home

Friday Open Thread: Essential Liberty Lost

Thought for the day:

Liberty -- the freedom from unwarranted intrusion by government -- is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.

--United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989).

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Tax Policy Will Drive Fiscal Policy | Not Caring About Tax Policy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    "Man gets asthma attach logging (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 11:40:23 AM EST
    onto Facebook."  link

    P.S.  Capt. Howdy's beat!

    or perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 12:56:03 PM EST
    he is alergic to banality.

    Parent
    but wait, (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 11:48:07 AM EST
    "...........if you have nothing to hide..........."

    Light at the end of the tunnel: (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 01:48:29 PM EST
    According to a report in the WaPo, our war in Afghanistan is becoming more muscular with the introduction of 60-ton, jet fuel propelled Abrams tanks.  Apparently, this signals to the insurgents (Taliban and the 100 or so al Qaeda) that we mean business.

    According to an unnamed NATO officer, the new intensity has not only military usefulness, but also, by making people travel to the district governor's office to submit a claim for damaged property, we are, in effect, connecting the government to the people.

    It seems to me that some villagers may not warm to this approach to connectedness and may be reluctant to give up their hearts and minds to our counterinsurgency master plan.

    Although the big old tanks may provide needed protection for our infantry a possibility to be reckoned with is deployment of insurgent tactics as successfully used against Soviet tanks. But that was then and this is now, and things are no doubt quite different.

    Speaking of liberty... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 11:59:52 AM EST
    and unwarranted intrusion, here's a mutliple choice quiz.

    NYPD stormtroopers in kevlar raid NYC park this week to bust up....

    A) Dice Games
    B) Drug Dealing Ring
    C) Chess Games
    D) Three Card Monty Scam

    And the survey says!

    What's my prize for getting it right? (none / 0) (#6)
    by vml68 on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 12:06:53 PM EST
    For you... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 12:13:32 PM EST
    nada Jersey girl...you saw it in the paper too:)

    I could see keeping adults off the swingsets...slightly tyrannical but at least there is some logic there, those are for kids.  But the chessboards?  Stupidest thing I ever heard.

    Parent

    I swear I did not read it in the (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by vml68 on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 12:22:47 PM EST
    paper. But I figured if you posted it, the answer was a no-brainer....:-)!

    Parent
    Forgot to add.... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by vml68 on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 12:26:20 PM EST
    have a fun time with Oculus at the Japanese concert tonight.

    Parent
    Don't scare me like that! (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    That's Decemeber 16th...you made me double check.

    I already kinda stood her up once:)

    Parent

    Ooops! (none / 0) (#12)
    by vml68 on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 12:50:40 PM EST
    kdog and Oculus are going to meet (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 01:08:33 PM EST
    in real life? Cool.

    Parent
    Which opera will they see? :) (none / 0) (#20)
    by observed on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 01:21:56 PM EST
    Isn't it? I want to go! (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 01:38:11 PM EST
    Fine by me... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 01:49:05 PM EST
    open invite to all unless oculus objects...it's a traditional japanese concert...or at least a cocktail afterwards if I can't make it in time.

    20 hrs. from Orlando if ya floor it ruffian...I know nobody wants to fly:)

    Parent

    If this happens, you must post pics. (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 01:54:01 PM EST
    I am seriously considering! I do need a break (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 01:54:23 PM EST
    Yes, and I plan to lug all 936 pp. (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 03:39:34 PM EST
    of "Shantarum" to give to kdog.

    Parent
    Cool... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 03:50:50 PM EST
    and I'll lug pictures from Mexico!

    Parent
    You didn't stand me up before. There was (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 03:38:11 PM EST
    no "meeting of the minds."  

    Parent
    Did you, perchance, miss the eye scan (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 05:00:30 PM EST
    news? NYPD

    P.S.  On Marketplace today (public radio) I heard a piece about eye scan technology employed in the ubiquitous street side vending machines in Japan.  Seems the machine suggests a drink choice based on its reading of person approaching's eyes.  

    Parent

    I had missed it... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 05:32:57 PM EST
    iris scans, dna, body scans...its really getting spooky. I don't know if I'm gonna be able to squeeze out the 30-40 more years of relatively free existence I'm hoping for.

    Parent
    Seems the solution is to become a (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 11:40:36 PM EST
    commercial airline pilot.  With Capt. Sully supporting you, what could possibly go wrong?

