home

Tuesday Night Open Thread

I have a big wiretap hearing tomorrow so no blogging from me until it's over. American Idol will have to wait.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Wednesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    And why shouldn't someone who is (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by observed on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 09:26:52 PM EST
    28 socialize at a bar with hot girl?
    I don't know anything about the guy, but our expectations for athletes' behavior are ridiculous.

    Call me crazy, but I think it's not (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 08:59:54 AM EST
    unreasonable for professional athletes with multi-million dollar cotracts - or ANYONE - to know where the line is between "socializing" and "sexual assault."  Or the difference between socializing and putting one's self in situations where one's behavior can be called into question.  Is it really that hard to know, and really that hard to avoid?

    And considering there are any number of highly-paid, single athletes who are NOT getting into trouble, I'd say that it suggests the standards and expectations being set are eminently reasonable.

    He's being paid 102 million to be the face of the Steelers franchise; I'd say the Steelers - and the NFL - expecting Ben to exercise better judgment is reasonable, as well.

    Parent

    I would go so far (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:08:04 AM EST
    as to say that I don't think it's unreasonable for ANY 28 year old man to know what is and isn't appropriate behavior and to know where that line is, but again, maybe that's just silly of me.

    Now, we don't know what happened here, but even if nothing happened, and Ben has been wrongly accused, he's acting like an idiot.  Between riding a motorcycle without a helmet and crashing and injuring himself (after he was repeatedly asked and warned not to), to the Vegas incident, to this - for a smart man, he's acting really dumb.

    Parent

    If nothing happened, (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:25:08 AM EST
    nothing happened...how is he an idiot if nothing happened?  Unless you consider having a good time to be idiotic...I call it a reason for living.

    If something did happen, then yeah...he's an idiot.  Big time.

    Parent

    Dog (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:36:30 AM EST
    Did you read what I wrote?  He's an idiot for constantly getting himself in situations where he shouldn't be?  One who is already accused of sexual assault is an idiot if they put themselves back in a situation to be accused again?

    Parent
    Then he probably needs to stay home (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:41:54 AM EST
    and watch a lot of TV.

    Parent
    Why should he be a prisoner... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:43:14 AM EST
    in his own home?  To be a role model for somebody else's kid?  Gimme a break.

    Parent
    Oh kdog, that was snark! (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:47:59 AM EST
    JB... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:42:14 AM EST
    I read it just fine...I don't understand (assuming for the sake of argument nothing happened) how knocking a few back at the bar can be considered "getting himself in a situation"...knocking back a few at the bar is as American as apple pie....its not a "situation" to go to a bar and flirt with the opposite sex over cocktails.

    It's a situation if the allegations are true and this clown strongarms women...a crime situation.

    Parent

    Knocking a few down (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:46:47 AM EST
    isn't what apparently gets him in trouble.

    Drink all he wants - that's not the problem.

    He's an idiot for putting himself in a position where a young woman can accuse him of bad behavior.  See the difference?

    Parent

    Not really... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:56:27 AM EST
    anybody can be accused of anything by anyone...no matter what you do.  Are you saying he should never leave the house?

    Parent
    Lock him up! (none / 0) (#69)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:01:12 AM EST
    That always solves everything.

    Parent
    You're right (none / 0) (#76)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:11:27 AM EST
    Ben is super smart for drinking at a college bar with underage kids.  Who cares that he's already being investigated for one sexual assault?  He should feel no compunction to ever (dare I say it?) use common sense and discretion, right? (which was my whole point - not as Mile Hi, who always seems to be trying to start an argument, thinks).

    His lawyer is looking for the largest bottle of aspirin he can find today.

    Parent

    I'm older than Ben... (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:17:31 AM EST
    I'll toss 'em back with the college kids...they know how to have fun!  I really don't see the problem or how having a good time defies common sense...having fun is common sense, you only live once after all, ya can't hold back because someone somewhere might falsely accuse you of something.

    Parent
    Have you (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:25:59 AM EST
    Been recently accused of sexual assault and then been partying with college girls, who, oh, by the way, one of whom has now accused you again of sexual assault? I doubt it.  

    If your favorite people, the cops, were watching you under suspicion of running a drug house, would you then go out on the street in front of them and light up some mj?

    This has nothing to do with him having a good time - I say go for it - he's a young guy with lots of money.  Hey, I'm a Steelers' fan and don't want to see anything come of these, but Ben needs to realize, he isn't like everyone else.  He needs to be more careful in his actions than "regular people". There are always people out there who may want to take advantage of the fact that he's rich.  Why give them the chance is all I'm asking?  Only a stupid person does that.

    Parent

    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:34:11 AM EST
    but again, thinking like that can easily turn you into a recluse with far too little joy in your life.

    Parent
    Hmmm. (none / 0) (#86)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:26:12 AM EST
    So, it's all Ben's fault that the bar allows underage people in.  I see.  It's all Ben's fault for living and breathing.

    He is not "already being investigated for one sexual assualt".  That ivestigation is closed and no charges were filed.  But, I guess that makes him guilty in your mind, being the Nancy Grace of TalkLeft.

    Parent

    You have this amazing (none / 0) (#90)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:28:52 AM EST
    capacity for moving the conversation off what is really being said. It's called "moving the goal posts".  I think you should learn to read for comprehension.

    Beyond that, the help you need is left best to experts.

    Parent

    LOL. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:42:12 AM EST
    Oh, how, oh how, will I go on living with myself?!?  

    Being diagnosed as needing help by someone who is undoubtedly an expert in that regard?  The horror, the horror...

    Parent

    Uh, sure (none / 0) (#105)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:48:31 AM EST
    Whatever allows you to sleep at night, even if it's fantasy island.

