plot, giving the limelight to Daddy to punish Mommy. Just as Hillary muscled her way back into the spotlight, moving past her broken elbow and grabbing the focus from her bevy of peacock envoys, she was blown off the radar screen again by an even more powerful envoy: the one she lives with.

    [snip]

    It's fun to speculate whether Bill and Kim discussed the exchange of insults with Hillary. (North Korea issued a jibe back that Hillary was "a funny lady" and that "sometimes she looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping.")

    You can picture a charming Bill putting matters in perspective: "Pay no mind to that, Kimmie. She's an amazin' woman, but she just goes off sometimes. You should hear what she calls me when she gets riled up. An unruly teenager and then some."

    There's nore, if you're in the mood for a migraine, or have some ugly plates and glasses you've just been dying to throw against a wall.

    Parent

    Maureen's problem (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:44:35 PM EST
    is the same as Arianna's, imo.

    The obsession borders on that of a stalker.

    Parent

    They pay her for this sh!t?!?! (none / 0) (#181)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 08:04:04 PM EST
    Un-F'ing-believable.


    Parent
    You left out (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:01:04 PM EST
    "ONCE AGAIN!!!"

    lol

    Parent

    Pardon my feminism (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:45:37 AM EST
    But why is the Penn. gym slaughter not being described in the media as a hate crime?

    If African-Americans had been singled out, or Jews had been singled out -- it would be all over the media.

    This guy singled out women. It's a misogynist crime. This doesn't even make the headline or first graf.

    just about to post this (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:47:55 AM EST
    diary of George Sodini.

    from Stinque

    Like many other news orgs, the AP today is reprinting excerpts from the online diary kept by George Sodini, who killed 4 women and then himself at a Pittsburgh area fitness center last night.  The diary focuses on his problems with women and other worries, but also has some comments about the "liberal media," the "Obama economy" -- and it opens with remarks about last fall's election, the election of "The Black Man" and jokes about black men and white women.  All left out of the AP excerpts and nearly everywhere else.  Here is the full diary.  

    Parent

    Oh good (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:51:01 AM EST
    Now that racism has entered the picture, maybe they'll give a few grafs lower down to misogyny.

    Parent
    Misogynist crime is all too common (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by denise k on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:58:56 AM EST
    Maybe part of the reason that this does not get "hate crime" coverage is that it happens in one way or another every day.  Every time a man kills his wife, it is a form of misogyny hate crime.  Keep her in her place is the message.  Just like with AAs or other groups.  

    This event is just an extreme example.

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:07:39 PM EST
    Because "women" constitute the largest group in the US, and are not a minority..  

    Of course that in not the reason, but something about the statement may be in the ball park..

    Think of this, is man on man violence a hate crime when someone hates another gang member. And since gangs are often mysogonist or extremey sexist, it is almost always man on man crime?  Or women on women violence that is gang related?

    Or is it a hate crime because a violent male fights with men in on a regular basis, due to being beaten by his father?

    Confession, I have been convinced by Jeralyn that hate crime legislation is not good.

    Parent

    I'm not sold on such legislation myself (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:09:59 PM EST
    But in the cases you mention, men are not killed because they are men. They are killed because they are gang members, etc.

    These women were killed because they were women. They were singled out for an act of explosive rage against women as a sex.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:13:49 PM EST
    But in the later case, men are fought with because they are men. And in the former case it could be construed a hate crime because it singled out a group, namely a gang.

    I think the problem with this whole thing is it just gives prosecutors more power to force plea bargains. The jail time doled out in the US is excessive, imo, to begin with. Adding more categories seems a bad idea.

    Parent

    but but but (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:16:52 PM EST
    I'm not arguing for new legislation or new categories.

    I'm just pointing out that the media is almost completely ignoring the misogynist nature of this crime.

    It says a lot about us as a society that misogyny, even when it leads to slaughter, is kind of invisible, kind of normal.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:27:33 PM EST
    But man on man hate is quite normalized, imo. One can say that since white men are the dominant power they cannot be counted as targets, and I agree with this in a way. Still it is clear that that group has gets a lot of violence and it is accepted, look at the movies..

    In general the corporate media is not quick to point out any kind of bigotry, even though it is ubiquitous. Much of their corporate advertising is dependent on playing bigoted trigger reactions.

    And in no way do I mean to minimize misogyny.


    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:29:23 PM EST
    Also If you think about all rape is a hate crime. Man on man rape too.

    Parent
    The Guy Was A Psycho (none / 0) (#75)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:55:35 PM EST
    Clearly, even though the word misogynist is not in the ABC article I read, through the piece it makes it clear that the shooter hated women.

    The article also compares Sodini to the Cho Seung-hui Virginia Tech shooting. That was not labeled a hate crime either. But the crime of a deeply disturbed psychopath.

    I think that your feminism here is a bit off the mark.

    Parent

    Wasn't Upstart Crow's original point (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Spamlet on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:07:43 PM EST
    simply that the media are blind when it comes to crimes of violence against women as a class?

    I don't think that UC was arguing for/against the philosophical notion of "hate crimes" in general, or for/against laws against so-called hate crimes. That discussion is very interesting but beside UC's point, IMO.

    I think UC was saying that when African Americans, Jews, Hispanics, and other groups are clearly singled out for violence as a class, on whatever specious basis (skin color, "genes," beliefs, etc.), the media routinely note this fact--except in the case of women. To paraphrase Doris Lessing, violence against women is like the sun in the tropics--functionally invisible for its ubiquity.

    So on that score, I find UC's feminism absolutely right on the mark.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#84)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:16:18 PM EST
    And s/he is also not keen on hate crime legislation.

    Although I read an ABC article about the crime, and it certainly did not suppress the fact that the guy killed these women out of hatred, and payback for being ignored.

    The only thing is that he is clearly a psycho. Crosses the line from an even a serial misogynist, imo, to a whole other class of people.

    As for normal day to day bigotry, including misogyny, I agree that the corporate MSM does not call it out, rather they support and feed off it.

    Parent

    What would the positive effect (none / 0) (#93)
    by Samuel on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:30:21 PM EST
    of doing so be in your opinion?  

    Parent
    You didn't ask me, but (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Spamlet on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:52:41 PM EST
    if you're asking what would be the positive effect of seeing misogyny actually named in the news and entertainment media (in the same way that racism and antisemitism are named in connection with certain violent crimes), I have two responses.