    Parent
    I would hate to have these people as (none / 0) (#4)
    by vml68 on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 12:04:22 PM EST
    my parents...Couple Puts Abortion Decision to Online Vote

    I am pro-choice but this feels very wrong.

    Definitely creepy... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 01:01:09 PM EST
    words fail me.

    Parent
    I love the case cited, Jeralyn... (none / 0) (#5)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 12:05:01 PM EST
    in seizures like that, doesn't the owner have to 'prove' innocence, instead of having the assumption of innocence?

    Shorter Obama: FDR Sucked (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 12:34:28 PM EST
    Obama:


    This notion that somehow I could have gone and made the case around the country for a far bigger stimulus because of the magnitude of the crisis, well, we understood the magnitude of the crisis. We didn't actually, I think, do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically because we thought that was irresponsible. We had to act quickly.


    Obama's no historian, that's for sure... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 01:45:26 PM EST
    The Story Behind Obama's Remarks on FDR

    The President was repeating a canard that goes back to the circle of die hards around President Herbert Hoover as he exited the White House in a cloud of bitterness in 1933. In recent years, as a vast campaign against the memory of the New Deal has gathered steam, such claims have gone mainstream. For example, take the carefully hedged version recently put forward by Amity Shlaes in her study of the New Deal, "The Forgotten Man":  "But Roosevelt was not interested in cooperation. We will never know all his motives, but it was clear that a crisis now could only strengthen his mandate for action come inauguration in March."

    We are unlikely ever to know for sure. But as President Obama took office, the Council on Foreign Relations was cranking up a remarkably one-sided conference purporting to be a "Second Look at the Great Depression and the New Deal." Ms. Shlaes was a prominent participant, as was the Council's co-chair, one Robert Rubin, whose myriad protégés thronged the Obama Treasury and economic councils.

    [snip]

    The bottom line is this: Hoover and a substantial bloc of New York bankers wanted Roosevelt to commit to staying on the gold standard and US participation in the upcoming London Economic Conference. These commitments would have meant continued austerity and completely destroyed any chance of fundamental reform -- which was why the banks and Hoover were so insistent. In effect, they were hoping to continue with Hoover's policies, if not Hoover himself.

    Roosevelt exchanged some messages with them, but finally refused the whole package. He and his advisers correctly concluded that the idea was to suck them into a foolish set of commitments. FDR was simply not willing to make the kind of arrangements with bankers that President Obama was. That's the heart of the matter.

    Does Obama really believe the things he says?  Sounds like it; and since 90% of those who hear or read what he said won't question it, the urban legend will live on...

    Parent

    if Obama cant (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 12:54:55 PM EST
    smack down the republicans on the START treaty what the hell good is he.

    seriously.  I could do that.

    The new nuclear arms treaty hangs in the balance as Senator Kyl moves to deny Obama a political victory--even if he damages U.S. national security.


    "unwarranted."

    Bingo (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 01:49:29 PM EST
    sometimes i really hate polls (none / 0) (#16)
    by CST on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 12:59:31 PM EST
    "46 percent of those surveyed correctly identified that the Republican Party won the House as a result of the November 2 elections"

    link

    How can such an uninformed populace ever make good decisions?  Some other goodies:

    "15 percent correctly identified David Cameron as Prime Minister of England; the same amount said it was ex-BP CEO Tony Hayward"

    Joan Walsh on (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 01:42:51 PM EST
    the myth of the independent voter. To which I can only add an emphatic YES.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 01:58:22 PM EST
    Joan Walsh tries to get into analyzing statistics and completely fails - she should stick to writing fluff.  One big piece missing from her post is the fact that many people do not vote straight ticket - how do you classify those people?

    Maybe it's semantics - instead of calling people "independent", we should call them what they really are - the people in the middle of the political spectrum. Are these people ill-informed or are they more informed in that they actually vote for candidates and not party?  I don't know - probably a little of both.  And whether Joan in her fantasy world wants to believe it or not, the people in the middle are exactly who politicians need to court to win, because that describes most people in the country.  In a perfect world, politicians would court these voters with, you know, actual good ideas, instead of sound bites telling them who is the bigger, scarier one.

    Parent

    no voter is worth more (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CST on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:07:30 PM EST
    than any other voter.  Whether you turn out independents or you turn out your base, a win is a win.