    Parent
    Ben Roethlisberger is free to (none / 0) (#113)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:02:40 AM EST
    do whatever he likes, as long as he understands that his choices may have negative consequences.  For him, those consequences can range from criminal charges, to civil suits, to conviction in the court of public opinion and/or the justice system, to suspension by the team and/or the NFL, and damage to his career.

    His choices don't just affect him, though, do they?  There's a possibility that one or more wonen have been negatively affected by the choices Ben has allegedly made.  

    If nothing else, kdog, there's a pattern with Ben of making dumb choices, and not learning much from having made them - even if it turns out that "nothing happened."

    Parent

    As long as the consequences... (none / 0) (#116)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:09:11 AM EST
    are earned, and not applied unjustly, all that works for me.

    I don't know Ben's deal, nor do I know the deal of his accusers...but I agree it appears that Ben has some issues with how to treat women. And if he did assault anybody, or worse, he should be prosecuted.  

    I took issue with the opinion of some that going out drinking in a college bar is somehow wrong in and of itself...if thats wrong I don't wanna be right!  I'll go to college bars with my walker if they'll have me:)

    Parent

    It works like this (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 12:44:57 PM EST
    He is being paid a lot money to play QB and to represent the Steelers.

    He is doing a good job of the former and a bad job of the latter.

    Whether anyone likes it or not kids, especially young teenage boys, lock into such actions.

    If he can meet all the requirements of the job then there are other QBs available.

    Parent

    I don't recall (none / 0) (#131)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 12:47:13 PM EST
    anyone having issue with him going to a bar.

    Parent
    actually that was exactly the issue (none / 0) (#135)
    by observed on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    raised in the article Donald from Hawaii posted.

    Parent
    I don't know what he did. (none / 0) (#110)
    by observed on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:55:56 AM EST
    I was responding to the linked article which seemed to suggest he shouldn't even be at a bar with young women.


    Parent
    I know it's a college town (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 06:51:38 AM EST
    But she was 20 - not supposed to be in a bar, right?  Ben should be smarter than to put himself in a situation where he could get into trouble - especially as he already has trouble of the same type going on in Vegas.

    Parent
    In his place (none / 0) (#36)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 08:54:53 AM EST
    I would have figured she was of age. Otherwise she shouldn't have been there in the first place. I don't ever remember carding anyone I talked to at a bar when I was young.

    Parent
    I get it (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 08:58:40 AM EST
    But a smart person (and one who has already been accused of sexual misconduct) might reason that drunk girl in a bar, in a college town, who may or may not be of legal drinking age, just might be prime picking for trouble.

    I guess I figure someone who's already facing trouble might be a little more gun shy than the average single guy, but what do I know?

    Parent

    "Smart person" (none / 0) (#44)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:27:35 AM EST
    There's the rub. They aren't paying him all that money for his brains.

    I'm not justifying his actions. (If indeed he did anything wrong). It would be very easy to get wrapped up in yourself when you've had years of people telling you how fantastic you are. Then throw in one hundred million or so in the mix and one could begin to believe them!

    Parent

    Amen observed... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 08:30:37 AM EST
    I'd worry about a 28 year old millionaire who wasn't out living it up, having a good time...they didn't join the priesthood, they became pro athletes.

    What's troubling is that Big Ben appears to not know how to treat the ladies.  One allegation you could chalk up to a shakedown...but this is looking like a pattern for Ben.  But who the hell knows...

    Parent

    Perhaps Ben bodyguard should (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:40:37 AM EST
    also be pd. to try and protect Ben from himself?

    Parent
    If the allegations are true... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:52:29 AM EST
    I'm old school...his posse needs to kick his arse into next week.

    Parent
    What healthcare reform should have looked like (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 06:28:56 AM EST
    in the first place (PDF).

    A BILL
    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for an option for any citizen or permanent resident of the United States to buy into Medicare.


    Stupak (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 07:13:20 AM EST
    Looks like Stupak might have a primary challenger from the left.

    Don't know how she'll do as his district is pretty conservative, but I say, you go girl!

    Great (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:38:26 AM EST
    any primary challenger is a good primary challenger in my book. Case in point, all of a sudden Blanche Lincoln is softening up on reconciliation. What changed? Primary challenge.

    Parent
    Masa has inspired me (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 08:15:51 AM EST
    to run for congress.
    he even inspired the bumpersticker:

    Capt Howdy for US Congress
    ten thousand sailors cant be wrong

    or how about this one (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 08:26:44 AM EST

    Capt Howdy: the tickle me candidate
    I'm not gay

    Parent

    but seriously (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 08:32:51 AM EST
    I hope you all watched that performance. it was one of those things you just thank god you were around to catch.
    particularly the Beck. but Larry King also when he asked him if he was gay.
    that Beck show will go down in the anals of broadcasting. pun intended.

    good link

    Parent

    All that tickling may not be a good slogan, (none / 0) (#63)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:54:55 AM EST
    the wingers will just say that is how you got to be a "commie pinko"/

    Parent
    I know I'm not... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 08:33:59 AM EST
    part of the campaign team (yet!), but I think "10,000 seamen" has a better ring to it, Mr. Congressman.

    Parent
    I see you (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 08:34:55 AM EST
    as chief of staff.  


    Parent
    I'm flattered... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 08:38:01 AM EST
    I need 50 large for some new duds boss, and...umm, some other stuff:)

    Parent
    no problem (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 08:39:10 AM EST
    we will just need to play a little "get the old guy"

    Parent
    LOL... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 08:45:05 AM EST
    Ladies and Gentlemen, your United States Congress!  Over 200 years of "you can't make this sh*t up."