    The first is an answer (certainly not the only one): If the news and entertainment media actually named misogyny as a social pathology as they do with other forms of hatred against designated groups, instead of just continuing the current practice of describing and sensationalizing the effects of misogyny, then at least one generation of girls and young women might be able to grow up knowing that violence, sexual and otherwise, against women is not "normal." But it does come to seem routine to women as well as men when it's a standard feature of movies, TV shows, and TV news. The murder of a woman by a man she knows is seen as a personal issue between the two. When she doesn't know the murderer, the crime is seen as the personal psychopathic baggage of one male crazy.

    My second response is a question to you: What, in your opinion, is the positive effect of not seeing misogyny called by its proper name in the news and entertainment media? In other words, what, to your mind, are the advantages of maintaining the status quo?

    Parent

    Distortion (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:06:11 PM EST
    You seem to have a blindspot, imo. Just like here at TL calling someone a racist, mysoginist, antisemite, bigot, homophobe, et al are libelous claims.

    For whatever reason, which I do not understand, you seem to think that the media is something different from a corporate echochamber.

    Hatred of the other, be it women, men, mulsims, jews, only reflect the particular power structure examined at a given moment.

    Some here would have it that the CBS et al, would have called Obama a mysoginist. Do you think that would have spared future generations of women being abused?

    Parent

    Wha? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Spamlet on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:49:02 PM EST
    Some here would have it that the CBS et al, would have called Obama a mysoginist. Do you think that would have spared future generations of women being abused?

    How did you manage to go there? I was not in any way at all talking about President Obama. I don't even know how to respond to this except to say that in the context of this discussion, which is about the mass murder of women for being women, the term "misogyny" is an accurate descriptor. Calling an action by its proper name (misogyny) is not the same as petty name-calling.

    Like you (I guess), I see the media as a corporate echo chamber. And for me the fact that the media are corporate shills is a problem, not an immutable reality to be impotently deplored, or to be abetted by a retreat into the "universality" of violence, a killing-fields kumbaya.

    Yes, all kinds of people have always killed all kinds of people, all the time. Do you think that means we should stop talking about racism, for example?

    Parent

    Not Stop Talking About isms (none / 0) (#140)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:18:26 PM EST
    How did you manage to go there?
    From your comment. First off, I think that there are psychotic people out there who kill because they are deeply disturbed. I believe this case to be one of them. I would classify the guy as  mentally ill.

    IOW,  I draw a line. Obama was accused by many here of being a misogynist. Hillary was accused of being a racist. In all cases were the MSM to repeat those charges, including the topical one above, they could be sued for slander.

    I am surprised that TL did not delete the misogynist charges, or maybe she did. She certainly deletes any comments that charge someone with racism.

    And I do not agree with you, that if ABC, had labeled the killer as a misogynist that it would have had any effect on future generations of women growing up.

    Violence is endemic in our society and women are not the only targets. IMO, it is best to analyze case by case situations and address them in their context, be it a family, a school, a prison, a church, a factory or a community, etc.

    Parent

    Read (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Spamlet on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:32:54 PM EST
    Let me clarify. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Samuel on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:10:08 PM EST
    I agree with a lot of what you say.  My question, which I did not word carefully enough, is what would be the advantage of classifying it legally as a hate crime?

    Secondly, just to engage in the other aspect of our discussion:

    The initiation of violence is universally unethical.  Whether or not a behavior is "normal" does not effect the universality and logic of this ethic.  What would be helpful (but won't happen soon) is for the media to recognize this universality.

    I've seen faulty logic which concludes that a husband initiating violence against his wife can be ethical but against a stranger it is not (if anything, the corruptness increases with the helplessness - abusing a totally defenseless child with no ability to leave being one end of the spectrum).  While this reasoning is truly horrific, society seems to recognize the error in such an assumption.  Yet when we discuss universality of ethics it seems that(and this is what I think is, and found to be, truly confusing as a child) if you put a costume on someone and call him a soldier and that individual INITIATES violence against another human being, that is deemed ethical and met with praise in our society.  This ofcourse cannot be the case.  If ethics are universal the surely putting on a costume does not exempt someone from that.  

    Just thoughts.

    Parent

    I was never (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Spamlet on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:55:24 PM EST
    talking about classifying misogyny as a hate crime. As it happens, I am quite ambivalent about hate-crime legislation even though I belong to three frequently targeted classes.

    My take on this whole discussion derives from George Orwell's concern with truth in language. "Misogyny" is a word. It has a meaning. The word and its meaning should be invoked and applied when the truth of a situation demands it.

    Parent

    Word. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Samuel on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:33:11 PM EST
    I dig you.  What do you think of this article on hate crime legislation? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/03/AR2009080302222.html

    Parent
    I think Cohen (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Spamlet on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:27:27 PM EST
    is generally rather dim, and I think (for more reasons than I have time to explain today) that the column you linked to is poorly argued. But I do agree with him that in hate-crimes legislation "what's being punished is thought or speech," and that's a dangerous place to go.

    Nevertheless, to take only one example of hate-based crime--namely, rape, which I regard as a variant of lynching (and sexual assault is quite often an element in what is more conventionally understood as racially motivated lynching)--in my lifetime I have seen more than one case of a man getting a misdemeanor conviction, or no conviction at all, for murdering another man who allegedly made a pass at him (the "homosexual panic" defense). Compare that to women locked up after retaliating against male rapists, only to be raped again in prison by male guards.

    I understand why threatened classes of people want to be sure that some kind of justice is administered, not just a wrist slap. To some, hate-crimes legislation looks like the answer. It's an interesting question.

    Parent

    Takes a special kind of person (none / 0) (#198)
    by Samuel on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 08:51:04 AM EST
    to call something poorly argued after having reference other articles as some form of evidence for the claim and name nothing specific - and think their a logical being.

    You didn't identify his argument.

    Parent

    Google Search (none / 0) (#156)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:58:47 PM EST
    I only came up with one source that referred to
    George Sodini's misogyny
    and that was a opinion piece.

    My guess is that the MSM can describe the details but they cannot name it out of concern for libel.

    If anything the MSM loves to sensationalize news, so it would be in their interest to describe it as a misogynist hate crime.

    If the DA goes after a case as a hate crime then the MSM can report it.

    I think that is true for racism, anti-semitism ect. as well.