    And you usually need both to win.

    Parent

    Well......a voter I have to get by (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:43:30 PM EST
    enacting some policy I don't agree with (DADT for example) is a voter I would happily trade for a base  voter I motivated enough to get to the polls by repealing said policy.

    Parent
    It's a numbers game (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:15:09 PM EST
    Pretty simple.  

    More independents / people in the middle of the political spectrum or whatever you want to call them, then righty Republicans or lefty Dems.

    So yes, you do need them.  And while we didn't like it, the left will turn out for Dems and the right will turn out for Repubs.

    But it's still a numbers game.

    Parent

    The left and right (none / 0) (#43)
    by CST on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:22:21 PM EST
    base do not always turn out.  In 2008 the right "base" did not turn out.  In 2009 in MA the left "base" did not turn out (union voters stayed home in droves).  In 2010 the left "base" did not turn out on the same level as in 2008.

    Parent
    I tend to agree wth Walsh (none / 0) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 03:45:44 PM EST
    Self identified independents are not necessarily people in the middle of the political spectrum. There are several people who regularly comment on TL who are not the independent voter you describe.    

    Parent
    These are self-identified Independents (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:16:07 PM EST
    As Judis puts it in his article that she quotes:
    The standard question asked by surveys and exit polls is, "Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what?" Those who answer "Independent" are independents.

    In the Pew study she talks about, about 36% of these self-professed Independents are true swing voters that can be persuaded from election to election. Most of the rest tend to vote as partisans even though they don't want to claim a party (with good reason).

    You seem to think there are more votes to be mined in that 36% of Independents than there are by sticking to solid Democratic base-pleasing policies and getting out the vote. I disagree.

     Also, I think solid Democratic policies would be better for the economy and both bring out the base AND get those voters.

    Parent

    I have to disagree with labeling (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:22:21 PM EST
    the independent voter one who represents the middle of the political spectrum; there may be independent voters who do see themselves there, but I also think many have liberal social views and conservative fiscal ones - and how they vote and for whom they vote may depend on which issues are their priority at any given point.

    Every voter believes his or her positions and views to be the reasonable ones; I doubt most voters think they are extreme in either direction, but that doesn't mean they're independent.

    Whether our views are liberal or conservative, we all want what we believe to define the middle - that's where we want to negotiate from if there has to be some give and take: start with what we think and let's see where it goes.

    No politician is going to appeal to every ideological view, so they do what politicians always do (at least until recently): they try to sound reasonable, open-minded, and hope that people across the spectrum liked enough of what they heard to be able to vote for him or her.

    Then, as we know, all bets are off, and we all usually feel completely punk'd when we find out that it was never the people calling the shots after all - but the corporate masters with the money.

    Parent

    Here's how you classify them, according to (none / 0) (#44)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:22:59 PM EST
    Judis' discussion of the Pew study: Sorry for the heavy quoting - the article is worth a read.

    About one-third of independents are important swing voters: The two other groups, the Disaffected Republicans and the Doubting Democrats, who make up 36 percent of Pew's sample, are swing voters who are not dependable partisans. They are overwhelmingly white. They are not likely to have graduated from college and many of them have not attended college at all. Most of them make less than $75,000. It's fair to characterize them as white working-class voters. Why are they independents and not Republicans and Democrats? According to the Pew poll, both groups believe that "parties care more about special interests than average Americans."

    What accounts for the fact that the Disaffecteds are more likely to vote Republican and the Doubters Democratic? One source of difference may be the gender gap. The Disaffecteds are predominately male, and the Doubters female. Working-class women are more likely to see the Democrats as the party of economic security and to favor a liberal social agenda. But insofar as members of both groups vote for the other party about one-third of the time--they are not disguised partisans like the Shadow Republicans and Democrats--it's probably most useful to regard them as members of a single heterogeneous group of swing voters who identify themselves for the moment as "independents."
    .
    .
    .
    The primary criterion by which these voters will decide who to support is the state of the economy, not the size or civility or transparency of the government.



    Parent
    bottom line (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CST on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:28:39 PM EST
    it's about competence not idealogy.

    You give people competence - regardless of whether or not it is a "left-wing" idea or a "right-wing" idea and they will vote for you.

    Of course I happen to believe "left-wing" ideas happen to be better ideas and more likely to be competent.

