home

Tuesday Blogging Schedule And Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:16:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It doesn't happen often, but this is another week that both BTD and I are locked into our day jobs. BTD has depositions all week, and I've spent the past 96 hours straight (with a few for shut-eye) reviewing and re-reviewing 15,000 pages of wiretap applications and orders, and 19,000 intercepted telephone calls to draft motions to suppress. The last was filed at midnight. There are 22 defendants in the case which means all their motions have to be read as well, and then a seocnd set of motions filed adopting the grounds in their motions that might fit my client.

So BTD is in depositions Tuesday, Weds. and Thurs. and traveling Friday, and I'm going to be in time-out today so I can shake all the details out of my head and move on to the next case for a while.

What this means for you, is a lot of open threads this week and fewer blog posts by me unless they are related to a topic I am very interested in: which means criminal cases, celebrity illnesses (I'm still sending good thoughts to Bret Michaels)and trying to maintain my sanity.

I hope you are having a more relaxed week than BTD and I are. Which is why, we'd like you all to take over in the open threads.

Thanks everyone, and I'll be back as soon my eyes lose their blurriness from reading so many documents, and I can focus on something other than what's right in front of me. Hope you understand.

< Tancredo: Arizona Went Too Far | Arizona Boycott Spreading to Tourism, Baseball >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Blogging Schedule And Open Thread | 184 comments (184 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Biblical innerrancy skewered. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by observed on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:53:55 AM EST
    Warning: irreverent cartoon.

    I also just read a quote which I will keep handy, from James Randi: If atheism is a religion,  then NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

    Love James Randi! (none / 0) (#173)
    by TomStewart on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:40:24 PM EST
    The man is a national treasure, and the James Randi Foundation does great work.

    Parent
    Wow, Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Kimberley on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:49:10 AM EST
    What a heavy work load, for both of you. Of course people here will understand and pick up the slack.

    Here's my addition for the morning crew:

    Along the lines of BTD warning the savvy readers of this blog to keep an eye on Ezra Klein, rather than be distracted by Friedman, Digby weighs in on Klein's column from yesterday, You wouldn't like Lindsey Graham when he's angry.

    Take it away Digby:

    Jesus H. Christ. The spin has completely taken hold that poor little Huckleberry Graham got stabbed in the back because mean old Harry Reid decided to switch the immigration and climate change bills to save his own skin and it's just so terribly terribly partisan.  Poor Huck had been way out there on a limb working so darned hard to pass climate change and now he's stuck with this icky immigration bill that he ordered the president to start working on just a month ago.

    Ezra Klein says that Huckleberry has a right to be angry because he was promised that immigration would come after climate, and maybe he does. But why should I or any other Democrat give a damn? It's not like he's someone who has shown much integrity in the past. If he feels screwed, maybe it will be an object lesson to him.

    And anyway, I supposed to believe that the party of "drill, baby, drill" was going to vote for this climate change bill before the election?

    News of interest this morning:

    Guantanamo war court to examine Khadr's confession to Bush-era interrogators, by Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald (via McClatchy):

    Starting on Wednesday, an Army judge will begin to decide whether Khadr's confessions should be thrown out because of his alleged abuse. The war court hearing will be the deepest examination yet of how a captive came to confess in Afghanistan and Guantanamo to Bush administration-era interrogators.

    Defense lawyers are asking the judge to stop the Pentagon from using the confessions at the summertime trial of the Toronto-born Khadr, 23, accused of conspiring with al Qaida and murdering a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan when he was 15.

    Arizona's anti-immigration law draws protests, boycott vows, by Susan Ferriss of the Sacramento Bee (via McClatchy):

    California Latino rights activists and attorneys are leading a charge against a new Arizona law they say violates federal law and will inevitably lead to racial profiling.

    San Francisco officials called for a boycott and said they are considering ending contracts with Arizona businesses.

    The state's Latino, Asian Pacific Islander and black legislative caucuses wrote to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in protest.

    On a somewhat related note, I'm really grateful I don't do the kinds of things that would force me to be deposed by either of you. You two get rest where you can so you can stay sharp as tacks.

    Myself? I'll be finishing a 16th century German woman's loose gown and starting an Elizabethan effigy corset today.

    I'm also seriously considering having another go at baking a génoise cake today, using lemon instead of vanilla so that I can try dusting it with lavender sugar. I have some leftover lemon icing (that uses a meringue base, so it's incredibly airy and carries the lemony zing in a most pleasing way). I figure 3 or 4 dots piped onto a sliver of this cake would be a perfect way to amuse the palate with a cup of Lady Grey tea or espresso in the afternoon. I think it could be an incomparable pick-me-up. We'll see.

    I'm coming to your house for snack (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:21:48 AM EST
    To heck with this place and workers still stomping around all day leaving little saw dust and popcorn ceiling piles around here.  Do you make Renaissance costumes?  We have friends heavily into the Renaissance thing and the husband is the one who actually started making HER clothing with extremely elaborate embroidery work all over.  He will work for others too but he is really expensive I'm told but his stuff is beautiful.  This will be the last day of workers around here though.  Everything should be finished today.  We may add onto our garage too, still haven't decided for certain though.  If Obama doesn't quit making economic policy decisions that penalize the little people we will not though....too much deflation coming up then to risk how much the garage will cost and how much it will shortly be worth.

    Parent
    Ah, the joys of renovation! (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Kimberley on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:06:39 AM EST
    The clean up's a drag but I hope it's beautiful for you. A couple of summers ago, I renovated our kitchen. It was an awesome learning experience and I still can't believe what a difference it made to the overall feel of the home.

    I work with textiles for artistry more than anything else. I don't yet have the talent for pattern adjusting and fitting that would be required for costuming others, although it would be a pleasure to outfit people who love Renaissance fairs. I just wouldn't feel comfortable charging people for the work that I do, in part because I'm still teaching myself (I still have to make them couture because I find the machine a bother and I work faster by hand) but also because I labor over every detail, head-to-toe -- wig, prosthetic makeup, undergarments and gowns -- in a way that makes it hard to imagine any normal person preparing to wear or paying for. I'd most dearly love to apprentice with someone from the film industry in costume design. Maybe one day. Until then, it's art for art's sake.

    That cake sounds delicious doesn't it? I've never tried a lavender sugar but I think it could be pretty fantastic if done in the right way.

    Enjoy your new digs!  

    Parent

    We face the kitchen now (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    With the new slate in place at front and backdoor (and we put in a new backdoor too and it is fresh and yummy), the greatroom bumping up against the kitchen makes the kitchen look really horrible.  I did buy that book 'The House that Faux Built', and my husband and I do our own cosmetic work...I have a doozy coming up though figuring out what to do with the cabinets.  They are old, but they were custom made out of heavy oak cabinet making plywood.  There is no excuse to not reburbish them and if I want to make any claim at all to being a "green" person it is time to get serious about a new paint job for them.  My husband is thrilled because he will get a new paint sprayer and painting booth out of it.  From the book though, the countertop makeover is incredible and we will probably go with that verses tearing out the counter tops.  They are structurally very sound, so once again it is time for elbow grease verses quickly throwing my "problems" in the city dump.  The workers are finishing the Pureair HVAC system for my asthma, it costs double what a regular HVAC system costs but for me and my severe asthma here...worth every penny and a problem that I can't "sugar coat" with a faux finish.

    Parent
    have you guys heard... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:03:46 AM EST
    the sad tale of the homeless hero left to bleed to death on the streets of Queens?  None too proud of my borough right now.

    I understand not wanting to get involved with the police state we live under and all...but when a man is bleeding to death on the street you call an ambulance, at the absolute very least...anything less is sub-human.

    Can't comment (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:23:22 AM EST
    Too angry....it would have never been me just walking past.

    Parent
    I doubt it would've (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:49:15 PM EST
    taken that long for someone to assist him if it had been obvious that he was bleeding.According to the article, someone finally stopped and took the time to turn him over and saw what was going on, but by that time it was too late to save him.

    I've lived in Denver, Seattle and Nawlins, and can, unfortunately, very easily imagine the same thing happening in any of those places. How many people, in any of our major cities, ever go out of their way to assist homeless people or those of "wretched" appearance when they're in obvious distress?

    Even our common humanity is "privatized" these days. So privatized that it's more likely to manifest as nervous disorders and Rush's rectal cysts before it ever reaches out to anyone.

     

    Parent

    Not My NYC (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:08:45 AM EST
    I think that this is unusual for NYC. Mostly people would stop to help someone. Pretty outrageous callousness, imo.

    Parent
    I wouldn't blame that on NYC (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Kimberley on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:22:54 AM EST
    There are places in Denver that would probably yield the same results.