    Parent

    While they never said "misogynist" (none / 0) (#183)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:17:15 PM EST
    Local news report just a moment ago totally called out his blame on women for his reason and singling them out.

    Parent
    Interesting Update (none / 0) (#185)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:47:05 PM EST
    AP Omits Killer's Obama References
    Like many other news orgs, the AP today is reprinting excerpts from the online diary kept by George Sodini, who killed 4 women and then himself at a Pittsburgh area fitness center last night.  The diary focuses on his problems with women and other worries, but also has some comments about the "liberal media," the "Obama economy" -- and it opens with remarks about last fall's election, the election of "The Black Man" and jokes about black men and white women.  All left out of the AP excerpts and nearly everywhere else.  Here is the full diary.

    E&P via raw story

    iow unusual twist, mentions women hatred/obsession but not racism white suprematism.

    Parent

    Here's how you want your Democratic (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:56:08 AM EST
    president to refer to you if you're liberal and not-so-happy with the current shape of health care reform:

    MoveOn.org recently announced it would place ads to pressure centrist Democrats on health care reform but yesterday, President Obama told Senate Democrats that he wanted "left-wing groups" to back off. "In this context about the less productive tone of the debate in Washington, he said he didn't like to see `left wing groups attack fellow Democrats,'" a While House official said.

    via ThinkProgress.

    I wonder if he ever considers that the "less productive tone" has anything to do with his lackluster leadership and the less-than-satisfactory-and-fractured effort by the committees, who are ignoring the voices of the people?

    "Left-wing groups," indeed - what's next?  "Wingnuts?"

    I don't consider MoveOn (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by dk on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:15:40 PM EST
    a left-wing group, anyway.  They were pretty much co-opted by Obama long ago.  I mean, what left-wing group in its right mind would support Obama's healthcare plan?

    Parent
    Obama doesn't like lefties or progressives (none / 0) (#49)
    by SOS on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:58:40 AM EST
    You haven't figured that out?

    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:05:42 PM EST
    doesn't like anybody but himself. He was just fine with attacking democrats himself but apparently doesnt think that Moveon should do it.

    Obama is only about Obama and the sooner people realize this the better.

    Parent

    His actions and his history told me (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:09:20 PM EST
    that a long time ago, but there's something about hearing him say these kinds of things that really irks me.

    In recent weeks, he also made reference to "the little single payer advocates" and the "bleeding heart liberals."

    This is the man who is leading the Democratic party?  Do they let Republicans do that now?

    Parent

    "Less productive" - (none / 0) (#59)
    by sallywally on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:12:30 PM EST
    like "disgruntled employees" who want the bosses to be fair.

    The real negative approach is that of Obama! Just like it is the crappy bosses.

    Makes me sick.

    Parent

    Obama and the liberals (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:50:22 PM EST
    This is the man who is leading the Democratic party?  Do they let Republicans do that now?

    Well, he appointed a pro-life DINO as head of the DNC and he still gets branded as a feminist by NOW and Ms. Magazine. It's bizarro world.

    Obama has always been hostile to liberal ideas, and why so many liberals jumped on his bandwagon will forever remain a mystery to me.

    Sometimes huff and ouff doesn't work (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:43:56 PM EST
    Texas, a model of wind power's potential, now is a model of wind power's pitfalls too.

    Minders of the Lone Star State's electricity grid had to cut power to some offices and factories Wednesday evening when the wind dropped--and with it, electricity produced from the state's many wind farms. The green juice slowed from 1,700 megawatts to the trickle of 300 megawatts.

    Link

    Need a combo system (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:15:51 PM EST
    wind and solar.

    And shouldn't there be back up power?

    Parent

    This is where (none / 0) (#161)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 06:04:45 PM EST
    demand limiters come in.

    You should have enough backup power to keep the grid from falling below a certain level.  That level can be dropped if you allow demand limiters.  The size of the grids may have to be rethought as well.  Huge grids mean huge demand as well as huge supply - and balancing a grid is a tricky business as we found out during the Great Northeast Blackout.

    The old grid depends on fossil fuels and a relative handful of nuclear powered plants.  If we start transitioning off of the fossil fuels, we'll have challenges balancing the grid with fluctuating renewable energy sources.  The old model needs to change.  Our lifestyle needs to change.

    Because the fossil fuels will run out.  Probably in my children's lifetimes.

    Parent

    Totally agree (none / 0) (#179)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 07:51:00 PM EST
    The size of the grids may have to be rethought as well.

    Yeah. I experienced the NE blackout also. Hello! "Teachable Moment" as far as grids go!!

    I've been watching NYC roll out green power/living with interest. Reducing building use etc along with a variety of ways to produce power etc. Wind, water, solar, various types of urban farming and expanding access to local fresh food, revamping the Empire State Bldg and others, greener public transit/taxi fleet, the million trees (1/4 million have been planted already!), and other programs. Both new stadiums are greener (Mets rate higher than the Yanks though) also. Recently something opened along the Brooklyn waterfront (navy yard area iirc) that was either wind or water powered. It's nice to see some progress close to home (the whole city) and the various participants.

    Parent

    No doubt that's your upper lip... (none / 0) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:32:17 PM EST
    I am all for wind power, solar power... even speaking truth to power.

    Let me know when either one can produce electric power at the same price I can purchase it at today. And that is pre cap and tax rates, not the triple that cap and tax is going to bring us.

    And that doesn't mean that I am against research. I am just against government boondoggle research designed to make Obama look good when speaking in a city with 17% unemployment..

    Parent

    Since you have no military experience (none / 0) (#192)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 07:26:19 AM EST
    you don't understand the meaning of "Mission."

    If its not to late, join up. The Army needs a laugh.

    Parent

    The Advocate (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:46:55 PM EST
    Not happy with Obama so far....

    Of course, they mistakenly write:

    He talked to us -- and about us -- more, and more explicitly, than any nominee before him. And not just when he had to. Not just at Human Rights Campaign dinners. At black churches, in his stump speech, on the night he was elected: He said the word that every major candidate before him had found every excuse not to say. He named us. He said gay.

    Maybe they forgot about the whole "refusing to take a picture with Gavin Newsome" thing, among others.

    These gay groups and organizations (none / 0) (#141)
    by tigercourse on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:40:37 PM EST
    are pretty pathetic. Obama was always pretty clear that he wasn't particularly on his side. To cry about it now is more then a little disingenuous.