    Parent

    Yup (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:39:06 PM EST
    I think the argument of Walsh's that resonates with me is that there is not much ground to be gained by compromising on what Dems think are the right things to do just out of fear of looking too partisan to the independents. The best policy is also the best election strategy.

    Parent
    Mebbe, and that sounds good, (none / 0) (#51)
    by brodie on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:40:40 PM EST
    but the competence argument didn't work so well for Mike Dukakis in 1988, the eminently qualified and competent gov of MA.  That year he apparently fell victim to charges of being insufficiently patriotic (flag salute bill) and insufficiently American.

    2000 is another similar year -- Gore the Competent defeeted by Mr Compassionate Conservative.

    Parent

    It wasn't the competence message (none / 0) (#79)
    by sj on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:47:13 PM EST
    It was that after he got the nomination -- and had a 17 point lead -- he went back to acting as governor of Massachusetts instead of going campaigning.  He disappeared from view and completely ceded the message to Bush I.  

    So it was his campaigning level of competence that was lacking.  Not his competence message.

    Parent

    Kind of my point (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:48:05 PM EST
    If you have someone who does a good job, especially on things like the economy, a lot (many?  most?) people will vote for them, regardless of party.  As I said downthread - think locally.  I usually vote for Dems, but in many local elections I've voted for the Republican because a) they were in the office and doing a good job and/or b) the Dem candidate running against them was crazy or incompetent.

    I think most people are like me and wouldn't automatically pull the lever for a "D" in this case, just because that's how they voted up-ballot.

    Parent

    I wish I thought most people (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:56:37 PM EST
    paid as much attention as you do to their local issues. I don't myself. In fact I am more likely to vote straight party on the local issues, because I am not well informed and give the benefit of the doubt to the Dems.

    Parent
    anyway, we can trade anecdote for anecdote (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:59:47 PM EST
    If one of the candidates is obviously incompetent or insane, or just unappealing no matter how competent (Dukakis), he or she is going to have a hard time.

    Parent
    I think the key there, beyond (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by brodie on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 03:40:57 PM EST
    competence vs ideology, is how the campaign is framed -- and who has the upper hand in framing it.

    Obviously in 1988 and 2000, the Repubs did the superior job at making the election about what they wanted it to be about.  Our side, gentlemanly, passively, defensively, just sat back and took it because, well, some charges just don't deserve a response!

    Parent

    Absolutely campaign competence counts (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 04:14:04 PM EST
    for almost as much as governing competence. Maybe more. Example A: Bush - Kerry election.

    Parent
    yea but (none / 0) (#63)
    by CST on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 03:34:15 PM EST
    it's not based on some "moderate idealogy" where people have to have specific "moderate" positions on issues.

    That's why the blue dogs were failures.  They goverened based on this perceived "moderate" idealogy of having to be to the right of the Dem platform - rather governing on what actually works.

    Parent

    I would say (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 04:45:54 PM EST
    A "moderate ideology" falls more to doing incremental change that will start to help people vs. large sweeping change that may or may not help people as a policy.  Sometimes that's a bad thing, sometimes that's a good thing (see:  health care bill that just HAD to get passed).

    It's not always consistent, but then conservative philosophy (we want the government out of our lives, except when it comes to reproductive rights, for example), and liberal philosophy (we want the government out of our personal lives, but we like social programs that may cost the taxpayer more money) aren't necessarily consistent either.

    And Dems do not have to have "certain positions" on things either - hence the "Big Tent" moniker. Neither do Republicans, actually, but since they seem to have only a few areas of focus, they fall in line pretty easily.  The Dems have many varied, and sometimes competing interests (environmentalists vs. unions for example).

    The problem is, it's the pundits who have decided and declared what the left and the right stand for, and as Jon Stewart pointed out at his rally - most people in the country do not think like about politics like pundits and bloggers. It's more like a cafeteria approach - they like a little from the left and a little from the right. Most people do not hang on every word, looking for a "gotcha" moment, which is no wonder that politicos and junkies sometimes appear out of touch.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#37)
    by waldenpond on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:15:32 PM EST
    I know Dems that like to call themselves indie but always vote Dems and Reps on the opposite end.  Some people have softened on individual issues but I can't think of one 'indie' that has voted for the opposing party in 20 years.

    I am actually becoming a true indie in that I haven't voted for a Repub in over 10 years and vote for less Ds every cycle.  I can nearly always find a better liberal in a green here in CA.