    That's not a NYC thing; seems more like an "I don't want the cops sniffing around" thing.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:37:09 AM EST
    It's generally more of a "Someone else will help" attitude ala the story of the Good Samaratin.  The Kitty Genovese case in 1964 is the most famous dealing with what is known as the "bystander effect" which says something like the more bystanders to an event like this, the greater the chance that fewer people (or no one) will help.  

    I don't think it has anything to do with NY - my guess is it has to do with large urban areas, and the smaller the city or town, the more likely someone would help.

    Parent

    Have sociologists figured out (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Kimberley on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:56:14 AM EST
    why that paralyzes otherwise helpful people?

    That effect has always baffled me.

    I was in a situation where this effect was in play once in an Office Depot or something on East Colfax years ago. I stopped in to use their fax machine and this armed man walked in, crossed the store, punched (I presume) his girlfriend working there in the face and proceeded to beat the living hell out of her. I mean vicious, vicious beating.

    There were over twenty people in the store. We had the numbers on our side but if I hadn't jumped in to stop him, I think we would all have stood there and watched him kill her. As it happened, they all stood there watching me break up the fight and order him to leave the store alone. Nobody else helped her or me, working to protect her, none of them. They just stood there like they were watching a movie--the boss, coworkers of this woman and customers alike.

    It was surreal.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:40:58 AM EST
    I have seen countless incidents, including myself, of NYers helping distressed people, on the busiest streets of NYC, even during rush hour, when the sidewalks turn into a sea of people.

    Your comment only reinforces a common negative stereotype of NYC, it is false. NYers step up to the plate when needed.

    Parent

    actually the bystander effect is well (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:47:44 AM EST
    documented. It doesn't hold true in each case, but holds true in enough to be a part of social psychology. This isn't about New York, but about high population density.

    Parent
    Abstract Thinking (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:56:51 AM EST
    I have lived in NYC my whole life and have never seen someone in distress not immediately attended to by a passerby. Homeless people, or obviously intoxicated people, are the exception, but not when they are stabbed or bleeding. Many "bystanders" pass by homeless people begging, although many NYers do give their local homeless, food and/or money.

    Parent
    What you're describing (4.00 / 4) (#75)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:41:13 PM EST
    is not scientific but anecdotal.  Anecdotal evidence means nothing.

    Bystander effect is a scientific theory.

    JBInDC, stop feeding this clueless troll.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:09:50 PM EST
    Scientific theory? HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

    This has never been conclusively proven beyond the basic research and cases given here (with some research refuting the effect for certain situations, such as emergency services reporting[1]), however there is further anecdotal evidence to suggest that at least in some circumstances, this is the case
    .

    And not in Manhattan.

    Besides the comment has zero to do with the given situation. There were no bystanders, and over the hour and a half under 25 people walked by...

    Parent

    I'm not reinforcing anything (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:12:29 AM EST
    I didn't say it was NYers.  I said I believe this is more prevalent in urban areas, where it's more impersonal, people don't even know their neighbors, etc.  It could be NY, LA, Chicago, or Kansas City.

    In fact, Dateline did a show on this very topic a couple of years ago.  It was a crime similar to the Kitty Genovese story they were talking about, so they set up some experiments.  I think they did it in a couple of places around Mangatran in very busy areas in the middle of the day.   They had actors and they played out vsrios scenes like two guys getting in a fight, a woman getting her purse stolen, and I think a woman getting assaulted (I don't remember all of the scenarios).  In all the scenarios only one or two people did d
    something - even just call the cops.  Tons of people just stood around and watched these "crimes" take place.

    As Jeff said, it's a well documented effect.

    Parent

    There's been a long-term (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by brodie on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:45:27 AM EST
    post-WWII trend in this country of people increasingly not knowing their neighbors, in big cities and smaller ones.  All sorts of reasons.  TV, family cocooning activities of the modern age which keep them indoors, urban planners' indifference to creating or maintaining vibrant and friendly neighborhoods (e.g. Rbt Moses in NYC).  People have gotten out of the old habits of being neighborly and learned more isolating ones.

    Then too with large numbers of bystanders witnessing a crime, it may not always be a matter of callous indifference.  Sometimes, with many, it might be a simple matter of assuming in such a large group that someone else will step in, will call the police.

    In any case though, big city or small, it's usually the case in my experience that only a small number will act affirmatively to get involved.  That's why they came up with apt descriptives like The Silent Majority.

    Parent

    A corrolary is called social loafing, (none / 0) (#45)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:49:36 AM EST
    Brodie.

    In our technology and education driven societies, people will defer to an unknown expert. It's easier than participating.

    Additionally, states with weak good samaritan laws offer legal dicincentives.

    One of the keys to this is that the people don't have to be physically jostling each other around a person or event. People nearby in businesses, cars, etc., are often nonparticipants.

    Parent

    Manhattan (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:13:41 AM EST
    I hate typing on an iPod

    Parent
    Bystander Effect a Stretch Here (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:34:34 AM EST
    The bystander effect would suggest that in this case the homeless man would be more likely to have been helped because there were few bystanders, in fact, no bystanders, just people sporadically passing by.

    If anything, the callousness demonstrated here, has more to do with the particular neighborhood in NYC than the bystander effect.

    The bystander effect is a social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases where individuals do not offer help in an emergency situation when other people are present. The probability of help has in the past been thought to be inversely proportional to the number of bystanders; in other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help. This has never been conclusively proven beyond the basic research and cases given here (with some research refuting the effect for certain situations, such as emergency services reporting[1]), however there is further anecdotal evidence to suggest that at least in some circumstances, this is the case.

    Apart from the "bystander effect" being quite a stretch in this case, the "bystander effect" has never been conclusively proven.

    My empirical evidence as a life time NYer proves the opposite of the bystander effect for NYC.  In the hundreds of times I have seen someone in distress on the streets of NYC, I have never seen NYers walk by to let a person lie on the ground to suffer. The busier the street the faster help arrives by a stranger. This is not abstract theory but actual  experience.

    Your abstract application of a irrelevant theory, here, is not surprising.

    Parent

    I see that someone (none / 0) (#46)
    by brodie on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:50:21 AM EST
    has posted reflecting similar thoughts to mine below.  I really do suspect there's something to those anecdotal data.  And it also might depend on the neighborhood, as we recall how tight some of them were in NYC prior to "urban renewal" of the 50s and Moses, as noted by that urban planning sociologist from the 60s Jane __ .

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:15:39 AM EST
    Although applying the "bystander effect" to this situation would suggest that someone would help sooner than later.

    The basis for the theory is that the amount of bystanders is inversely proportional to the timely chances of someone helping.

    There were no bystanders in this case, some sporadic passerbys.

    If anything the location of the crime, would be the reason no one came to the victims aid in a timely manner.

    144th Street near 88th Road in Jamaica is hardly a place that would fill up with bystanders, particularly at night..

    And for about 25 people to walk by in over an hour's time, between the hours of 5:40 AM and 7:23 AM also hardly brings to mind the "bystander effect"

    And as for the bystander effect on the streets of NYC... it is not applicable, in my experience. The stereotype of cold, busy and anonymous NYers is just not true when it comes to helping a person in distress.

    Parent

    And I'm not sure why (4.40 / 5) (#56)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:02:55 PM EST
    You need to sneak an ad hominem attack in your comment.

    But I'm not surprised as someone is not allowed to have a different view than you.

    Parent

    Different View? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:26:13 PM EST
    Had you done any research you would have quickly realized that the so called "bystander effect" has no bearing on this case.

    And to link this effect, which is hardly proven, to the streets of NYC is insulting to NYers, as it is patently false when it comes to NYC.

    Not sure why your knee jerk association kicked in, but certainly when it comes to right wing views on things to do with crime, you are usually way off base, imo.

    Parent

    Again (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:50:01 PM EST
    Your lack of reading comprehension again fails you.  This has nothing to do with NYers.  But I did take Psychology 101 and was just making an observation , but as usual you have to stretch to bring a completely irrelevant topic to the table.  

    Do me a favor since you find my comments mot to your marrow view of the world - ignore my comments in all threads and don't respond to me, mmmkay?  You'll be much happier and not so worked up and we don't have to involve everyone else in big, bad me offending your delicate sensibilities.  

    Parent

    OK Mumbles (1.00 / 5) (#63)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:56:19 PM EST
    I'll make a deal with you. Stop posting stupid, misleading comments and I will stop pointing out their fallacy.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:28:33 PM EST
    The stupid.  It burns.