    Parent
    Dual track (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 08:19:30 AM EST
    Interesting editorial in NYT about how to make the filibuster work. Get rid of the dual track that allows the Senate to move on to the next issue before the other is resolved.

    It would add a level of accountability that is sorely lacking in the present system. The opposition would actually have to filabuster and everyone would have to be on record for their actions. It seems a better course than allowing one person to play games for their pet agenda.

    Kos takes Kucinich to the woodshed (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:38:36 AM EST
    never read that site much.  never registered there.  but maybe I should because I agree with everything he says.

    Kos was better a bashing Bush (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:57:49 AM EST
    I watched Kos on TV last night when he decussed Kucinich. I think Kos is wrong in trying to paint those that are opposed to this bill as the villian. He mentioned the 40,00 projected lives that could be saved as reason enough to pass the bill regardless of objections.

    He doesn't mention how many people will find their health care actually reduced by the excise tax or how many woman will be forced into back alley abortions again. (Not to mention the windfall this hands the insurance industry).

    Kos also relies very heavily on the premise that Democrats will improve the bill over time. I'm not convinced they will. We heard that song with the Petriot Act and Fisa. How's that working out?

    I think that after a solid year of infighting, the prospects of revisiting HCR will be more than most in DC will want to deal with for a very long time.

    Parent

    Markos is someone who, in his days (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:19:11 AM EST
    as a Republican, worked to get Henry Hyde re-elected to Congress; he claims he was then, and is now, a social liberal, but I have yet to figure out how that would allow him to work for Hyde, who was avowedly anti-choice.  Perhaps Kos's social liberalism doesn't involve standing up for women's rights.

    I do find it kind of amusing that neither Markos, nor Lawrence O'Donnell, who interviewed him, were aware that the deadline for filing for the Ohio primary came and went last month, so there will be no primary challenge to Kucinich this time around.  But, perhaps when your assignment is to make sure someone else - other than Obama and Max Baucus and the Democratic leadership - will be blamed for the "failure" of the legislation - and you want to hold on to your gold-plated access-blogger card, what's a few facts in the interest of victory?

    Parent

    oh man (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:22:50 AM EST
    its the old Markos is a former republican saw.

    should have seen that coming.  

    going with that its ironic now that he is the progressive in this conversation, isnt it.


    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:27:12 AM EST
    squeaks tried that earlier with Massa....

    Parent
    my view of Masa (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:30:07 AM EST
    is at the top of the thread

    Parent
    Lost Objectivity (none / 0) (#96)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:33:58 AM EST
    Many progressives (Kos included) tied their star to Obama. I think they feel that by criticizing him now, they'd be diminshing their own judgement. Unlike BTD, they seem more concerned with upholding the person rather than the policy.

    It ends up putting them in the same category as a Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck, only for the other side.

    But, as my mother always told me," Don't bite the hand that feeds you". So maybe Kos and Ezra aren't so dumb after all! They seems to be doing just fine.


    Parent

    actually its more like (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:39:23 AM EST
    exactly what he said.  that the bill will help some 40 milion people and we want it passed.

    its not rocket science.


    Parent

    Here's a question (none / 0) (#102)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:46:10 AM EST
    And maybe I missed it along the way somewhere, but a friend asked me this:

    If we pass this healthcare bill, won't we have trouble since there already seems to be a shortage of doctors in some areas and some specialties?

    Now my friend is not making the argument of "SOCIALZIED MEDICINE!!  WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT IN LINES FOR 6 MONTHS!", but I think her concern is valid.  For instance, even though (with Hyde and Stupak) abortion is not and will not be covered, there are some states where very few doctors perform abortions, so women in those states sometimes have to travel far and wide to access those services.  Some specialties, such as OB/GYN, have seen their malpractice insurance rates skyrocket, so some states, like Nevada, have a shortage of licensed OB/GYNs. What happens when we add 40 million people access to insurance, and ergo, access to some medical care?

    Is there a part of this plan to encourage more people to go to medical school, or to encourage medical schools to focus on rural medicine?

    Parent

    I have (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:51:51 AM EST
    no idea what your point is or what you are suggesting

    Parent
    If you add (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:56:22 AM EST
    40 million more people with access to health insurance (a move I wholly support), does that put a burden on access to care, since there are not enough doctors in some areas and some specialties?

    I think it's a pretty straight forward question.

    Parent

    I don't know where you are getting (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:18:49 AM EST
    this 40 million figure, but that is way, way off.

    The House bill is completely inadequate in expanding coverage and controlling costs.  It is essentially an insurance industry bailout. Most provisions to expand coverage don't even go into effect until 2013 (2014 in the Senate), after which it still leaves at least 17 million Americans uninsured. The Senate bill would have even less impact, leaving at least 24 million Americans uninsured.  Similarly, Obama's proposal would delay coverage expansions until 2014, and even then would leave at least 24 million Americans with no coverage and tens of millions more underinsured.

    Link

    There's more a the link on comparisons of the House, Senate and Obama proposals.

    As to the doctor shortage, I have read that we are facing one, but this is a problem that is not new, and will occur with or without everyone and their Aunt Fanny being mandated to buy insurance.

    And, for what it's worth, people are not clamoring for access to insurance, they are clamoring for access to care they can afford.

    Parent

    it might (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:44:35 AM EST
    I really couldnt say but I dont really see why that would be a sane or rational argument against passing a bill that helps people get heathcare who need it.


    Parent
    It wasn't an argument against it (none / 0) (#122)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 12:00:04 PM EST
    It was just a question put to me that I didn't really have an answer to.

    Parent
    I have no answer (none / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 12:00:43 PM EST
    either.