    *There is also the advantage of being registered as an indie... you don't get sh!tloads of campaign junkmail. :)

    Parent

    Think (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:16:17 PM EST
    More local elections.  I bet a lot of people you think vote straight ticket don't.

    Parent
    I bet... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by sj on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:51:50 PM EST
    ...that a lot of people think that most other people are like themselves.  Doesn't necessarily make it so, though.

    Parent
    And get grounded for it.

    You'd think if they really wanted to bring the plane down they would not need to smuggle a bomb aboard to do it...

    But hey, a nefarious boyfriend or girlfriend (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 01:56:44 PM EST
    could plant something on them. I say if I have to get screened, so does the pilot.

    Parent
    No arguments there.

    Parent
    Except that ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by sj on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:57:38 PM EST
    ... most of us are occasional travelers and therefore, in this horrible situation, only get occasional exposure.  Pilots and flight attendants do this for a living and would get constant exposure.  I hope the pilots' efforts get legs.

    Parent
    This particular case is based on civil liberties (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 10:59:16 PM EST
    rather than health issues, and I hope it does have legs. As with the tea party grabbing the populist anger over the economy, the left seems to have been a little slow here as well:

    "Roberts and Poe, represented by conservative civil liberties advocate The Rutherford Institute,"

    Lovely.

    Parent

    Cut it out... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:12:09 PM EST
    with the logic man...whose side are you on anyway?

    We've become way to reliant on automated systems, automatic triggers, zero-tolerance policies, regimented procedures...and of course way too many rules.  What's missing?  The human element.

    I'm seeing it on the job...EDI orders, automatic emails, paperless sytems...all in the name of efficiency.  There are more screw-ups, errors, & mistakes than ever...and the cause is a lack of the human element.  Machines and systems might not make human errors, but they can't think to prevent errors either.  

    I don't know, it's hard to explain...but something is rotten in Denmark.

    Parent

    let me draw on your expertise.

    I need a gadget that'll shut off a pump when the water reaches a certain level high.

    I see plenty of sump pump controllers that turn the pump ON when the water reaches a certain height, but I need a controller that turns the pump OFF when the water gets high.

    And a float switch won't work, I need a probe like the one on this controller.

    Ever come across anything like I'm describing?

    Parent

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:47:46 PM EST
    our sump pumps are all float operated, I'm most familar with those.  They make "normally closed (circuit)" aka "reverse acting" piggy-back floats that shut off the pump when the water level reaches your setpoint, instead of the more common "normally open" that turns the pump on at setpoint.

    What's the application?  Fish pond?  I can't say I'm familar with a probe/sensor type switch such as this...but that doesn't mean anything, I never got sent to the pump factory, this stuff I learned as I went.  A call like this I'd refer to tech support:)

    If it is a fish pond I'll ask my little bro, he installs/maintains tanks and ponds for a living...he'll know.  

    Parent

    The application is filling wine barrels. (none / 0) (#58)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 03:13:04 PM EST
    Actually much like filling a fish pond or keeping it filled.

    My thought was a probe-type controller with a piggy-back electrical socket like the unit in the link, only that worked the opposite - the pump would be plugged into the piggy-back plug and the circuit that controls the power to the piggy-back plug would normally be open such that the pump would have power. It would close and shut off power to the pump when the barrel gets filled up to the probe that you set in the barrel's bunghole.

    'Preciate your help with this!

    Parent

    I see... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 03:30:11 PM EST
    thats why you can't use a float...got it.

    I think I found your huckleberry bro...same mfg as your link, see the HC3000 High Water Shut-Off.

    Parent

    Well there you go! (none / 0) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 03:32:07 PM EST
    Thanks!

    Parent
    My pleasure... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 03:36:13 PM EST
    thank google, I probably couldn't hack this job without him...though I'm not thrilled with how he's gone informer.

    Parent
    Joe Scarbarough (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:00:47 PM EST
    suspended from MSNBC for political donations

    With a cushy 3-hr/day (none / 0) (#41)
    by brodie on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:17:02 PM EST
    "job" that allows him to be paid I don't know how many millions for sitting around a table shooting the breeze and spouting off about politics and current events while sipping his morning coffee, you darn well better believe he's going to apologize.

    Still kind of a light punishment, and unlike KO he knows exactly when he'll be returning.