    Parent
    Disingenuous? (none / 0) (#145)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:07:19 PM EST
    To make believe that the Obama flack about not wanting to pose with Gavin Newsom is because Obama is a homophobe, or against gay right is about as disingenuous as it gets.

    It was clearly a political move. Whether or not you think it was a smart move or a stupid political move is another story.

    It is a fact that Obama has been the most open vocal supporter of LGBT rights, in Presidential history.

    Times are a changing.

    Parent

    Er... (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by otherlisa on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:44:23 PM EST
    Donnie McClurkin? Rick Warren? The DOJ ruling?

    Maybe there are reasonable explanations for all of these, but I do think Obama needs to do some bridge-building with the LGBT community.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#167)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 06:46:02 PM EST
    Obama needs to do some bridge-building..
    Agree, but Obama upped Clinton by having the Lesbian and Gay Band Association Marching Band be part of the inaugural parade. Clinton had them play during inaugural events.

    Parent
    He invited the band to play? If gay groups (none / 0) (#169)
    by tigercourse on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 06:56:48 PM EST
    think that's real progress, no wonder they aren't making any real headway with the White House or Congress.

    Parent
    That Is Silly (none / 0) (#199)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 11:51:57 AM EST
    The official position of the wingers and conservative america is that gay people are sick, and need help. Some exceptions to be sure, but usually they are people like Cheney who was forced to realize that gay is normal because of his daughter.

    To celebrate gayness is the inaugural parade is certainly taking a position that gays are normal and mainstream. Just like there are mainstream people who believe gays need help, like McClurkin.

    Certainly including the band represents a big shift in the official position, and it clearly reflects changing values in the US. A younger demographic mainly, imo.

    Parent

    The times may be changing, (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:45:43 PM EST
    but talk is still cheap; pretty speeches do not change policy.

    Get-togethers at the WH are cheap, too.  Ditto on their effect on policy.

    At some stage, the points one earns for saying the right things expire if one cannot do the right things.

    The clock is ticking on Obama's rhetorical points.


    Parent

    Like Otherlisa, I meant McClurkin (none / 0) (#165)
    by tigercourse on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 06:33:12 PM EST
    primarily. Obama used that to great effect in his campiagn. It was actually a pretty effective manuver on his campaigns part.

    And saying that Obama is the most vocal supporter of gay rights is pretty meaningless. We had a Republican for 8 years (better then Bush, yay!) and when Clinton was President, as you point out, times were quite different.

    Also, the extent of his "vocal support" doesn't seem to go very far behind a "we plan on taking care of that someday, maybe" every now and then, at best.

    Parent

    Blackwater in the news again (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:02:46 PM EST
    Not surprisingly, the "news" is not good for them.  It's more than a tad disturbing.

    These latest allegations aside, that this company STILL has government contracts is disgusting.    

    And par for the course, I suppose.

    Surprised? (none / 0) (#128)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:30:55 PM EST
    Descriptive wrtiting . . . (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:58:57 PM EST
    From a Top Chef Masters judge:

    Here's what you need to know about the true Scotch egg: it is a British traditional food, which has no noble antecedents. Or to put it another way, it may once have been a glorious thing, but nobody of my generation in Britain is aware of such a  thing. It is a nightmarish food item, the stuff of cheap family weddings, where the irascible scary uncle gets drunk and tries to score with the bridesmaids. The buffet at that sort of wedding would always include a platter of Scotch eggs, which would leave as nasty a taste in the mouth as the party. Think dry, cold, coagulated, cheap quality sausage meat - minced pig eyelids, ground down ears and knee caps; the cheapest of the cheap - with a crust of bright orange breadcrumbs on the outside, and inside an egg boiled to such a degree that if lobbed in a crowded public space it would be regarded as a dangerous weapon. Put said item in deep fat fryer and leave to DIE. Scotch eggs are what you eat at three o'clock in the morning when you pull into a service station off the motorway and are too hungry to make a proper judgment. They are what you eat in British pubs - not the nice oldie worldy, prettified ones; the nasty, sticky floored ones, where the curtains small of nicotine and the air is heavy with the taint of regret and disappointment - when you have drunk ten pints of lager the colour and flavour of something that came out the wrong end of a cat. They are the food of desperation. At Critics' Table I asked Art Smith if he'd ever gone 10 pints in a British pub. He looked at me as if I'd asked him for the late Queen Mother's bra size, poor love.

    link

    The competition continues tonight . . .

    That had to be Gael Greene, right? (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 07:04:30 PM EST
    By the time I got to the end, I was feeling urpy at the whole idea of an over-cooked Scotch egg embedded in a greasy hunk of sausage-food, eaten in the color-draining light of a gas-station in the wee hours or in a bar stinking of smoke and body odor.  Gack!

    When I got to the end, I laughed out loud ar the "Queen's bra size" bit...I'm sure Art Smith would have been mortified to be asked that, lol.

    Looking forward to tonight's show - hope there is something more appetizing than Scotch eggs on the menu.

    Parent

    It was the Brit (none / 0) (#180)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 08:00:58 PM EST
    His blogs are a hoot and I think I may have to check out what he writes there (in England) and his books. He described cheap sausage perfectly. Reminded me why I make my own!!

    Just remember the Scotch Egg iffin' ya ever need a weapon  ;)

    Parent

    I think all of us foodies should pick a (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 08:19:38 PM EST
    date and all go see Julie and Julia in our respective cities when it comes out this month, and then report to an open thread to discuss...Meryl Streep - is there anyone else who can so capture the essence of the characters she portrays? - apparently IS Julia Child.

    Can hardly wait to see it!

    Parent

    I'm in crunch time (none / 0) (#184)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:21:25 PM EST
    so I prob can't see the movie until it's available in other forms. And I can honestly say, her voice grates my nerves ;) But a very good idea that I could get past her voice on.

    It's opening Friday. Isn't it a wide release? We should pick a date but not hold me totally to it {grin}

    Parent

    Iran considering espionage charges (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 09:58:04 AM EST
    against the 3 hikers caught in Iranian territory

    An Iranian lawmaker and member of parliament's National Security Committee rejected the suggestion the Americans were tourists and said authorities were investigating whether to charge them with espionage.