    Parent
    Access (none / 0) (#115)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:05:28 AM EST
    We already have a shortage in our area, so yes, there will be shortages as some choose to incur the share of cost above and beyond the cost of their mandate.  I believe there is money in the bill for education and also as part of the discussion of immigration reform to allow more doctors and nurses in as the education process won't keep up.

    Parent
    There are also efforts... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:25:08 AM EST
    ...underway to use technology more effectively in reaching the underserved populations, as well as allowing people like RN's/LPN's/PA's to address routine health care issues.  

    Parent
    Could you explain (none / 0) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:27:47 AM EST
    to me, please, how it is that this bill (which I hate, btw) will "force women into back alley abortions again"?

    "Back alley abortions" happen when there aren't physicians/clinics available to do them properly.  I can't figure out anything in this bill that could possibly reduce further the number of abortion providers.

    The actual cost of abortion, which isn't very high, isn't what drives people to back alleys to get them.

    Parent

    Well, I agree with you that (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by dk on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:46:27 AM EST
    writing that the HCR bill leads directly to back-alley abortions is hyperbolic.  But, on the other hand, what the Nelson and Stupak language does is creat barriers for women to obtain insurance for abortion services...not insurmountable barriers for many (though, for some, who can afford the extra money, effectively insurmountable), but barriers nonetheless.

    I thought it was rather common sense that having insurance, as a general matter, encourages people to seek quality care, since they feel they can afford to do so.  And, that the problem with not having quality insurance is that those who don't will not seek out quality care.

    So, for woman who do not have quality abortion insurance coverage but who want an abortion, it may be the case that they will end up seeking lower quality abortion services.  Does that literally mean a "back alley abortion."  Likely not, so there you are right.  But do you disagree with the basic logic that barriers to quality abortion coverage could lead to more women availing themselves of lower quality abortion services?

    Parent

    No, actually (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 01:21:16 PM EST
    I don't.  I'm not even sure what that means.  It's not as if there's a whole supermarket aisle of options out there for getting an abortion.  It's almost entirely the province of non-profit women's reproductive health clinics, Planned Parenthood and the like.

    People don't shop for medical services on the basis of price, clinics that do abortions aren't engaged in price wars, and I know of no evidence that medical outcomes in general are in any way tied to the cost of the facility in any case.

    Bona fides alert: I am vehemently, passionately pro-choice.  I am opposed on general principles to the Stupak/Hyde crapola because it takes us one more step towards accepting the idea that the government can decide how and when you can get access to abortion and who pays for it.

    But as long as Hyde is the law of the land -- and it will be for a long, long time -- public funds are never going to pay for abortions.  Whether or not Stupak or Nelson is in the bill won't change that one bit.

    Railing against Stupak/Nelson as if it actually changed anything about the already disgraceful state of access to abortion in this country, as if  it would take us back to the dark ages, is the kind of wild exaggerration and distortion that mirrors that of the right-wing and destroys credibility, IMHO.  If we can't fight this on its merits, we should give up.

    Parent

    This is the real issue to me too (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 04:51:16 PM EST
    But as long as Hyde is the law of the land -- and it will be for a long, long time -- public funds are never going to pay for abortions.  Whether or not Stupak or Nelson is in the bill won't change that one bit.

    I wish the progressives had started out with 'repeal the Hyde amendment' as their demand. Of course I don't like Stupak or Nelson's positions either, but they are just jumping on a ship that already sailed a long time ago.

    Parent

    Indeed. (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:11:05 PM EST
    However, repealing the Hyde amendment ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes.  The public is pretty overwhelmingly in favor of it.  And "our side" frankly sucks at changing public opinion on anything like this.

    What I wish, actually, is that our so-called "progressive" leaders would work on the real problem of access, which is a horrible and increasing shortage of providers and the plethora of stinking local laws that keep chipping away at it bit by bit.

    And it wouldn't hurt to start a campaign to raise funds for a foundation that would pay for abortions for women who need them, as well as transportation, housing and loss of income for the many, many women who have to travel very long distances to get any access.  There are some states, Georgia I believe is one, where there is exactly one -- ONE -- abortion provider in the entire state.

    That would be one heck of a lot more useful than railing wild exaggerations about the literally zero actual real world impact of Stupak/Nelson on women's lives.

    Parent

    Well, I guess I will (none / 0) (#139)
    by dk on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 01:32:02 PM EST
    agree to disagree with you on whether having affordable quality insurance is a factor in obtaining quality affordable health care.  One of the main problems with this bill is that that the changes it is putting in place will not provide such quality affordable insurance.

    Another main problem with this bill is that it represents that the national Democratic party, which currently holds both houses of Congress by large majorities, as well as the presidency, is about to pass an anti-woman bill.  Let's not forget that "Hyde" of the Hyde amendment was a Republican.  Now we will have Democratic names on amendments that continue the second class citizenship of women in this country.  I guess it isn't to you, but to me that is quite a dramatic political change.  You may not see it as significant, but I do.

    Parent

    Good point about putting (none / 0) (#150)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 04:52:54 PM EST
    a Dem name on it. That does matter.

    Parent
    Hey, good strawmen there! (none / 0) (#151)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:04:19 PM EST
    I said NOWHERE that the quality of insurance is unrelated that the quality of health care.  I said NOWHERE that this was a good bill.  In fact, I believe I said I thought it was a very bad one.

    We can debate how significantly the Hyde/Stupak/Nelson crap increases the unarguably second class status of women in this country, but honestly, I think you grotesquely, grotesquely undervalue the difficulties women face if you put the (continued) denial of federal funding for legal abortion at the top of your list.  You also, I have to say, utterly fail to grasp the difficulties women in the real world have in getting those legal abortions if you think Hyde is the most important factor.