    Parent
    good luck (3.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    with that one

    Parent
    Again (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:46:20 PM EST
    Your lack of reading comprehension again fails you.  This has nothing to do with NYers.  But I did take Psychology 101 and was just making an observation , but as usual you have to stretch to bring a completely irrelevant topic to the table.  

    Do me a favor since you find what you think my views are -ignore my comments in all threads and don't jump in, mmmkay?  You'll be much happier and not so worked up and we don't have to involve everyone else in big, bad me offending your delicate sensibilities.  

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:54:29 PM EST
    I agree that your non sequitur has nothing to do with NYers.

    Funny thing is that the crime happened in NY, and your kneejerk assertion was that this must have happened because of the "bystander effect"

    Now why would you come up with that association? Geez, I give it to you, that your reasoning is often hard to follow, but most reasonable people would guess that your reason for bringing up the "bystander effect" is because this crime happened in a city that has some 8 million people who are all potential bystanders, namely NYC.

    It is like quoting some right wing theory about blacks and crime and link to a crime done by a black person. When someone calls you out for the stereotyping, you say, but I never said that the theory has anything to do with the crime in question...

    classic

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Spamlet on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    There is a way to say this

    Your abstract application of a irrelevant theory, here, is not surprising.

    that does not require an ad hominem (or ad feminam) attack. Here is one way to do it:

    In my opinion, the theory you cited is irrelevant to the case at hand. I also find your application of this theory abstract. But my reaction doesn't surprise me, because your comment appears to fit the pattern that I often perceive in what you write.

    See the difference?

    It's all about I statements, not you statements, as any mediator could explain. The second statement says the same thing as the first one, but it doesn't mean precisely the same thing, because part of the meaning of the first statement is carried by its insulting tone.

    But a commenter who wants to convey meaning and not just insult people can disagree with others all day long without ever becoming disagreeable. That's because I statements tend to have the effect of making the commenter take responsibility for his or her own thoughts and feelings instead of falsely imputing thoughts and feelings to others while using a comments thread to work out a toxic stew of negative emotions.

    Parent

    Thanks Tech (2.00 / 4) (#68)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:10:14 PM EST
    Now if you could only figure out how to apply it to your comments, you would not appear to be such a hypocrite.

    Parent
    whoosh (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by sj on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:16:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Did you mean to say thanks to "teach", (none / 0) (#180)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:32:50 AM EST
    versus "tech", Squeaky?

    Parent
    You've been lucky then (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:51:24 AM EST
    Of course, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean that's actually what happens.

    Parent
    The biggest factor at play... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:15:55 AM EST
    imo was that the guy looked like a bum...you see the homeless treated as less than human all the time.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:19:49 AM EST
    Not to mention the neighborhood and the fact that it happened between 5:40 AM and 7:23AM.

    Parent
    I know, right? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Kimberley on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:15:11 AM EST
    Over an hour that poor guy lay there bleeding to death. Where did the woman go, that he helped? Her input would have been helpful. Or did she bleed out on another corner somewhere? Who knows...

    People blow my mind.

    Parent

    I have dogs to train and groom today (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:33:29 AM EST
    but will run down everything available to me when I can about the bull$h*t game being played concerning fiscal responsibility.  If they want to preach fiscal responsibility to me, they can't do that until ALL the folks we have in Iraq are home.  That won't be for years and Iraq is not more important than America, I will give it equal importance though.  But if Iraq is "costing us money" then I'm sorry, the U.S. is in crisis too and that is going to have to cost someone some money too.  Those people would be the ones who have fleeced everyone royally now for about ten years and now have golden sacks :)

    Health care costs (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:56:33 AM EST
    From today's NYT (sorry, no link):

    Inquiry Says Health Care Charges Were Proper
    By ROBERT PEAR

    "WASHINGTON -- When major companies declared that a provision of the new health care law would hurt earnings, Democrats were skeptical. But after investigating, House Democrats have concluded that the companies were right to tell investors and the government about the expected adverse effects of the law on their financial results.

    At issue is a section of the law that eliminates a tax break available to companies that provide drug benefits to retirees as part of their insurance coverage. The tax change, expected to generate $4.5 billion of revenue over the next 10 years, will help offset the cost of providing coverage to the uninsured.

    Within days after President Obama signed the law on March 23, companies filed reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission, saying the tax change would have a material adverse effect on their earnings."

    More (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:59:32 AM EST
    "Representative Henry A. Waxman of California and Bart Stupak of Michigan, both Democrats, opened an investigation and demanded that four companies -- AT&T, Caterpillar, Deere and Verizon -- supply documents analyzing the "impact of health care reform," together with an explanation of their accounting methods.

    The documents -- hundreds of pages of e-mail messages and financial worksheets -- include large amounts of data that substantiate the companies' concerns. They have reignited a battle over the law in Congress.

    Representative Joe L. Barton of Texas, the senior Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said, "From a financial standpoint, from a purely economic standpoint, many companies would be better off discontinuing health care as a fringe benefit, paying the penalty and pocketing the savings."

    In a memorandum summarizing its investigation, the Democratic staff of the committee said, "The companies acted properly and in accordance with accounting standards in submitting filings to the S.E.C. in March and April."

    Moreover, it said, "these one-time charges were required by applicable accounting rules." The committee staff said this view was confirmed by independent experts at the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the American Academy of Actuaries."

    Parent

    this was always true (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CST on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:45:18 AM EST
    "From a financial standpoint, from a purely economic standpoint, many companies would be better off discontinuing health care as a fringe benefit, paying the penalty and pocketing the savings"

    long before this healthcare bill passed.  Companies don't offer health care for their own economic well being.  They offer it because their employees expect and require it.  

    If this tax is really the stone that broke the camel's back in that regard, it was pretty much already broken, and increasing health care costs would have put it over the edge sooner rather than later anyway.

    Parent

    Cute. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Kimberley on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:15:59 AM EST
    Very cute.

    Parent
    The law closed a loophole on corporate (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:31:27 AM EST
    retiree benefits. The federal government subsidizes retiree drug benefits by 28% (from memory could be off by 1-2 %) and prior to this corporations were allowed a tax break on money they did not pay out of pocket.

    IOW, for every $1,000 of retiree benefit, the government paid $280 of the expense but the corporations got a tax break on the full $1,000. Under the new law, the corporations would now only get to deduct the actual amount they spent, $720.

    Think that the new provision is fair taxation. How it effects retiree benefits is another matter.

    Parent

    Joe Barton's statement (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:42:41 AM EST
    Says it all.  I don't think lots of large companies dumping their plans, forcing their employees and retirees into government subsidies was part of the calculus or selling points of the HIR bill.

    Parent
    You're right, it wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:50:18 AM EST
    part of the plan.  Luckily, it's not going to happen.

    Parent
    Tell that to the retirees (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:13:28 PM EST
    who are losing their RX drug benefits.

    Parent
    How much Joe Barton's statement is (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:02:35 AM EST
    to believed is up for debate IMO. It is definitely to the benefit of large corporations to maintain the current tax loophole. Using scare tactics to pressure Congress to allow them to continue to deduct more than they pay is SOP.

    Many if not most large companies have contracts of some sort that specify what retiree benefits are. I retired from a large company. Current retirees are normally "grandfathered" under the contract that existed when they retired.

    I'm sure you are aware that I am not a fan of the current legislation. Yet, I do not think that you can take every statement made by corporations at face value.

    Parent

    Most large corporations (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:17:47 AM EST
    Nowadays do not cover their retirees' health care, so the discussion is really about current employees.  

    Do I see big corporations cutting way back on their health plans (maybe not eliminating them)?  I sure as heck do, unless we have another employment situation like we had in the 90's, where companies did the most ridicous thongs to attract employees.

    Parent

    Your IPod typing is a hoot (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:24:38 AM EST
    as I had not heard of lures like thongs to get good hires!

    But I entirely agree that the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Bill will not make companies any more generous -- and probably even less so -- and will cost us all.  It already has happened in my state with every agreement, again and again.

    Parent

    It was probably (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:33:24 AM EST
    A high tech company with the thongs.  :)

    I was emailing my sister the other day about my bank account being overdrawn (found out my iTunes account had been hacked for over $500 before I noticed it, but I digress).  I was telling her that my car payment had bounced and I guess I typed that my "cat payment" bounced.

    Can't wait to get back on a project that has Internet access so I don't gave to rely on an iPod and wi-fi!

    Parent

    The price of cats has gone up. (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:40:56 AM EST
    Might be time to switch to something else.

    Parent
    Ironically, some of the companies mentioned (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:49:26 AM EST
    in the article, AT&T, Caterpillar, Deere and Verizon, have union contracts that specify retiree coverage.

    I think we are arguing apples and oranges here.  According to polls, many companies were considering cutting back or eliminating health coverage due to cost prior to implementation of the POS legislation.