    "Surely we can say that they came as spies," said Mohammad Karim Abedi, a hard-line lawmaker, speaking on Iran's state-run Al-Alam TV. "The concerned authorities will decide whether they were spies or not. If it is proven that they were spies, the necessary legal procedures will be sought against them."

    "The U.S. forces are trying to leave some security elements behind, after leaving Iraq," Abedi added. "It's unacceptable to penetrate Iran's borders this way. ... We condemn this."



    Greenwald (none / 0) (#3)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 09:58:49 AM EST
    seems to have owned this story, even in the face of fanboys saying, "Olbermann denied the allegations! You must now admit you were wrong!"  Looks like he wasn't wrong.

    Apparently Olberman came out tough (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:24:00 AM EST
    the other night, now that this is out in the open. daily howler had a good record (of course) of KO giving lame excuses for backing off of O'Reilly in June, right after the MSNBC-Fox truce.

    I don't really care what KO and OReilly say about each other - 2 sides of the same coin as far as I'm concerned - so losing KO's voice attacking O'Reilly matters not. The point is that Greenwald is not wrong, and the fanboys need to examine the record.  

    Parent

    A little while back (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:22:33 AM EST
    one of my conservative colleagues came into my office, and said, "Do you think this white supremacist who shot up the Holocaust museum, who turns out to have child porn as well, do you think he could possibly be the worst person in the world for one night?  Or is it going to be Bill O'Reilly again?"  I had to admit he had a point.

    Parent
    Ya think? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:38:22 AM EST
    From Jane Hamsher at the end of her post examining the KO's conflicting stories:

    There will be a cloud over Olbermann's credibility until he clarifies what really happened.

    I would say at least until then. He's got a long way to go to get any credibility in my mind.

    Parent

    The record I'm referring to (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:24:59 PM EST
    is that on June 1, the day the MSNBC-Fox truce reportedly was struck, KO did indeed announce that he would stop dwelling on O'Reilly. Anyone that believes that was a coincidence also probably believes KO had Richard Wolffe on his show for years and did not know what his other jobs were.  

    I don't care what he has apologized for.

    Parent

    Brian Stelter (none / 0) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:33:55 AM EST
    is not Judith Miller.

    Parent
    Neither is glenn Greenwald (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:09:06 PM EST
    I think it's all too easy to get caught up in (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:36:58 AM EST
    the Olbermann/O'Reilly aspect of this, and end up not paying attention to what's really going on - which is corporate media owners manipulating the content of their news/commentarty shows in order to keep the stock prices up and the dividends flowing.

    We thought the news was verging on worthless for a while now, given the obvious bias the media bring to any number of issues; somehow, having it confirmed, and finding out this wasn't happening at the news division level, but at the higher corporate parent level, just creeps me out.

    I don't really give a rat's patootie about Olbermann - I never found him particularly bright, or particularly credible to begin with - but the jaundiced eye with which I was already watching "the news" is now more likely than ever to be watching something else, since GE has now revealed that none of their news division products can be trusted.

    Parent

    I liked his first tweak offs on the Bush (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:55:58 AM EST
    administration just fine, and his ratings went through the roof....I mean obviously America was sick and tired of having no liberal tweakers on cable news talking about any of the Giant lawlessness that the Bush administration rolled around in daily.  But the content of the tweak never improved and then Bush would get tweaked for something but when Obama did the same thing there was NO TWEAK.  I just had to shrug and go away then. I'm fine with tweakers as long as they are consistent in their beliefs or can at least explain to me why they may seem to be inconsistent at a given time.  

    Parent
    I wasn't all that fond of him when he was (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:17:48 PM EST
    in the sportscasting business, either, for whatever that's worth.

    I think he's tried too hard to overcome the perception that someone from the sports side of the business might not have the intellectual chops to do political commentary - so he's always working to be the smartest guy in the room, which, when "the room" has millions of people in it, makes for a lot of pomposity and overbearing blather.

    Life's too short to willingly subject myself to that.

    Parent

    Or, possibly, the only human (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:37:28 PM EST
    Olbermann (none / 0) (#186)
    by prittfumes on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:22:38 PM EST
    Thanks, Anne!

    . . . pomposity and overbearing blather.

    Perfect description.

    Parent
    In this house we like Rachel a lot (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:44:18 AM EST
    but if the bosses are going to censure Rachel or even bring self censure agreements to the tables of the MSNBC voices...do I really want to waste my time on MSNBC at all?

    Parent
    No, you don't (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:46:55 PM EST
    Just stop watching it. It's easy, and you will feel so much better.

    Parent
    G.E. = Big Wind (none / 0) (#4)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:00:10 AM EST

    General Electric is big into wind power.  MSNBC seems to have a clear conflict of interest in reporting on this very expensive form of power.  

    Wind is (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by eric on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:01:18 PM EST
    free.  I know, I use it to sail around my local lake all the time.

    Now, did I have to spend some money to buy a boat to use this wind?  Yes.  But after a few years of sailing around the lake, the price of wind power is very appealing.

    Parent

    "expensive"? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:38:40 AM EST
    Is that just in up front costs or does it include collateral damage?  Nuclear has huge associated costs - both in start up and disposal.  Coal has mining damage, CO2 damage and waste disposal costs.  

    Parent
    costly power (none / 0) (#64)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:18:12 PM EST
    Here is a picture that illustrates the problem of wind generation.  Note that the output is ZERO as the wind farm is becalmed.

    When this happens, or when the wind is so fast that the turbines must be shut down to avoid damage, the power needs to come from somewhere.  Right now.  That means conventional generation warmed up and ready to go on a moments notice.  While you can produce electricity with wind, it requires "spinning reserve" to be a reliable system.  That spinning needs fuel to keep spinning, even if no power is being generated.  That means a wind system will have a conventional component that may approach 100% of the wind components capacity.  With wind you pay for both kinds of generation.

    Spinning [reserve] is derived from hydroelectric and combustion turbine terminology. Reserve generator turbines can literally be kept spinning without producing any energy as a way to reduce the length of time required to bring them online when needed.

    Lastly, building, operating, and maintaining all of those turbines is not with out environmental problems either.  

    Parent

    Or we can start (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:07:50 PM EST
    working on limiting demand instead.

    We have the technology to install remote switches to shut down energy hogs temporarily to reduce demand. We are accustomed to the idea that we can use as much power as we like, whenever we like.  In the future, we may find that we can't be on demand energy consumers.  We may have to manage our energy consumption according to when it is available.  