    Paying for it is by a very long shot the least of the problems most women, especially low-income women, have in getting access to abortion.

    I think you also pretty grotesquely underestimate the damage this bill does to the very idea of health care, or even health insurance, reform if you put the (continued) denial of federal funding for legal abortion at the top of your list.

    Parent

    Um, you're mistaken (none / 0) (#153)
    by dk on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:18:24 AM EST
    if you think my only objection to the Health Care bill are the anti-woman provisions related to abortion services.  I hate many other aspects of the bill too, trust me.  It basically does nothing but temporarily prop up a completely wasteful and economically unsustainable model, and will result in declining quality of healthcare for millions of Americans in the coming years.

    But that doesn't effect my point that the Democratic stamp of approval on anti-choice legislation is of great political significance.  And I don't see how on the one hand you can agree with my point that the quality of insurance effects the quality of healthcare, and then deny that the barriers that this Democratic legislation puts on women's ability to gain insurance coverage for abortion services will have no effect on the quality of such abortion services for non-rich women.  It is lacking in logic, in my opinion.

    Parent

    Oh. My. Goodness. (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 11:15:12 PM EST
    Do I really, truly need to point out the difference between a one-shot deal, a single, quite simple, pretty inexpensive and standardized, flat-rate outpatient procedure that takes about an hour, and a lifetime of health care?

    I don't think you actually know very much about either abortions or where they're obtained.

    Parent

    heres an idea (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:49:34 AM EST
    why not wait and see if Stupak is even included.

    Parent
    Nelson pretty much does (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by dk on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:50:37 AM EST
    the same thing.  It's one or the other, right?

    Parent
    it wont (none / 0) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:29:22 AM EST
    but it just sounds so menacing.

    Parent
    Kos is clueless (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:18:25 AM EST
    ... as usual.

    The Ohio filing deadline has passed, so if he wants to try to "primary" Kucinich, he'll have to wait until 2012.  Good luck with that.

    Besides, given Kos's record from the last go 'round, I doubt he could have any significant impact on the Ohio primary if he tried.

    Parent

    Haven't read the link but must ask: (3.50 / 2) (#56)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:45:49 AM EST
    are you trying to start another fight?

    Parent
    so (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:51:00 AM EST
    agreeing with Kos is now starting a fight here?
    got it.


    Parent
    Well sure... (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:59:16 AM EST
    ...those who were banished from DK for being too pro-Hillary or something came here so they could treat others in the same manner they perceive they were treated over there and somehow feel better about themselves.  

    And even though they yammer on and on about DK, you're not allowed to because you're not on board with those who have truly suffered.

    Simple 5th grade stuff.

    Parent

    its getting (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:04:18 AM EST
    more than a little silly.

    Parent
    We use to discuss (none / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 12:54:06 PM EST
    societal issues... defense policy.... stuff like that...

    Parent
    seems like I remember that (none / 0) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 02:25:04 PM EST
    seems like a long time ago

    Parent
    Really? Is that so? (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 02:08:52 PM EST
    ...those who were banished from DK for being too pro-Hillary or something came here so they could treat others in the same manner they perceive they were treated over there and somehow feel better about themselves.

    Mind reading is "simple 5th grade stuff"?

    Parent

    Glad you posted it here. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:05:41 AM EST
    Some of the purists on the left need the occasional smackdown, especially when they link up with the RW and Blue Dogs to stop any progress from happening.

    I just hope it isn't too late to field a decent and viable primary challenger against Dennis.

    Parent

    The people aligning with the blue dogs (none / 0) (#144)
    by esmense on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 03:14:12 PM EST
    and RW to stop progress are the people who support this terrible, insurance industry sponsored health "plan."

    This IS almost entirely the blue dog's plan, remember?

    Stupak and other efforts to limit abortion for poor women isn't "progress," financing "reform" by endangering the health care benefits of working people isn't "progress," adopting failed conservative ideology in regard to cost containment isn't "progress." Nor, in light of all the ways this plan fails middle class Americans and fails to address the real problems in our health care system, is promising easy-to-repeal (perhaps never to materialize) subsidies and expanded Medicare funding.

    There is a difference between compromise and being taken for a fool, between real reform and window dressing.

     

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 03:12:37 PM EST
    Don't know about Capt Howdy, but you certainly seem to be playing the provocateur, as usual...

     

    Parent

    why is it "provocative" (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 03:54:42 PM EST
    to express agreement with a leader of the progressive netroots.  seriously.  why is that.

    I dont get it.

    this site is still called talk LEFT right?

    are we supposed to act like the outside world does not exist.  is one point of view allowed here now?  this is a serious question.
    someone actually said I was trying to start a fight by doing that.

    this baffles me.

    Parent

    Ummm (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 03:58:15 PM EST
    Fix your browser settings. I was referring to oculus as a provocateur, not you. Your comment seemed in keeping with the basic mission of this site, imo.

    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#148)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 04:08:53 PM EST
    never mind

    Parent
    suggestion (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:51:40 AM EST
    why dont you try the link?

    Parent
    I agree with Kucinich (5.00 / 8) (#71)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:02:11 AM EST
    Kucinich explains in detail why he doesn't support the bill.

    It is an expansion of a failing private system.
    It has legislation that allows private insurers to sue states that try to start their own single payer systems.
    Giving tax dollars to a failing business model will only extend the inevitable.  It will require the dumping of more tax dollars.
    It does nothing to control cost.

    If you believe in single payer, which I do, this part of the bill is a disaster and moves the country in a different direction.