    Do I think health insurance costs will continue to rise at an unacceptable rate? Yes, I do. Do I think that this legislation did anything to make health care affordable or to stop the rise in costs? No, I don't. Do I think every negative health care or health insurance issue will be blamed on this legislation. Yes, I do. Do I think that this legislation could cause more harm than good. Yes, I do. Which is why I did not support the legislation.

    Parent

    On another front (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:40:10 AM EST
    Some problems are cropping up on the provision to keep children on parents policies until they are 26.

    Looks like the administration will take steps to eliminate any tax concerns if companies extend benefits immediately. Handling of the increased costs may still create a problem.

    It's also unclear how employers will charge for the new coverage. They could spread the cost across their entire pool of employees with family coverage. Or they could charge families that elect to cover their young adults a separate premium, likely higher.

    "There is no free lunch, so there will be an incremental cost," said Ron Fontanetta, a principal with the consulting firm TowersWatson. He believes a majority of employers will keep things simple and raise overall family premiums modestly. But it may still be noticeable - 5 percent to 10 percent. link



    Parent
    At least in my firm, premiums are (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:59:03 AM EST
    based on the type of coverage one has; if it's individual, or husband and wife, and one wants to add an adult child, one's coverage would be in the Parent & Child or Family category, and the increased premiums for coverage would be borne by the employee - not everyone else in the plan.  Why would I expect my fellow employees to share the cost of putting my kid on the plan - that makes no sense to me.

    Now, I can imagine that, at the next open enrollment period, if there were younger, healthier people in the pool, the ability to spread the risk might offset the usual annual increases, but who knows?

    I'm pretty much resigned to not seeing a reduction in my private-market insurance, and God willing, Medicare will still be there in 8 yeears when I am eligible.

    Parent

    Spreading the additional costs (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:23:11 AM EST
    throughout their entire pool of employees with "family coverage" simplifies the process. Doubt that this by itself will impact individual, or husband and wife only coverage. I'm sure there will be people on family plans without qualifying adult children, who will scream that this is not fair to them. But then again, "family coverage" under that scenario has never been "fair" since employees with 10 children do not pay more for coverage than their coworkers who have only 2 children.

     

    Parent

    Here's the thing: (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:23:01 PM EST
    premiums for coverage are set before the open enrollment period.  They have to be - you can't have people choosing a plan without knowing how much it will cost them.  The premiums don't change - up or down - regardless of how many people enroll, whether older, sicker people - or younger healthier people - are added.

    Now, are the current year's premiums based on the prior year's claims?  I would imagine so, but, one thing is for sure: the premiums are not going down - in spite of wellness initiatives or the latest: biometric assessments.  The hook is to offer people who are enrolled in the firm's plan a one-time reduction of their annual premium for submitting to the assessment, but it hasn't been disclosed yet what penalty may be paid by those who either do not participate, or who do, and then don't follow the recommendations to (1) quit smoking, (2) lose weight, (3) lower their blood pressure or (4) whatever else the company decides.  

    Don't get me wrong: we should all be managing our health in common-sense ways, but there is an element of Big Brother here that really disturbs me.  The firm says all the information that results from the assessment is confidential, but who really knows?  What I do know is that, even though I don't have firm-sponsored insurance, I can still get the assessment, but I will not be eligible for any kind of monetary reward or bonus to do so - that will only go to those in the firm's plan.  So, if this was about health, there would be a reward for ALL who participate in the assessment, right?  So, it must be all about the money

    If the firm is willing to rebate $150 to each person/family that submits to the assessment, you can be sure much more is coming back to the firm - but they aren't sharing that information.

    So, while these are two tactics that I believe may result in the firm paying less, they are not reducing the premiums to the employees.  The firm has tried to keep increases to a minimum, it has done that by changing insurers, reducing coverage and increasing deductibles and co-pays.

    Same old, same old.


    Parent

    Additionally (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:09:22 PM EST
    If you're going to spread out costs, then single people should be allowed to put another person on their policy, so it would be a little more fair.  Same argument - why will you only cover me and not let a relative of mine buy in? It would also get around the sticky issue of domestic partnerships and gay partners.

    Parent
    Environmental Disaster, NYT. (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:34:20 AM EST
    Oil continues to pour from the exploded rig in the Gulf of Mexico, with a spill the size of Rhode Island. "State of the art" efforts such as submerging a dome over the leaks are being made, according to Doug Suttles,the chief operating officer at BP, who also stresses that "the method had never been done at such depths." It would take at least two weeks to put in place.  Another try would be to drill more wells nearby to push concrete into the gushing cavity. That would take two to three months. The surfactants used to help break up the slick can be as toxic to mammals as oil, according to Jackie Savitz, a marine biologist with a nonprofit conservation group. But, Ms. Amy Myers Jaffee wants us to keep all this in perspective. The spills of this character, are after all, rare, and offshore drilling, she says, is safer than tankers. Ms. Myers Jaffee, is a director of energy and director of the James A. Baker institute of Public Policy at Houston's Rice University. Meanwhile, a lawsuit has been filed by the family of rig worker, Shane Roshto, for negligence, naming BP, Transocean, and Haliburton.

    The Alaska pipeline (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:44:59 PM EST
    has been hailed as very safe--a success story.  No spills.  No harm to wildlife.

    What is overlooked are the unintended consequences.  True, the pipeline itself has not caused major problems.  But there would have been no tankers in Prince William Sound but for the pipeline.  And no Exxon Valdez spill--a disaster that will still take decades to overcome.

    When you drill for oil on such a large scale, there will always be some unaccounted for reaction or consequence.  The arrogance of the oil people in thinking that they can harness all of nature safely....


    Parent

    Snow (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:51:50 AM EST
    Woke up this AM to 32 degrees and snow.  Snow!  Sure looks pretty on the green, green grass of late April, but geez.

    We have rain on top of damage from (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:56:56 AM EST
    last weekend. I'm hoping to get an auditorium this weekend and show cartoons to the kiddies who still don't have electricity or television.

    Parent
    Intermittent signs of spring (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:02:28 AM EST
    are giving me daydreams of putting in plants already.  Must. Resist!  Thanks for the reminder that, where we are, there still could be early frosts . . . and, yes, snow happens.

    I must content myself with wonderful daffodils and tulips and hyacinth and such hardy early perennials for a few weeks longer.  But it does look like one of the years when it will be safe to put in some annuals before Memorial Day -- although that can mean, sometimes, having to put in a garden twice.

    Sigh.  I am so eager to get through my workload, at its peak at this time, as well and get a break!

    Parent

    for us the 'safe date' is Good Friday, (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:06:46 AM EST
    but some people push their luck. I can't imagine waiting until the end of May. Waiting until the end of March seems too long!

    Of course, this year I'm still 'on the porch,' as it were. Looking at the green field that ought to be a garden.

    Maybe by June I'll be up and around for long enough to do something, sigh.

    Parent

    I was tempted (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:42:49 PM EST
    last week.  We had some gorgeous weather.  Today?  Pouring rain.  So glad I resisted as every dollar would have rotted away.

    Parent
    In a DB excerpt from a new (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by brodie on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:01:55 AM EST
    book on Prohibition, author Daniel Okrent debunks the half-century old tale about Joe Kennedy being a bootlegger.

    On December 5, Utah's legislature became the 36th to ratify the Repeal amendment, rendering Prohibition officially dead. The next morning, before the national hangover from the previous night's revels had entirely subsided, Somerset Importers was in business, founded on an investment of $118,000. Kennedy's firm took its name from the Boston men's club that barred its doors to Irish Catholics, and it owed its creation to Kennedy's friendship with Franklin Roosevelt's son. Somerset emitted the pungent air that hovered around most marriages of politics and commerce, but it was in every respect perfectly legal.

    That last part--"perfectly legal"--was something that Walter Trohan, the longtime Washington bureau chief of the Chicago Tribune, failed to include in an article published some 20 years later, when Kennedy's son John was serving his first term as U.S. senator from Massachusetts.

    I wish I had a nickle for every time one of the usual mainstream media historians or political commentators on teevee has repeated the old myth as fact over the years.

    Well Let's Not Whitewash Kennedy Either (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:52:45 AM EST
    Whatever the truth of the matter, Kennedy's real strength wasn't his alleged criminal ties but his business smarts, notably an exquisite sense of timing. In the mid-1920s he became a movie mogul (taking time out for a celebrated dalliance with Gloria Swanson), then organized a merger and sold out just when the industry was consolidating, clearing five to six million dollars all told. He pulled out of stocks early in 1929 and sold short following the crash, actually making money while others got creamed. Just before Prohibition was repealed he lined up several lucrative liquor-importing deals.