    The old ways are passing.  Change is coming.  I expect the usual amount of kicking and screaming.

    Parent

    New ways? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:23:14 PM EST
    What new way?  Third world electrical systems have run this way for a long time.  Switching to a third world standard of living with centuries of low cost coal and nuke available will be a tough sell.

    Parent
    Make it about money (none / 0) (#95)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:33:31 PM EST
    and people will come around.

    Choice A: Unlimited electricity on demand and pay Schedule A rates.

    Choice B: Install demand limiters on devices that draw over X watts and pay a significantly discounted rate.

    When you put it like that, you'll be surprised how many people will choose a lower standard of living.  

    Parent

    The problem is (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:49:46 PM EST
    that the utility has certain fixed costs that don't go away with reduced usage so your bill couldn't drop as radically as you think.

    Parent
    The people who are paying (none / 0) (#154)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:46:12 PM EST
    "luxury" rates will be subsidizing the other people who make their lifestyle possible.  If you'd like to point out that having two different rates isn't really fair - it's already done.  Businesses and industries don't pay the same rates that a homeowner does - they pay lower rates.  Who is subsidizing whom?

    (People will pay a lot for convenience.  The service sector makes a lot of money by providing people with conveniences.)

    Parent

    The difference won't be enough (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:59:35 PM EST
    to cover the loss... but I understand your need to sacrifice.  

    Parent
    I'm doing it for my kids. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 06:36:09 PM EST
    That's my reason.  It's funny you call it a sacrifice.  Is it?  Is it really so hard?  If you spend nine or ten hours at work, what needs to be running besides the refrigerator?  Ditto for all the hours you are asleep?  My husband leaves his computer on all the freaking time because he can't wait five minutes for it to boot up.  He won't even use the sleep function.

    We could do so much - if we wanted to.  The less we use, the more there is to go around.  Social justice, no?  The higher the demand, the more it costs.  Economical, no?

    Parent

    Nice rant (none / 0) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 07:30:24 PM EST
    Do you also tell everyone how much they should give to United Way?

    And why do you assume everyone is at work 9-10 hours a day. There are many seasoned citizens, many non-working spouses, not to mention those currently enjoying Obama's economic prosperity..

    As someone who has spent the last 4 years redoing a home I can tell you that I did all the proper things as far as adding insulation, high efficiency appliances, etc. I also can look at my monthly usage and see that the KWH has gone down but the price has gone up 30% and that's with TVA.

    And who is going to pay for the ability to remotely power down appliances? The consumer, of course. What will that cost?? Or do you want a complete house shut down? I could go on but I hope you get the point.

    Parent

    I guess freedom is old just (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:29:46 PM EST
    so old fashioned..

    We have the technology to install remote switches to shut down energy hogs temporarily to reduce demand.


    Parent
    It's also wasted on the childish (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:36:23 PM EST
    and the selfish.

    Parent
    Freedom is wasted?? (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:46:48 PM EST
    Well, if that's your philosophy.....

    Parent
    Theres no freedom (none / 0) (#121)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:52:40 PM EST
    outside good people to embody it.

    If you're an idiot, you're not helping anyone. That simple enough for you?


    Parent

    I forgot you're the guy (none / 0) (#123)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:55:54 PM EST
    who likes to have an idiot (he can identify with) as President.

    Parent
    I see you are demonstrating who you are (2.00 / 0) (#146)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:22:49 PM EST
    again.

    And I thank you for it.

    Please continue. I want the world to understand your pettiness and vicious temperament.

    But I suspect that those around you have had you figured out long ago.

    Parent

    Refresh my memory again (none / 0) (#164)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 06:17:33 PM EST
    Jim, what night was it that Obama announced to the nation that he was a Muslim/

    Parent
    What's a Muslim/ ??? (none / 0) (#177)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 07:32:51 PM EST
    Actually he referred to his Muslim faith... I just assumed he practiced it when visiting state 51 to 57...

    LOL.

    Parent

    From your lips (none / 0) (#191)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 07:23:39 AM EST
    hmmmmm (none / 0) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:15:33 AM EST
    Political Party Affiliation: 30 States Blue, 4 Red in '09 So Far

    very interesting map

    Not that interesting IMO (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:27:29 AM EST
    In parts of the county, there are many registered Dems who almost never vote D. Louisiana is exhibit A.

    Parent
    well (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:32:04 AM EST
    they had two democratic senators until Vitter.
    I should say "democratic" senators.  

    Parent
    There's something very wrong with that map. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:47:26 AM EST
    Oklahoma NOT in the top 10 Republican states. This is home of Coburn and Inhofe. They went 65% for McCain where Utah was 62%. Even the black in OK are Republicans (JC Watts).

    Parent
    It's bizarre (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:00:26 PM EST
    Colorado used to be a gray and that was on a good day.  Has it really changed that much?  And Alabama only leans Republican?  We do have some Dems but look at that damned Bobby Bright.  I knew he was probably the best we could do at the time but we all know that his day of the week panties are all red!

    Parent
    Colorado (none / 0) (#66)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:27:34 PM EST
     -- among other things, has a steadily growing pro-Dem Hispanic portion of electorate.  See Pew Hispanic research etc.

    Parent
    Colorado was never as red ... (none / 0) (#94)
    by sj on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:32:08 PM EST
    ... as people think.  

    Item:  Democratic Senator Gary Hart
    Item:  Republican Senator Nighthorse Campbell was elected as a Democrat.
    Item:  Democratic Governor Romer
    Item:  Democratic Governor Lamm
    Item:  Colorado was the first state to take "advantage" of Roe v. Wade
    Item:  Colorado has nearly as many "Unaffiliated" registered voters as R's and more than D's

    Not saying that we're a liberal haven :)  But there is more independence here and generally (outside of Colorado Springs) less knee jerk.  (Hinting at that independence is the fact Colorado -- a land locked state -- has more certified scuba divers per capita than any other.  I never said we made sense).

    At the same time, I would consider its "blue" status to be fragile.

    Parent

    CO went blue (none / 0) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:31:38 PM EST
    from all the CA's that moved in.. Now they have messed up another state..

    Parent
    are you from CO (none / 0) (#116)
    by sj on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:45:33 PM EST
    or are you just making things up?

    hmmm... I guess those two things aren't either/or mutually exclusive.  Either way, not sure why you felt compelled to make this comment.