    Combine this bill (with it's voucher system) with kill SS and MCR Alan Simpson (vouchers!) and you have now developed Bush's dream of an entrenched private system.  This is as easily seen as a nose under the tent to move away from a 'health care as a right' approach to the Republican wet dream of a voucher system which will push more of the burden of cost on the people to force them out of the system to control cost.

    Parent

    Saving Dem asses, in November and the fig-leaf (none / 0) (#155)
    by kidneystones on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 08:28:21 PM EST
    that conceals the politicos' complete contempt for voters is all that's at stake at this point.

    Given a choice between trusting Kucinich or Axelrod I'll take Dennis every time.

    This is a mess. It is quite possible hcr will pass. It's less likely voters will applaud.

    Parent

    Will do. But is not Kucinich a (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:57:06 AM EST
    revered legislator here?

    Parent
    Not with me. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:02:09 AM EST
    Neither Dennis nor Ralf.  Both impossible to please purist contrarians who refuse to accept anything short of utopian perfection.

    Parent
    personally (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:05:52 AM EST
    I love that he went with the "Nader of healthcare".

    both perennial presidential candidates who dont give a sh!t about anything but their own grandstanding BS.

    Parent

    We don't know if they are... (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:13:49 AM EST
    impossible to please, we never take 'em up on one of their good ideas.

    Parent
    Well, we have and (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:25:23 AM EST
    we haven't.  

    In Nadir's case, he was actually brought in for a while for consults during the Jimmy Carter admin, on some consumer protection legis/agency creation business, but even with some former Nader's Raiders on board in the JC admin willing to implement some of his proposals, Ralf ended up not wanting to play ball.

    But generally with both, it's impossible to take them up on everything or all of one thing because their demands are so politically unviable usually.  In this respect, Ralf and Dennis are like some of the hardcore conservative Repubs who are constantly whining that Real Conservatism has never been tried.  These purists feel more comfortable and fulfilled throwing peanuts from the cheap seats.  They get unjustified applause from their followers for being "principled" for holding out for 100%, while the rest of us suffer for being deprived of the 60% improvement.

    Parent

    The old... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:41:46 AM EST
    "politically unviable" excuse...I'd love to know what that really means.  A good idea is a viable idea.

    Parent
    no offense dude (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:45:35 AM EST
    viable
    (1)  : having a reasonable chance of succeeding (a viable candidate) (a viable enterprise)

    Parent
    One of the fundamental flaws... (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:53:19 AM EST
    of our republic, good ideas have no reasonable chance of suceeding.  In fact, they are ridiculed.

    How did we get here?  Or is it just human nature?

    Beats a benevolent dictatorship I guess, maybe I should not complain.

    Parent

    The unspoken (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 12:21:21 PM EST
    suggestion seems to be that it's not so much that Nader and Kucinich's ideas are bad, but that   they're both too attached to their outsider-gadfly identities to see that these kind of radical changes come to fruition over time.

    They wanna go too far, too fast. For that, Im still not quite ready to join the caterwauling chorus of embittered "NAFTA Al" supporters, still mad about Nader spoiling the party in 2000, which is what I suspect some of this is still about.

    The other thing that Nader publicly brings from "the peanut gallery" is a hard-hitting, generally dead-on historical critique of the processes and obsolete paradigms which brought us to the place - domestically and overseas - where we are now..And of course our embedded corporate castrati and errand boys and girls in the Beltway dont want anyone to hear THAT; those things are best reserved for private gatherings, where we dont have to worry about the sponsors being offended and making phone calls.

    Parent

    As usual... (none / 0) (#127)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 12:26:48 PM EST
    well broken down, like Jaws breaks down how to beat the weakside blitz on Monday Night Countdown.

    Parent
    Viable (none / 0) (#129)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 12:32:07 PM EST
    and right and wrong have gotten rather far out of alignment at certain times in history.

    If the Naders and Kucinichs dont publicly point that out, who's going to?

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:28:22 AM EST
    said
    he is the Stupac of the left fringe.

    Parent
    and that is supposed to matter to me (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:02:53 AM EST
    why . . . .

    Parent
    As an alternative view (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by dk on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:29:41 AM EST
    to Kos' position, I would point to Greenwald's column today:

    There's a difference -- a fundamental one -- between (a) being pragmatic in trying to implement one's principles and (b) having no principles at all and and glorifying that unanchored emptiness as "pragmatism."  Once you enter the realm of (b), you are not only guilty of having no principles (a sin in its own right), but you're incapable of finding a way to effectively justify what you're doing, because you have no coherent principles to which you can credibly appeal.   In virtually every realm (health care, financial reform, national security), and especially in Terrorism/civil liberties, that has been the great political failure of the Obama administration.

    This sounds reasonable to me.  And unlike some others on here, I promise not to play the martyr if you choose to disagree with it.

    "unlike some others on here" (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:32:07 AM EST
    thats great.  but forgive me for point out that its not that big a deal really since you wont be called names.


    Parent
    are there any vote counts on the (none / 0) (#1)
    by observed on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 08:34:06 PM EST
    HCR bill? A few weeks ago, the Senate bill was supposed to be very far from having enough votes in the House. How have things changed?

    Politico sez (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 08:39:51 PM EST
    that they're going to pass a reconciliation fix and conditionally pass the Senate bill in self-executing rule. If they do this right, House passage of the Senate bill should be triggered when the Senate agrees to the fix.

    Parent
    Is this imminent? (none / 0) (#3)
    by observed on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 08:43:54 PM EST
    Is anything? (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 08:47:57 PM EST
    They could take care of this in an afternoon if they have the votes lined up.

    I think the remaining difficulty is with the Stupak bloc.