    By the 1930s Kennedy was rich, but he didn't make serious money by modern standards until he got into real estate in a big way during World War II, raking in an estimated $100 million. In 1945 he made the deal that remains the centerpiece of the Kennedy fortune: for a measly $12.5 million he bought the Merchandise Mart in Chicago, a huge wholesale emporium that had cost $30 million to build. Within a few years the annual gross in rent exceeded the purchase price. In 1957 Fortune declared Kennedy one of the richest men in America, with assets of 200 to 400 million bucks.

    more

    Parent

    The Kennedy family sold (none / 0) (#79)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:50:21 PM EST
    the Merchandise Mart in 1998 to Vornado Realty Trust of Saddle Brook, NJ, for $450 million in cash and about $125 million in a stake in Vornado (operating partnership units).

    Parent
    Nothing illegal (none / 0) (#92)
    by brodie on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:09:11 PM EST
    in anything your "straightdope" site excerpt recounts.  Typical successful savvy and aggressive businessman behavior, only perhaps more so and with more important connections.   The guy did start out, after all, as the youngest bank prez in the history of MA, iirc.  Very smart and very aggressive.

    What I wanted to highlight was the Okrent book's debunking of the decades-long allegations that Joe Kennedy had come by his fortune largely via illegal activity in pre-Prohibition bootlegging.  That bogus charge was one, iirc, that the Kennedy-hating Sy Hersh sought to further enshrine as indisputable fact in his screed from the 90s where, though he couldn't actually find a documentary record to back it up, he could conveniently find plenty of dubious witnesses, including a notorious Kennedy hater from the FBI (!), one Cartha DeLoach if memory serves, to speak ill of JK and make unsubstantiated (not to mention libel-proof) verbal charges on this matter.

    And as for other non-business matters, no, not trying to "whitewash" anything there either.  He was flawed, and made a few big mistakes, one in public service, the other in family matters.  But it appears he was not a crook.

    Parent

    I think I liked him better... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:18:57 PM EST
    as a bootlegger...often more honest than legal "aggressive businessman" behavior, as our current masters of the universe have shown us... in spades.

    Parent
    Yes I Read It (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:36:00 PM EST
    There is no proof that he was not involved in less than kosher activities, either. What is clear is that the massive fortune he had was a function of his talents, and not criminal dealings.

    That is why I chose the particular quote, above.

    Personally, knowing about the businesses he was involved in, and the history around it all, I find it extremely hard to believe that Joe Kennedy and his Dad were on the straight and narrow.

    And unlike Sy Hersh, I have zero animosity toward the Kennedy family.

    Parent

    Please Go For It, Do Us A Favor (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:46:20 AM EST
    CHICAGO -- White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is taking some good-natured ribbing about wanting to be the mayor of Chicago.

    I would contribute to your relocation expenses...

    decided to do my part (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:07:06 PM EST
    for the US america economy and buy the house I have been living in for almost three years.

    pathetic I am so terrified of commitment.

    Captain Howdy... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:47:25 PM EST
    joins the ownership society...G-Dub would be so proud.

    Just kidding, good luck my man!

    Parent

    I feel (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:54:11 PM EST
    so "legitimate"

    Parent
    Next you will be telling us... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:07:37 PM EST
    you've got a man servant...don't get too legitimate on us, we like you how you is:)

    Parent
    actually I have one (none / 0) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:15:48 PM EST
    he is tied up in the crawlspace

    8-P

    Parent

    Capt (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:54:49 PM EST
    Do you see the film version of Angels in America?

    If so, what did you think of it?

    Parent

    I did (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:03:15 PM EST
    I thought it was wonderful.
    Merle Streep is downright mind boggling.  you did realize that was her as the ancient Rabbi at the beginning, right?  as well as Ethel Rosenberg and the Mom.

     

    Parent

    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:46:57 PM EST
    Seemingly, there's nothing Streep cant do.

    Jeffrey Wright rocked the sh*t in that film, too. I couldnt believe it was the same guy who played Muddy Waters in Cadillac Records.

    Parent

    everyone in that film did (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:08:43 PM EST
    every single person.  not a bad performance or even a borderline one.

    Pacino was amazing as Roy Cohn

    Parent

    Pacino is GREAT (none / 0) (#120)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:27:30 PM EST
    at those kind of characters. I'd like to think Cohn wasnt that bad in real life, but I suspect he may've been..

    You know the guy had have been, shall we say, ethically challenged, when even people at The National Review called him a sleaze after he died.

    Parent

    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 05:19:24 PM EST
    last night I saw a great HBO movie with Pacino as Jack Kevorkian called "You Dont Know Jack"

    Parent
    I saw it a few nights back (none / 0) (#162)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 05:23:10 PM EST
    but fell asleep before the end.  It is DVR'd though, I'll finish it shortly.  Excellent HBO flick.

    Parent
    Just saw Cadillac Records over the weekend (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:55:32 PM EST
    I had to refer to IMDB mid-movie to see who that great actor was playing Muddy. I didn't even recognize him. Really enjoyed that film, btw.


    Parent
    Loved it - have it on DVD (none / 0) (#133)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:52:10 PM EST
    All of the performances are so wonderful.

    Parent
    Hey, congratulations! (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:57:27 PM EST
    buying a house and not having to move. Awesome!

    Parent
    yep (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:44:14 PM EST
    thats the best part for sure.

    Parent
    COngrats Capt Howdy (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:11:16 PM EST
    You can join the rest of us who are owned by the bank.. lol

    Parent
    thanks (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:13:24 PM EST
    I love the house.  its perfect for me and the animals.  the owner just kept making it easier and easier and I finally had no logical reason not to do it.

    Parent
    Nice (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:19:03 PM EST
    Particularly when the transaction has such good vibes...

    Parent
    interesting (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:41:47 PM EST
    just got off the phone with a couple of granite fabricators.  it seems that along with the house I get four big slabs of green granite that have been in the garage the whole time I have lived there.

    they say they are worth almost two grand each!  wtf?
    currently deciding if I want them in the kitchen or my wallet.  

    and to think I was considering making a patio out of them last summer.  the only reason I did not is because I could not move them.

    Parent

    Why not both? (none / 0) (#84)
    by sj on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:58:19 PM EST
    Should be able to do kitchen and wallet.  You probably don't need all four for your kitchen.  Granite countertops... sigh.  Although what I would really like would be quartz.

    Parent
    big decision (none / 0) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:07:23 PM EST
    I like the counter tops I have.  they are a combination of this cool Jetsons/Leave it to Beaver kind of formica and stainless steel.  but I just read granite counter tops can increase the resale value of the house 10%

    hmmm

    Parent

    "do my part (none / 0) (#121)
    by CST on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:28:06 PM EST
    for the US america economy" is how I justify just about every non-critical purchase these days.  It's very freeing :)

    Course it took me over 6 months just to commit to a specific used laptop.  A house is way beyond my a) means and b) frame of mind.

    Congrats on taking that next step.

    Parent

    it is a great (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:39:56 PM EST
    all purpose excuse to be downright irresponsible.

    Parent
    Did you say "used laptop"? (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:43:28 PM EST
    It's downright unamerican to buy used CST...in this country, "used" belongs in a landfill.

    I'm turning you in to the Un-American Activities Commitee:)

    Parent

    Like that damn Best Buy commercial... (none / 0) (#182)
    by Raskolnikov on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:14:26 AM EST
    Every time I see it I get angry...everyone passing around this five year old laptop as if its a plague and trash then dropping it off at Best Buy to be recycled?  I do hope they mean donated, but c'mon, give the damn thing to Goodwill, I doubt they'll turn you down.

    Parent
    Alabama Gov Elections (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by SouthernFriedDem on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:08:27 PM EST
    Alabama primary for govener is comming up in june. On the dem side is prety good field with Congressman Artur Davis represenging west birmingahm and large parts of rural west Alabama Vrs Ron Sparks (Very Progressive) Commision of Agriculture, which is actualy and important spot because of how rural my state is. I like Sparks better because of his pro gameing and support of Health Care reform. I think Artur for political reasons really threw alabama under the bus and missed some great chances to get extra money for my state (Alabama is poor as $hit so we need any help we can get) With less then 1 in 10 registered voters expectied to turn out it will be a very very intresting race. I think Ron has a chance because his populist views play well with libritaren type old dixicrats who are tired of driving to missisipi to gamble. They also like his support for Farmers. Also Artur has dune a poor job of locking up minority voters in the State. Some on local talk radio say that the establishment dems will not vote for him because he like the presedent have turned lots of them off. The rebulican field is horrible. Roy Moore and a bunch of funamintalist are still trying to destory my state. Best Wishes and Roll Tide

    Know what's scary? (none / 0) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:54:26 PM EST
    I'm becoming insanely pro gambling.  What a virtue to want to stand up and argue with the neighbors about.  Don't gamble myself but what is this B.S. in Alabama about losing the mind over Grandma's and fricken church Bingo.....and Mississippi laughs all the way to the bank after hiring the lobbiests that convinced Alabama voters previously that Jesus will give them a seat up front in heaven as long as they must drive to Mississippi to gamble?  I think I've lost my religion having to live around so much fricken shame based brain dead stoopid.