    Parent

    I lived in the Denver area for 17 years (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:38:50 PM EST
    When I moved there it was the Texans that the natives loved to grouse about.. When I moved I made a huge profit on the sale of my home thanks to all the CA's who moved in, paid way more than they needed to and thought they had a bargain...

    So yes, I did. Enjoyed it. Hated to leave, even if most of my neighbors thought what CA had done was wonderful...

    I can never figure out why someone leaves a place because of problems and then immediately want to repeat the problems.

    Parent

    Heh heh heh (none / 0) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:30:44 PM EST
    California "invaded" Colorado....I love it.  I'm familiar with more Democratic roots struggling to survive in CO.  My grandma Vera introduced me to Gary Hart when I was 10 and told me he was going to be president one day :)  In our more recent history though it went very gray.

    Parent
    true (none / 0) (#130)
    by sj on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:34:31 PM EST
    In our more recent history though it went very gray.

    On the other hand, gray isn't red :)

    Parent

    I'm from El Paso county (none / 0) (#132)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:39:16 PM EST
    It is hard to not see Colorado through a red shaded lens for me.

    Parent
    Ah... (none / 0) (#136)
    by sj on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:10:20 PM EST
    I see.

    Parent
    Boulder is in the Colorado (none / 0) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:16:21 PM EST
    that is in the parallel universe :)

    Parent
    what? (none / 0) (#190)
    by sj on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 01:27:22 AM EST
    Are you sure?  I thought it was the other way around :)

    Parent
    It was the burbs, Araphoe county and surrounding (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:45:04 PM EST
    that brought CO into the Repub camp.. Denver county was totally Demo... When enough CA's came in the tide swung.. Obama is the secret weapon that will change'em back.

    Parent
    As soon as you get the word out (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 07:27:54 PM EST
    about him bringing Sharia Law to the U.S.

    Parent
    Speaking of Colorado Democrats (none / 0) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 06:05:22 PM EST
    AP (The New York Times); National Desk

    March 29, 1984, Thursday

    Late City Final Edition, Section A, Page 16, Column 5, 512 words

    Elderly people who are terminally ill have a ''duty to die and get out of the way'' instead of trying to prolong their lives by artificial means, Gov. Richard D. Lamm of Colorado said Tuesday. People who die without having life artificially extended are similar to ''leaves falling off ...

    Didn't realize just how far out in front Lamm really was.


    Parent

    In his defense? (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 06:55:40 PM EST
    "We've got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts and everything else like that and let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life."

    You call that a defense??

    Parent

    Hey, i was just reporting a Demo trend... (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 07:18:53 PM EST
    Had to dig pretty deep for that one, didn't you (none / 0) (#189)
    by sj on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 01:26:14 AM EST
    1984?  Are you kidding me?

    Or just kidding yourself...

    Parent

    I seek only to serve (none / 0) (#193)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 07:35:10 AM EST
    Have you forgotten Lamm? I mean he was merely ahead of his time.

    Parent
    Grey is boring. (none / 0) (#131)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:34:46 PM EST
    I'd call it purple.  Just like those mountains majesty.  

    Also, PPJ is almost right.  Doug Bruce is a CA transplant and he certainly did more than his fair share to ruin our State.

    Parent

    Really Didn't know that (2.00 / 0) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:41:45 PM EST
    Shows that there is some good even in CA...

    Question: What is the difference between Eastern Europe and Boulder?

    Answer: There are no communists left in Eastern Europe.

    Parent

    Latest word (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:43:39 AM EST
    is that Sotomayor vote will be tomorrow.

    I want one (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:44:02 AM EST
    although I cant see how this is a good idea.

    Martin JetPack EAA AirVenture

    funny (none / 0) (#19)
    by ZtoA on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:44:17 AM EST
    Dana Milbank and Chris Cillizza get "Posted"



    sorry, ..link (none / 0) (#20)
    by ZtoA on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:45:35 AM EST
    So glad someone posted this! (none / 0) (#107)
    by otherlisa on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:23:27 PM EST
    I was just skimming the thread to see if anyone had.

    It's a must-watch video response to the Milbank/whasisname "Mouthpiece Theater." Really really funny, in a tragic way.

    Parent

    Specter speaking on Sotomayor now (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:04:44 AM EST
    I must say, this is an interesting speech in light of Sestak's challenge. He commends the "wise latina" comments.

    the speeches are going on? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:06:56 AM EST
    I guess I should throw up a thread for it.

    Parent
    Yup, on the floor (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:07:42 AM EST
    C-SPAN 2. Dunno if this was known before, but Bond says he's voting yes.

    Parent
    I had to read your and BTD's (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:58:39 AM EST
    exchange twice: I thought he said he was going to throw up and you suggested he do it on the floor.

    Must be time for a little caffeine...and lunch.

    Parent

    That's new (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:10:17 AM EST
    You should have put (none / 0) (#72)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    a period (.) after "up."

    Parent
    Paging Nancy Pelosi! (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:30:38 AM EST
    Apparently, it's not ok for auto execs to take private jet to hearings on Capitol Hill, but it's ok to spend money on new private jets for members of Congress.

    Link

    Last year, lawmakers excoriated the CEOs of the Big Three automakers for traveling to Washington, D.C., by private jet to attend a hearing about a possible bailout of their companies.

    But apparently Congress is not philosophically averse to private air travel: At the end of July, the House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress.

    The Air Force had asked for one Gulfstream 550 jet (price tag: about $65 million) as part of an ongoing upgrade of its passenger air service.

    But the House Appropriations Committee, at its own initiative, added to the 2010 Defense appropriations bill another $132 million for two more airplanes and specified that they be assigned to the D.C.-area units that carry Members of Congress, military brass and top government officials.

    Because the Appropriations Committee viewed the additional aircraft as an expansion of an existing Defense Department program, it did not treat the money for two more planes as an earmark, and the legislation does not disclose which Member had requested the additional money.

    An Appropriations Committee staffer said the military was already planning to replace its passenger fleet, and the committee "looked at the request and decided they should speed up the replacement."



    Bubblenomics (none / 0) (#45)
    by SOS on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:53:44 AM EST
    How do you know... (none / 0) (#71)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:44:58 PM EST

    These women were killed because they were women. They were singled out for an act of explosive rage against women as a sex.