    Parent

    Halderman's going to jail for 6 mos. (none / 0) (#5)
    by observed on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 08:50:41 PM EST
    Can he peddle the Letterman script when he gets out (or before)?

    No... (none / 0) (#6)
    by michitucky on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 09:04:20 PM EST
    as part of the agreement, he cannot profit from this.


    Parent
    In answer to her last question (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 09:27:45 PM EST
    I wonder if players at that level ever got to be college kids themselves. I think their social development is probably arrested at age 20 or so.

    Does not begin to excuse bad behavior if the allegation are true. But he better grow up if they are false and he wants to avoid other questionable situations.

    And that goes double for Tebow! (none / 0) (#10)
    by observed on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 09:31:24 PM EST
    Questionable situations? (none / 0) (#124)
    by desertswine on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 12:02:12 PM EST
    Roethlisberger on not one of his better evenings.

    Parent
    This whole thing with Eric Massa makes me sad (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 10:09:45 PM EST
    How many of our 2006 "fighting Democrats" are going to be left, anyway? (I know, he's an '08er, but he came close previously). Patrick Murphy is going to have a TOUGH race. I think McNerney will be alright. Sestak is on a near-kamikaze mission (but doing the rest of us a favor).

    Ummm (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 10:18:48 PM EST
    No loss, really...
    As a Democrat--and serving in a Republican-leaning district--Massa has eclectic views. He broke with the GOP over the Iraq war and plans to vote for single payer health care. But he opposes the health care plans the administration supports on cost grounds, and supported closing the southern border after the swine flu outbreak was traced to Mexico
    .

    tmp

    Parent

    gotta love (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:21:25 PM EST
    "oppose administrations plan on cost grounds" while planning to vote for single payer- which under any estimation would cost a ton more- it would save money from the deficit but so would the Health Care Bill, so obviously, Massa meant ticket price which yeah?

    Parent
    Oy. (none / 0) (#42)
    by dk on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:23:28 AM EST
    It's this kind of stuff that really depresses me.  I mean, I think even most conservatives and libertarians understand that in the long run single payer is a much more economically efficient method of providing health care.  They just disagree with it because of their philosophical mistrust of government and their hatred of the poor.

    But when a non-conservative says the kind of stuff that Socraticsilence writes above, I just don't know what to make of it.  

    Parent

    Took the bait (none / 0) (#59)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:50:34 AM EST
    Ha! You took the bait.  I saw that yesterday, chuckled and moved on.

    If I had to guess, SocSil is also of the opinion women should give up choice for the 'good' of others.

    Parent

    I know, I should have left (none / 0) (#66)
    by dk on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:57:45 AM EST
    it alone.  But you know how it is sometimes when you see something that causes you to take a deep sigh and shake your head and say to yourself "what the he** is wrong with people?"  That's the reaction I had to this.

    I'm a long-term optimist though.  Eventually we'll get our single payor or German-style not for profit private insurance.  There's no avoiding it, since our system is economically unsustainable.  It's a shame, of course, that the Democratic party is now about to pass a bill that props it up for another decade or so, but I suppose the true believers in the system like SocSci and the Republicans win this round.  It's not the first time people vote against their own interests.

    Parent

    I wish I had your confidence...but (none / 0) (#119)
    by esmense on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:33:34 AM EST
    for close to a century there has been one ruling notion that's trumped all others when it comes to thinking about health care in the US -- it can't be SOCIALIST!!! Despite the fact that effective, peer reviewed, accredited, education, research and technology dependent high cost modern medicine simply isn't possible without socializing costs in some way or another.

    Most other countries had decent government regulated or run health plans -- that socialized care, not profit -- in place by the 1920s (Germany, I believe, did so even 2 or 3 decades earlier). But the US has stumbled in the reverse direction, from inadequate (non-profit insurance for hospital and, later, medical services followed by tax policy that encouraged employers to provide such insurance to employees) to genuinely bad (government supported managed care reforms that allowed insurers to profit from the denial of care, bringing  commerical insurers into the market and driving out non-profits).

    Managed care was devised after the passage of Medicare specifically to stop the encroachment of "socialized" care that Medicare represented. Despite the fact that it has performed in exactly the opposite way from how it was promoted (as a means to control cost and broaden access), the same ideology, and some of the same people involved in its development, are behind the reforms being put forth today.

    If they pass, they will only make the powerful vested interests that have fought against reform for so long even more politically and financially powerful.

    To reverse direction now may require an actual, not metaphorical, revolution.

    Parent

    You missed my point (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:01:58 PM EST
    It's not about what he ended up doing. It's about what his potential was supposed to have been.

    Parent
    There's a lot of that going around, (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 07:43:49 AM EST
    don't you think?  People not living up to their potential, or to the potential the voters were sold, that is.

    I honestly don't know what to make of Massa; I was more than willing to withhold judgment until all the information was in, but I'm not sure we will ever know the whole story.  If he's sick, I'm sorry and wish him well; if he's been acting inappropriately with his subordinates, as he seems to have taken responsibility for, shame on him - he should know better.  If this is about getting rid of someone who hasn't been a team player, how utterly craven - and desperate.

    As for the rest of the Democrats, I think they are bringing new meaning to the term "disarray;" and I don't see any signs that it's getting better.

    Parent

    Apparently (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 07:53:44 AM EST
    He did the impossible - he made Glenn Beck speechless (or at least, near speechless).

    Just seven minutes into Glenn Beck's hour-long interview of Eric Massa on Tuesday evening, things had already gone very wrong.

    Conservatives had hopes that the now-former Democratic congressman from Upstate New York, who resigned abruptly under an ethics cloud, would deliver the goods about corruption and strong-arm tactics in the Obama White House and Congress. But instead, Massa served up an icky new confession.