    Meanwhile, Mika Brzezinski gets to step in to spout the exact same things she thinks Joe would say if he were there.

    Parent

    the yearly (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:16:12 PM EST
    Brady/Manning matchup is here, and of course, no one can let it pass without bringing up the "who is the better QB" question.

    Who cares, I bet most teams out there would be happy to have either one (although Brady is clearly superior).  In any event, I hope Peyton chokes on Sunday.  For once I wish it were 10 degrees outside and windy.  He tends to struggle with the NE winter.

    Both having great seasons... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:25:40 PM EST
    even though the stats ain't as grand as past years, they're both carrying younger inexperienced rosters compared to past years...as we say down at the rec league, "their backs must be killin' 'em!"

    I know you're diggin' Danny Woodhead CST...I can't believe we let that guy go to make room for David Freakin' Clowney.

    Parent

    he's great (none / 0) (#49)
    by CST on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:33:05 PM EST
    I love that we have all of these little guys on our roster - and they kick @ss.

    Your guys should be doing well this weekend too.  Although I sincerely hope they crash and burn :)  I doubt that will happen.

    I'm feeling pretty good about our defense.  I think by the time the playoffs come around they could be downright scary.  Not to mention next year.

    Parent

    Gang green... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:50:43 PM EST
    will take care of those good feelings in Dec. when we run roughshod over you guys.  Hopefully Peyton comes through and it's an AFC East clincher!

     

    Parent

    I see Mark Sanchez (none / 0) (#60)
    by CST on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 03:25:09 PM EST
    as being like Ben Rothlisberger in 2004 (yes I realize this isn't technically his rookie season).  Big Ben started on a crazy winning streak and beat the pats snapping our own winning streak.  Then we came back to thump him at home in the AFC championship.  Because he was on a winning streak.  But we were champions :)

    Parent
    Grrr... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 04:52:00 PM EST
    you're like a Yankee fan, there is no effective comeback for "champions".

    With all the "Same Old Jets" stomach-punchers over the years, it will feel like Sox '04 if we ever do get the Lombardi.  Please let this be the year...we haven't had a non-Yankees/Giants ticker tape since '94 Rangers, and I'm an Islander fan:(

    Parent

    in the clutch against the Giants, which Pats fans never seem to like to remember... :-)

    Parent
    Dude... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 05:17:15 PM EST
    ya hear about 'lil Dave Meggett?  Another Parcells guy accused of some real nasty crimes.

    Parent
    Ugh, just googled. (none / 0) (#77)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 05:25:01 PM EST
    low blow (none / 0) (#84)
    by CST on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:20:01 AM EST
    trust me, something like that you never forget.

    You just learn to live with it.

    Parent

    Dunno, but I do know (none / 0) (#48)
    by brodie on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 02:32:41 PM EST
    that Brady has the better coach, better offensive line, and better offensive system, which seems to get the job done as needed with or without any "name" receivers or RBs.  The Pats under Belichick and Brady seem to concentrate on physical and strategic preparation, deeply understanding what the opponent will do, while being superior to everyone in the basic fundamentals of the game.  

    Manning and the Colts aren't far behind, but tend to approach things in a fussier, checkoff-checkdown-2d and 3d option way, playing the game more by adjusting at the line of scrimmage.  That is more complicated, but obviously can be very effective.  It does put a lot more pressure on their QB Manning -- practically a player-coach -- for making the right read consistently.  The very talented Brady, by contrast, just seems like an extension of Belichick out there.  

    better line yes (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 03:13:45 PM EST
    better offensive system - not really.  He has done the most when his receiving corps was a bunch of no-names.  With the exception of the Moss years, we never had superstar wide receivers.

    In any event, football is and will always be a team sport, so you will never have a true comparison.  But I'll still take the 7-4 record against each other, and the 3-1 superbowl record any day.  When it comes to clutch perfomances, Brady seems to come through more often than Manning too.

    Parent

    Well that was my point (none / 0) (#64)
    by brodie on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 03:36:11 PM EST
    about the superior offensive system of Belichick:  apart from the QB position, it works exceedingly well despite the other key positions being filled by a bunch of no-name merely above-average talent.  

    Sign of good coaching and a good effective but simple system, where if one non-QB player goes out with an injury, little is lost because the system was less dependent on talent than on precise execution of a basic set of relatively limited number of plays.

    Parent