    Parent
    Tracy I hear you! (none / 0) (#184)
    by SouthernFriedDem on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 02:05:07 PM EST
    Sadly I am one of the many in Alabama that drive to Mississippi to gamble. I actually like going to Haras in NO the best, but the extra 2 hrs is kinda a pain in the A$$. It's funy every time someone wins at the Silver Star or Golden Moon (indian casionas in MS for those not familure) it is someone form Atlanta or Birmingahm, it could be chance sense those two cities combined have more people then the states of GA,MS,and AL combined if you exclude them. (I hope that made sens) but still its funny that you can't gamble in AL or GA.

    Also you are a 100% correct about the lobyist it is truly scary how abermof the Native American Tribes and the Bush Justice Department all got togeather to stop Gambiling in Alabama. People say we are the buckle of the bible belt and sadly the buckle is tarnished

    Also I am a Christian, but i'm not a fundamentalist. The arguments people make using the bible about Gambeling are contrived to say the least. Their is no Thou shall not gamble, but sadly this point is not taken well from many people in my chruch and state.

    TY for the good review and i'm glad your becoming more pro gaming

    Parent

    Biden and Geithner avoid the public (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:22:24 PM EST
    in their much-publicized tour to the meet the public to sell financial reform as part of the White House's "middle-class task force." An event that first was billed as open to the public instead ended up with a "hand-picked audience" of business students and pols.

    Odd, as when even Bush came to the same site a few years ago, it was open to the public.  

    Someone is afraid (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:40:12 PM EST
    That Joe might open his mouth and the truth will come out at an inconvienent time and get them off the talking points.

    Parent
    Yeh, it's interesting to review (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:08:22 PM EST
    the news releases about the visit, as I just did.

    It was to be a "working, middle-class" audience at first -- but it then morphed into a meeting in a business school for a a "nice, friendly atmosphere" with students and pols instead of working people.

    Maybe it was too hard to find working people in a city so hard-hit by this economic mess, with too many out of work.  Or maybe it was too hard to find "nice, friendly" blue-collar former working people in Milwaukee, which still is losing jobs monthly -- and with ever-higher home foreclosure rates and homeless rates.  So many middle-class lifelong workers out of work for more than a year now and with no hope in sight in this "jobless recovery" per Biden.

    Parent

    You guys hear about.... (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:15:32 PM EST
    Boobquake?  A buncha ladies decided to dress more provacitively than normal yesterday to prove that a-hole Iranian cleric wrong when he said immodest women cause earthquakes (shades of Pat Robertson).

    Well, there was an earthquake yesterday in Taiwan.  Of all the luck:)

    There are thousands (none / 0) (#163)
    by itscookin on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 05:24:12 PM EST
    of earthquakes every single day. Just not large enough or maybe not in the right place to do any damage. Although there is obviously no causation between them and the way women dress, it was pretty stupid for women to do this. The odds that an earthquake somewhere would be large enough to register were actually pretty high.

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#164)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 05:26:06 PM EST
    Stupid for women to do this, but OK for Iranian cleric to say they cause earthquakes???

    Wow.

    Parent

    My husband and I were just laughing (none / 0) (#165)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 05:29:39 PM EST
    about this.  I recently discovered that the whole world thunders everyday when our fourth grader was studying earthquakes and we went to the .gov earthquake website.  So if we all donned burkas the whole earth would finally be still....except for volcanoes I guess.  Maybe those would cease as well and the garden of Eden would return if I lopped off all of my exterior genitalia.

    Parent
    Cats like Cleric Kook... (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:00:27 PM EST
    weren't happy in Eden either, don't let 'em fool ya.

    Something I wish we saw more of...a giant, good natured, non-violent FU to the kooks.  I salute the ladies.  

    Parent

    You needed to see the CNN bit on this (none / 0) (#169)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 05:57:41 PM EST
    as it was a hoot, much as I disapprove of these young women shaking their hooters on Youtube to provoke the cleric, not to be, uh, provocative.

    It was not "pretty stupid" for these young women to do this.  It bordered on brilliant in how they handled it, and good for them for making more of us aware this way of the latest misogynistic inanities.

    Parent

    It was stupid. (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by itscookin on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:24:37 PM EST
    They proved nothing. Except that they can be coaxed into shaking their hooters for the TV cameras. We already knew that what the cleric had said was inane. It made me sad.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#172)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:35:19 PM EST
    You must get sad a lot. The puritans were not a happy bunch... the Shakers, well, that is another story... lol

    Parent
    "We" already knew of the cleric? (none / 0) (#174)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:42:21 PM EST
    Not me, and I'm a nooz junkie -- but some of us miss some nooz sometimes, when our darn work and lives get in the way.  So as I said, these young women created awareness of the latest inanity.

    That they were aware of it, and did something about it -- even if not what you or I would do -- is a sign of some hope, I think.  Other signs have shown such a decline in the younger generation of women in activism for women's issues, women's rights, etc.

    And they better wake up soon.  

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#175)
    by itscookin on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:58:46 PM EST
    But I can shake my booty on national TV anytime I want is not exactly the feminist message I would like them to wake up with. And because they did it deliberately in his face, and there was an earthquake, the cleric gets to claim he's right - as stupid as that idea is. It's the kind of thing that if I had done it, my grandmother, the suffragist, would have said, "What ever were you thinking?"

    And Squeaky, the Shakers were celibate.

    Parent

    Celibate? (none / 0) (#176)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:02:47 PM EST
    What does that have to do with shakin boobs, or happiness.

    As for your version of feminism, it sounds like you prefer the virgin bride approach. Very puritanical, but popular.

    Parent

    I suppose if they still wiggle (none / 0) (#178)
    by ZtoA on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:56:39 PM EST
    that at least indicates they are not fake. A good sign?

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#179)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:09:07 PM EST
    Not sure what wiggling has to do with breast enhancement, but I guess that you wanted to inject that into the discussion and you did not have the energy to come up with a comment that actually made sense.  

    But then again I do not know anything about fake breasts, but I would be surprised if they did not wiggle..

    Parent

    And a lot of people disapproved (none / 0) (#177)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:21:17 PM EST
    of the pseudoevents staged by your grandmother and other suffragists (if she was an activist suffragist, that is).  

    But it was only when they faced that pseudoevents, staging, etc., was and is how politics, she is played in this country . . . only then did they even begin to win.  

    Looking at the younger generations, I have known for some time that I would not agree with its tactics in tweeting and youtubing a revolution.  But I also have known that any sign of a revolution would be welcome.

    If they are waking up, then they may be ready to learn from the wisdom of those who have gone before -- as to, for example, how to watch out for others misappropriating their tactics to be turned against them.  (The faux "braburners" staged by an ad man, for example.)

    But as long as they're still sleeping through their rights being taken away, there's no place even to start.

    Parent

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:03:52 PM EST
    Im sorry I lost it above.  if you dont mind please delete the whole thread associated with my comment about the Spartacus star have a very serious form of cancer.

    I want to tell you that the reaction literally make me sick.  I am so sad that TalkLeft has turned into a place where that is almost to be expected.

    it was not my intent.  I should leave for a while now.

    unbelievable (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:55:15 PM EST
    The Oklahoma Legislature voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to override vetoes of two highly restrictive abortion measures, one making it a law that women undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before having an abortion.

    ok, bad enough.
    but this seems even worse to me.  and I honestly dont see how it can be legal.  not to mention ethical.

    The second measure passed into law Tuesday protects doctors from malpractice suits if they decide not to inform the parents of a unborn baby that the fetus has birth defects. The intent of the bill is to prevent parents from later suing doctors who withhold information to try to influence them against having an abortion.
    whats wrong with Oklahoma (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 05:42:17 PM EST
    (that was a rhetorical question)

    theres more

    A new Oklahoma law will require the details of every abortion to be posted on a public website. Proponents say this will prevent abortion -- apparently by shaming and burdening women and doctors.


    Parent
    What's next? (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Spamlet on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 05:44:07 PM EST
    Putting them all on YouTube?