    "Now they're saying I groped a male staffer," he volunteered. "Yeah, I did. Not only did I grope him, I tickled him until he couldn't breathe and then four guys jumped on top of me. It was my 50th birthday."

    Beck looked aghast. "Was your wife at that one?" the Fox News Channel host asked.

    "No, this was in a townhouse; we all lived together, all the bachelors and me," Massa explained. "My chief of staff had a conniption and said, 'You can't live there, that's not congressional.' "

    Beck tried to move the conversation in a different direction, but his guest resisted. "Let me show you something," Massa proposed, proffering a book with photos of bawdy Navy rituals from the days when he was a sailor.

    "You're going to show me tickle fights?" Beck inquired.

    "I'm going to show you a lot more than tickle fights," Massa promised. Beck put on his reading glasses, then judged that the images should not be shown on television. "It looks like an orgy in 'Caligula,' " Massa asserted.




    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 08:33:02 AM EST
    : "I'm sitting there showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest. . . . Do you know how awkward it is to have a political argument with a naked man?"

    What's next? Towel popping the behinds of Congress critters that don't vote right?

    ;-)

    Parent

    The visual of that whole conversation (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:09:06 AM EST
    Just gives me the creeps on so many levels.

    Parent
    Though.... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:34:37 AM EST
    The Village People's "In the Navy" makes perfect sense now.

    Parent
    They are going to appear at the (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 12:48:43 PM EST
    Horsehoe in Tunia on 3/26.

    Maybe I should go?

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:37:05 AM EST
    Probably would make me sick to watch it, but reading it is great.

    Parent
    He should have told Beck about (none / 0) (#112)
    by observed on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:57:22 AM EST
    getting his "red wings".
    That would have made Beck blanch.

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:12:44 PM EST
    But he's also a former Republican.... in a conservative district. Particularly hard to trust those types, given that you can't really trust any of them.

    Parent
    And a needless (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 06:53:17 AM EST
    Ugly scandal that gives the Dems a black eye when they are already in trouble, but still trying to claim they are "the most ethical" Congress.

    Parent
    My surprise (none / 0) (#28)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 08:32:25 AM EST
    Is that this is all coming from his own staff. These were supposed to be his people.

    Parent
    Jihad Jane (none / 0) (#13)
    by Makarov on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 10:31:19 PM EST
    From the indictment:
    1. On or about June 20, 2008, defendant COLLEEN R. LAROSE, a/k/a "Fatima LaRose," a/k/a "JihadJane," posted a comment on YouTube (an information and video sharing website) under the username "JihadJane," stating that she is "desperate to do something somehow to help" the suffering Muslim people.

    Material support of terrorism = rating Hamas propaganda videos 5 stars on youtube


    Are our Talkleft ratings being tabulated ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by cymro on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 12:00:54 AM EST
    ... by big brother?

    Parent
    If so I may have to (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:41:08 AM EST
    stop giving kdog 5's or I will lose my job.

    Parent
    I really hope... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:03:15 AM EST
    the fuzz have more than that on this lady...who doesn't want to help ease suffering?

    Parent
    From what I read in the paper (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:40:36 AM EST
    this AM, there is quite a bit more than that. All alleged, of course.

    Parent
    It's lookin' more and more like... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:11:30 AM EST
    spending a treasure of lives and loot occupying foreign lands to beat this terrorism thang was/is the stupidest idea ever.

    Parent
    I tend to agree on that (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:19:39 AM EST
    It could have been different if it hadn't been bungled from the start, but at this point...I'm not convinced.

    Parent
    That's where the tinfoil... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:31:05 AM EST
    comes into play...one would almost be forced to think it was all about, dare I say, the Benjamins?

    Parent
    I'm shocked! (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:47:40 AM EST
    ...that you need a tinfoil hat to believe that

    Parent
    It's an odd story (none / 0) (#114)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:04:33 AM EST
    I don't have a problem with Roethlisberger's party lifestyle.  But for celebrities and normal people alike, mixing casual sex and (a crapload of)alcohol are not good ideas.  Bad, bad things happen frequently.

    "Bad, bad things...." (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:59:50 AM EST
    I must be beating the odds, nothing but good things here:)

    Parent
    I'm mostly thinking of (none / 0) (#125)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 12:14:41 PM EST
    consent issues.  If you're having sex with someone who wakes up the next morning and doesn't remember it, that is not a good thing IMO.  

    Parent
    But its ok... (none / 0) (#128)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 12:29:37 PM EST
    if neither of you remember it:)

    You're right of course, never cool to take advantage of anybody's drunken state.  

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#133)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 12:49:19 PM EST
    the drunk hookup culture is weird.  I think a sloppy good time is just fine, but the expectation that you get drunk and can and should go off and have sex with someone you hardly know causes no good.  

    Parent
    Never my scene... (none / 0) (#136)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 01:16:52 PM EST
    an emotional connection makes all the difference in my book....otherwise its little more than glorified masturbation.

    Not to say I have anything against carnal pleasures for carnal pleasures sake...just a personal preference.  I am a proud hedonist after all:)

    Parent

    hahaha (none / 0) (#138)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 01:25:55 PM EST
    it's no secret that kdog is a romantic!! ;)  btw, I hope your lady love is well.

    Parent
    Thanks burro.... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 01:48:53 PM EST
    15 days and counting...I can hardly think straight...if I ever thought straight in my life:)

    Parent
    Aha. (none / 0) (#147)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 03:59:50 PM EST
    You haven't gone yet.

    I was beginning to worry that I might have missed the reports on your romantic vacation.

    I hope the earth moves.

    Parent