    How do you know that? Maybe they just happened to be there. Maybe he thought women would be easier to kill. That's the problem with these hate crime laws. Look at all the time spent here wondering why it wasn't classed as a hate crime, all the victimhood-status trumping, all the speculation about who gets victimized more and why and what it all means.

    It's pointless. He committed a horrible crime and should be punished for it, and that would hold whether his victims were Jewish left-handed children, members of a ska band and he hated ska music, or for that matter not human at all--if we really want to talk about crimes that go unpunished, animal cruelty is a good place to start.

    From his diary (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:52:51 PM EST
    Sodini apparently left behind an online diary that details his loneliness and longing for a female companion -- and his growing rage at what he perceived as rejection by women. The diary lists Sodini's dates of birth and death, with the death date listed as Tuesday, the same day as the shootings.

    The source who identified Sodini provided a month and year of birth that matches the birth date listed on Sodini's diary.

    The diary seems to offer a rare glimpse into the mind of the suspected killer.

    "Why do this?? To young girls? Just read below. I kept a running log that includes my thoughts and actions after I saw this project was going to drag on," the diary begins.

    Throughout the log, the writer refers to a shooting that he is planning as an "exit plan."

    The first entry is November 5, 2008. "Planned to do this in the summer but figure to stick around to see the election outcome," it says.

    The December 22 entry says: "Time is moving along. Planned to have this done already. I will just keep a running log here as time passes. Many of the young girls here look so beautiful as to not be human, very edible. After joining this gym, started lifting weights and like it."

    CNN

    Parent

    The Guy Was A Psycho (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:01:34 PM EST
    Had he not hated himself as much (or more) than he hated women, and not shot himself, he would be tried as a criminally insane person, imo.

    And I agree 100% with DancingOpposum that hate crime legislation is a bad thing.  People already get excessive amounts of time when convicted of crimes that they commit, no need for adding on more punishment, imo.  

    Parent

    Is Obama the new "Bubble Boy?" (none / 0) (#83)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:14:49 PM EST
    I don't know where Obama is getting his political advice from, but it's not working. For a guy who's been called a political genius I wonder how filtered the news he's getting is.

    His vaunted "we're all gonna sit down at a big table," approach has been a complete bust. Are his advisors telling him that? Or is he just pathologically stubborn?

    I don't know, I just have this incredibly ominous feeling about the next two elections. When even the Obama-Worshipping site, HuffPo," is loaded with comments about "unrequited love" you have to be scared. Former candle-carrying sycophants are now hedging their comments with, "I'm gonna wait a little bit longer," and "if he doesn't come across with a strong public option..........."

    Admittedly, I perceived Obama to be an empty suit from the get-go, but as a Democrat, the failure to capitalize on the Bush/Republican revulsion is just so tragic...........even for our " circular firing squad" Democrats.


    When someone says we're (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:20:09 PM EST
     "all gonna sit down at a big table," it helps that "all" the stakeholders  - not just industry honchos looking to protect their turf - are represented, and that the representation isn't just token.  

    Obama's near-refusal to seat anyone from the single-payer side of things, the grudging, last-minute invitation that finally came, and then the censoring of the little bit those single-payer advocates were allowed to say, did not exactly embody qualities of the "fair-minded statesman" Obama fancies - and advertises - himself as.

    As for the next elections, shoot, I already passed on voting for anyone for president, and having done it once, I can do it again.  I'm no longer going to vote for Democrats simply because they are registered as such - they have so consistently failed to listen and failed to deliver that I don't feel like honoring them with my very precious vote.

    Remember how we said the Congressional Democrats act like victims of abuse, unable to stand up for themselves and afraid to assert their power?  Well, far too many of the Obama supporters are in that same place: they can see how he has not just abandoned many of his promises, but adopted policies of his predecessor that he claimed to find abhorrent not so many months ago, but they are still convinced that "deep down, he's really a good guy who loves us - we just need to understand and give him some time."

    I have no idea what it will take for these people to wake up and smell the coffee; my guess is that in a few short months, they will declare that they cannot abandon him "now," just as the 2010 mid-term campaigns start, so most are probably in it for the duration.

    And I thought the Bush years were long...

    Parent

    Oh Well (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:19:37 PM EST
    You are not the only one Obama has to pander to. But it does show that you have a healthy ego in assuming that you reflect the views of the majority of americans, and if Obama would only do what you want him to do he would be a success...

    Parent
    Amazing (none / 0) (#92)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:29:45 PM EST
    I'm always surprised at your ability to hear things in that little "just make stuff up" quadrant of you brain, and then respond to me, as if there was some relevance.

    Make Stuff Up? (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:44:56 PM EST
    You are presenting your point of view as if it is the most obvious truth that everyone in this country thinks is true. Your first gross misconception is that Obama is a failure, your second idiosyncratic assumption is that Obama is an empty suit,

    and your third misconception is that Obama's biggest mistake is

    the failure to capitalize on the Bush/Republican revulsion

    Your views are matched only by republicans. Even the last one. Obama won the election, because he appeared to be a fair minded statesman, not because he was the Democratic version of Rush Limbaugh.

    Parent

    No idea if he was ugly (none / 0) (#99)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:45:37 PM EST
    Have not seen a photo. But he fits my definition of "too wierd" to a T.

    honestly (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:48:01 PM EST
    after 19 years of no sex I think most people would be "to weird"

    Parent
    How nice is it that we have not had a (none / 0) (#133)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:50:08 PM EST
    Lieberman thread in quite some time?

    the NYPPost asks (none / 0) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:58:46 PM EST
    are you ready for a gay Sherlock Holmes?

    I was born ready.

    Michael Medved, not so much

    The previews (none / 0) (#135)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:07:31 PM EST
    made that movie look pretty good.  And I agree with whoever said "The Talented Mr. Ripley" didn't suffer any at the box office.

    Parent
    Just as long as Abe Lincoln isn't involved (none / 0) (#137)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:11:14 PM EST
    RDjr and JL should make it interesting (none / 0) (#138)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:12:32 PM EST
    def could get my attention . . .

    Parent
    Per C-SPAN ticker, Bill Jefferson (none / 0) (#142)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:46:51 PM EST
    convinced on 11 of 16 counts.

    The jury must have been persuasive (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:03:43 PM EST
    Can't blame the iPhone this time. . . :D (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:06:10 PM EST