    Parent
    honestly (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 05:49:47 PM EST
    there is the whole pubic humiliation thing but -

    how is it possible a doctor could withhold information like possibly your baby could be deformed or worse.  that is really one of the scariest things I have read in a long time.

    it boggles my mind.

    Parent

    Legal... (none / 0) (#156)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 05:02:43 PM EST
    is what a handful of cats with delusions say is legal...until, with any luck, we catch a reasonable judge.

    The word has been rendered useless as a tool to measure morality, right/wrong, good/bad, positive/ negative...totally f*ckin' useless.  

    Parent

    well yes (none / 0) (#158)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 05:04:04 PM EST
    I meant at the supreme court level. but I take your meaning.


    Parent
    lilnk (none / 0) (#157)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 05:03:06 PM EST
    Strict Abortion Measures Enacted in Oklahoma

    Parent
    Taco the Tortoise (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 05:08:43 PM EST
    Tiny Tortoise Comes When Called

    I love this because I may be adopting a Tortoise.

    I know.  I need serious help.

    BTD and Jeralyn-- slackers. (none / 0) (#4)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:05:26 AM EST
    Multitask!

    We don't need your stinking depositions or wiretaps!

    y'all two have a good week... sounds daunting.

    "Jackboot" Brewer... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:20:51 AM EST
    ain't sweating a boycott, she says tyranny just takes getting used to, the outrage will fade.  Link

    I so hope we prove her wrong.

    Free Granny!... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:34:57 AM EST
    today's drug war madness report...Grandma locked up over 30 year old reefer charges...nothing surprises me anymore but this one comes close.

    Great pic in the article...Granny looks like she'd fit right in at my place:)  

    Oh for (none / 0) (#85)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:59:54 PM EST
    crying out loud.  Police time and taxpayer money is being wasted on this?  This is insane.  Let Granny go!

    Parent
    Hell yeah... (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:05:20 PM EST
    Zorba...let her go and make her governor.

    Parent
    The continuing saga... (none / 0) (#41)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:45:16 AM EST
    ...of life in New Somolia.

    A 62-year-old man died after being shot Sunday night in a parking lot that has been dark since the city turned off the streetlight in a controversial money saving measure, a neighboring business owner said...

    ...Martinez said his worries have increased since the city shut off the streetlight in front of the small strip mall in which El Ranchito and Ruskin Liquor are located. Since then, he said, he's noticed people gathering beneath the darkened light. "Being that it's dark, people think they can do whatever they want," Martinez said. "People who do crime are noticing it's dark out there."

    The killing came a day before Colorado Springs City Councilman Sean Paige questioned in an e-mail why streetlights throughout the city had been turned off to save money while the affluent Old North End neighborhood had been spared and still had all its streetlights. (Emphasis added)
    How sad, my hometown (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:23:17 PM EST
    And that particular area has always been a little sketchy after dark.  Obviously the task force wasn't about turning lights off in areas not needing the extra security.  This seems to be obviously class discrimination and class warfare (just know you are aren't as important as the Northies)!  And those Southern end dark neighborhoods are also the ones where the most children live too these days in Colorado Springs land....the neighborhoods that have the rental prices that struggling single parents can afford.  What a crime!  Grandma Vera would be a spitting cat, the phone would be on fire in her hands.

    Parent
    Damn... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:21:35 AM EST
    there has gotta be a better way to save a few bucks, no?  Or at least kill the lights all over town, not just the "wrong" side of the tracks...make everybody suffer.

    Different rules for different fools all over I see...reminds me of my neck of the woods during snow storms, the nice part of the township gets their streets plowed twice before my ghetto 'burb section sees a plow. The song remains the same.

    Parent

    Lucky You (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:34:59 AM EST
    The longer the snow stays on the street, the better for me...lol

    A good snow shuts down everything and makes NYer act like kids..

    Although, I get your point...  And the larger point MileHi Hawkeye brings up, tragic..  

    Also, I know that blackouts can bring out the worst in many instances, but the last NYC blackout seemed to bring out the best.. People were joyous... there was dancing in the street, candlelight in cafes that stayed open...spontaneous candlelight parties of small groups on the sidewalks, no noise from all the airconditioners and other electric noise and light pollution..

    From my point of view every summer NYC should pull the plug for one day, so we can get in touch with our genetic memory of the time when we got by without electricity..

     

    Parent

    Well, there was looting in Brooklyn (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:51:43 PM EST
    as I remember from a niece there -- quite scary for a while.

    But looking up info on that massive blackout, which affected so many millions in so many cities, the consensus generally is that there was not a crime wave -- but for the crime in Brooklyn.  Why there?

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:02:45 PM EST
    The one a few years back?  I don't remember no problems in Brooklyn, everyone was amazed at how well behaved the people were citywide.

    Though a certain amount of crime is inevitable in a city of millions...power or no power.

    Parent

    Here's my summing up (none / 0) (#98)
    by brodie on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:23:39 PM EST
    of NYC's 3 major blackouts in history:

    1.  The first one, kinda scary.  Massive and lasted from eve rush hour to the next morning, but people didn't behave badly.

    2.  Too many people behaved badly.  Bad time for NYC anyway.  High crime, city filthy dirty.  Garbage worker strikes and so forth.  City nearly bankrupt.

    3.  Aside from some sporadic looting in one borough, largely a well-behaved group of NYers.

     

    Parent
    Yes, really -- and I just looked up more (none / 0) (#100)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:34:55 PM EST
    and found studies comparing the 2003 blackout to the 1977 blackout, when New York City suffered a massive crime wave.  Interesting analyses, generally agreeing that a significant reason for the difference was that the 2003 blackout came earlier in the day, when there still were several hours of daylight ahead.  Another difference came from lessons learned from 1977, when there were far fewer cops out and about (8,000 then vs. 25,000 in 2003) -- and they were cops with better training in crowd control who actually did their jobs (in 1977, there were widespread reports of cops standing by and doing nothing about the looting).  There also is discussion of New Yorkers having more pride in being able to handle such situations, after 9/11 showed how well they could handle far worse.

    But -- none of the studies suggests why Brooklyn was aberrant in 2003 and did have widespread looting.  The sun didn't set there sooner, so maybe its cops were not as many or as trained?  Or maybe Brooklyn did not share in NYC pride after 9/11?  Or ?

    Parent

    Or... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:43:19 PM EST
    there is a reason it's called Crook-lyn:)

    Poorer people can be just as ruthless as the rich...they just have very limited opportunities...it's a blackout everyday on Wall St.

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#105)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:45:33 PM EST
    And the crimes of the rich and poor are commensurate with their holdings..

    Parent
    NYC done good... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:57:54 PM EST
    during the last blackout...the one back in the 70's not so much...lotsa looting and mayhem.

    With the way the economy is now, we might see looting if we had a blackout...but it's a nice idea, I like unplugging the phone and sitting by a fire in the back with my drum to take it back to simpler times as much as the next guy...though I'll cheat and fire up some tunes on the stereo too:)

    Parent

    this really really REALLY (none / 0) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:29:40 PM EST
    bums me out.

    Spartacus star has cancer

    As a result, production on the second season of Spartacus--which was scheduled to get underway later this month--has been delayed.

    this is without a doubt the best new show of last season.  I cant decide if I want them to make a second season if Andy Whitfield is unable to do it.
    I expect they probably would since the show was a pretty big success but its hard to imagine anyone else in that role.

    It probably really really REALLY (3.00 / 4) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:36:22 PM EST
    bums out Andy Whitfield more.

    Parent
    Very sorry for all you went through, MO (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Spamlet on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:50:23 PM EST
    And very sorry for all the losses people here have experienced. I have, too.

    But maybe we can just go ahead and assume that Capt Howdy wishes the Spartacus star well, and that his comment about being bummed out did not rule out concern for the actor? In other words, that Capt Howdy's concern could be taken for granted?

    Parent

    People can and do disagree (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:12:51 PM EST
    I thought the original comment was insensitive even if unintentional. In my world (tolerance varies), concern for the individual would have been stated. Also, my original reply would have been considered a mild reminder and not a heated attack.

    Parent
    man (none / 0) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:52:50 PM EST
    you guys stick like sh!t on a blanket dont you

    Parent
    Jesus, Floyd (none / 0) (#135)
    by Spamlet on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:54:43 PM EST
    I'm sticking up for you here.

    Chill, Mr. C.

    Parent

    mmK (none / 0) (#138)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:57:56 PM EST
    if thats true I apologize. but this is strange wording:

    and that his comment about being bummed out did not rule out concern for the actor?  

    Parent

    I thought my wording was clear (none / 0) (#142)
    by Spamlet on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:06:04 PM EST
    but clearly I was wrong.

    To be clearer, I was asking people not only to give you the benefit of the doubt but also not even to doubt your concern in the first place.

    I think the initial criticism of your comment was objectively unfair, regardless of my own and others' subjective judgment that your comment came across as somewhat tone deaf.

    Parent

    ok (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:10:04 PM EST
    I will say one thing.  the first paragraph should have been in quotes.  it should not have been the first thing "I" said and was not meant to be.

    trust me.  I know all about cancer.  

    sorry for losing it on you and thank you for the support.

    Parent

    No worries (none / 0) (#146)
    by Spamlet on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:16:53 PM EST
    I think you should be able to express being bummed out about your favorite show without being expected to express your condolences to an actor who is dealing with cancer and probably is not going to be reading your comment.

    Parent
    see (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:19:56 PM EST
    THIS is what troubles me.  that anyone could think that when I say I am bummed that a great young actor has a very serious form of cancer that what I really MEAN is that I am bummed about the possible cancellation of a tv show.

    dont get me wrong I AM bummed about the possible cancellation of the tv show but that is not what I meant and its troubling anyone would think so.

    that is assuming anyone actually did.

    Parent

    Honestly, your comment (none / 0) (#149)
    by Spamlet on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:29:30 PM EST
    did come across that way to me. But I did not assume that you felt nothing about the actor's terrible situation, and I didn't need you to express whatever you felt about it. I took your concern for granted. In fact, I consider whatever you feel about the actor's situation to be none of my business.

    Again, I think you were jumped on unfairly, even if your comment, which apparently was not clear enough to express everything you meant, did come across as tone deaf to some of us here.

    Parent

    thank you (3.66 / 3) (#150)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:36:55 PM EST
    but I dont believe for one second any of the critical comments really believed that is what I meant.  I dont.
    it is my belief that there is a segment here that is waiting to pounce on whatever I or a couple of others here say in order to make some imagined points.

    it happens here all the time. I have even done it myself.
    but IMO this was an exceptionally sick and pathetic usage of the tactic and a sad example of what goes on here all the time now.

    Parent

    Funny (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by hookfan on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:52:05 PM EST
    That's the way I feel about you. Hell my rating wasn't directed at you which I explained. You respond by insulting and personal attacks. I think you need a reality check on this.

    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:58:42 PM EST
    hit post too soon.  

    what the hell else would it express concern for
    for gods sake?

    Parent

    one makes a stupid snotty comment (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:52:24 PM EST
    and one rates it a 5.  at least you are consistent.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by hookfan on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:58:30 PM EST
    My first wife died of cancer. I understand fully the meaning of the victim being bummed out more. It was not a slam on you Capt.

    Parent
    gosh (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:05:36 PM EST
    I wonder if any sane person really thought for one second that I was more bummed out at getting the news than an actual person who might be dying of cancer.

    let me see . . . .

    what amazing ignorance.


    Parent

    Again you misunderstand (none / 0) (#114)
    by hookfan on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:13:42 PM EST
     You see I had been complaining to a friend how bummed I was in the midst of my wife's losing battle, and I was forcefully reminded that my wife was, with good reason, bummed out more. Again, the rating was not a reflection on you, but me.

    Parent
    sorry for you loss (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:17:06 PM EST
    I lost my mother father and brother to various kinds of cancer.  as well as several gay friends during the aids years.

    I was bummed but never imagined I was more bummed than them.


    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#119)
    by hookfan on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:25:31 PM EST
    different strokes for different folks. I found it hard to keep perspective in the midst of that crash. Some may be less selfish than I was, or just more mature. Nothing like growing up the fast and hard way. But I was in my forties. . . hmmmm

    Parent
    you know (none / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:29:58 PM EST
    no offense but I find this incredible.  and honestly I have to wonder if you really have watched someone you love die of cancer.

    Parent
    Good advice (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:14:11 PM EST
    btw
    you have no freakin idea what I have or have not been diagnoses with so why dont you just drop it and stop diggin.

    Indeed.

    Parent

    Well what can I say (4.71 / 7) (#124)
    by hookfan on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:39:41 PM EST
    Except my insensitivity has some boundaries but yours apparently doesn't. Nor do I need to justify myself to one who's clearly being idiotic.

    Parent
    what (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:48:13 PM EST
    I am the one who is accused of being more upset about the cancellation of a tv show that a person whos cancer is the cause of it, which was obviously completely idiotic if you read my comment BTW, and MY insensitivity has no boundaries.

    thats rich.

    I dont know what to tell you but I can honestly tell you that during the entire four years my mother lay dieing of cancer of the two years my father lay dieing or the nearly two years my brother lay dieing or during the long and horrible illnesses of any of my gay friends it never ever once entered my mind that I might be more upset than them.

    not once.

    and this is an embarrassing and pathetic subthread that I hope Jeralyn deletes and I am dont with it.  who could have imagined that stating my sadness over a promising actors plight might devolve to this.  

    only here.

    Parent

    Like I say (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by hookfan on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:18:26 PM EST
    different strokes for different folks. And when people get depressed they often lose perspective. The family of cancer victims often lose perspective due to humongous stress involving their loss of a family member, loss of financial stability, loss of future stability for their children, increased demands on family members for both physical, financial, and emotional support. Some people handle the sense of helplessness while watching not only the one you care for deteriorate, but your hopes and dreams fall apart as well.
       I'm not into playing "my situation is worse than yours, and I handled it better". So whoopdee effing do. Different peeps handle situations differently. Some experience the loss as a wake up call to cease being so narcissistic. Others never do.
       Nevertheless, my rating was no intended reflection on you. But you clearly are sounding like a person who protests too much.

    Parent
    It is very evident that you have never (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:23:27 PM EST
    been diagnosed or treated for cancer. To say the least it is rather more traumatic than being deprived of watching a program. Try spending several months on chemotherapy, watching all the hair on your body fall out, losing your finger nails and toe nails and peeling layers upon layers of skin off your feet. Having all your muscles and bones scream with pain due to the reaction of some of the drugs, being so fatigued that you can barely function and either continuously nauseous or have everything you eat taste like metal is not exactly nice. Having an adverse reaction to radiation where the treated areas deteriorate to the point of developing wholes in the skin is a little bit problematic.  

    Then, of course, the ongoing stress of wondering if and when the cancer may reoccur is also a factor.

    So maybe you might want to reevaluate whose comment was stupid.

    Parent

    And I see Howdy has just sprayed (4.20 / 10) (#126)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:40:35 PM EST
    gasoline on the fire...why am I not surprised?

    Far be it from him to just say, "gosh, you're right - my comment does seem kind of self-centered; of course I wish him well and hope for his recovery - that I would not find his show the same without him is pretty small stuff compared to fighting for one's life for real."

    No, now he's called YOU ignorant and questioned hookfan's truthfulness with respect to his wife's cancer.  All that to avoid the kind of accountability a mature adult ought to be able to manage.

    Oh, okay - now I see the problem.

    Parent

    you people are amazing (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:49:45 PM EST
    does it know no bounds.

    honest to god.

    Parent

    why am I not (none / 0) (#140)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:01:57 PM EST
    surprised either?

    venting without applying first (in the summer of 08) for the standard endless-snit license..Some people have all the nerve.

    Parent

    Everybody sing... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 05:07:14 PM EST
    We can talk about it now...

    Parent
    My gawd, we're ALL a bit strange around here... (none / 0) (#181)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:01:47 AM EST
    perhaps, even by virtue of being here. (I include myself in this assessment.)

    Parent
    Amen Foxhole... (none / 0) (#183)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:39:14 AM EST
    we're as weird as they come...but in a good way:)

    Parent
    that wa a pathetic ignorant comment (3.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:28:36 PM EST
    even for you.

    I never said or in any indicated anything like you suggest.  of course.

    btw
    you have no freakin idea what I have or have not been diagnoses with so why dont you just drop it and stop diggin.

    K

    Parent

    Your initial comment was completely (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:44:47 PM EST
    insensitive even if as you claim unintentional. No where in your initial comment was there any expression of regret that Mr. Whitfield had cancer. Since you want to indulge in personal attacks which is your SOP. Here goes. From someone who has experienced everything mentioned in my comment on cancer, your comment was pathetic, ignorant and self-absorbed.

    Parent
    there was not one (none / 0) (#130)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:49:02 PM EST
    damned thing insensitive about that comment.

    its you.

    Parent

    April 27 Today (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:53:39 PM EST
    World Tapir Day

    excellent (none / 0) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:54:59 PM EST
    who knew.  

    Parent
    Tuesday Blogging Schedule And Open Thread | 184 comments (184 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment