home

Sunday Morning Open Thread:

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:50:34 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Open Thread.

< Court Reaches Back to 1818 to Justify Military Commissions | DEA and Aspen: They Just Can't See Eye to Eye >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Morning Open Thread: | 96 comments (96 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Interesting theory about the debt limit (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Makarov on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:47:28 AM EST
    based on this line in the 14th Amendment:

    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

    More from TNR:
    http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/90659/debt-ceiling-obama-congress

    Another interesting point raised is that if Geithner ignored the debt ceiling and kept making payments, who would have the standing to sue to stop him? The answer to that is it might only be individuals and institutions who took out Credit Default Swaps betting the US would default.

    I think this is a good (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 12:09:17 PM EST
    argument too:

    Because Congress already appropriated the funds in question, it is the executive branch's duty to enact those appropriations. The debt ceiling, then, is legislative "double-counting," because the executive branch is obligated to spend the money Congress appropriates, without having to go back and ask again for permission.

    The debt ceiling is a ridiculous construct. Congress already tells the executive how much money to spend through its legislation. It also sets the tax rates. To then cap the debt limit at some completely arbitrary amount that might be lower than that required by other congressional legislation serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to give Republicans something to obstruct Obama with. When Bush was in the Whitehouse they raised the debt ceiling several times.

    I would also add that under a fiat money regime federal government debt isn't necessary at all because the federal government does not actually fund itself through taxes or borrowing. Federal debt instruments only serve the purpose of allowing the government to set interests by soaking up excess bank reserves (which it still doesn't do effectively because it insists on auctioning the instruments rather than setting the price).

    P.S. Here's an obvious example of how Paul Krugman can indeed by terribly wrong about economics, in spite of his PhD and Nobel Prize.

    Parent

    Couple of problems: (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 02:30:58 PM EST
    (1) after months and months of pushing the-government's-budget-is-just-like-a-housefold-budget message, it would be near impossible for there to be an abrupt about-face, even if that about-face would be a turn toward the truth, and

    (2) the truth doesn't serve the agenda that's really behind all of this hysteria: the opportunity to shrink government and get it out of the helping-people business.

    Probably my biggest disappointment with respect to this whole issue, is that this should have been a perfect opportunity to counter what is and has been almost totally a GOP message and agenda with a strong, Democratic, populist message that was based on - imagine that - the truth about our economic system.

    Instead, we now have a chorus of voices both Republican AND Democratic - chief among them the president - who are now singing from the same songbookm which has done nothing but legitimize an agenda that Democrats have long been opposed to but are now embracing; whether out of bipartisanship or something a lot less benign, it should have never been allowed to rise to the level where it is considered the best of both worlds - mainly because it is the worst of the actual world most of us live in.

    It may be a long, long time before what has been and is being done can be undone - meanwhile, prepare for a lot of pain.

    Parent

    The "bully Pulpit" (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 02:41:01 PM EST
    could have been used to skewer the talking points. But for those kinds of speeches, one needs to go back to the 30s 40s and 50s, or to Bill Clinton.

    Since Bill is anathema to this administration, even though many of the positions are filled by low-to mid-level Clinton-era folks, the problem lies either in the speechwriting, or just maybe in the message one tries to give as policy.

    Remember the "do nothing congress?" That's a label a lot better than the "Quisling Presidency."

    Parent

    If Bill Clinton is indeed (none / 0) (#10)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 03:01:11 PM EST
    anathema to the Obama admin that is truly ironic given that Obama and Clinton believe exactly the same things about economics.

    I don't expect there to be any about face by the Obama administration, or any attempt to deal with the debt-ceiling in an 'outside the box' way of thinking. Obama's philosophy is 'desperate times call for conventional measures'. In the end the debt ceiling will be raised in exchange for painful, unnecessary and thoroughly wrong-headed concessions by Democrats, and dailykos will be full of diaries telling us why it was the best deal Obama could get and we should all be proud of him.

    Parent

    I think the current (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 03:12:04 PM EST
    administration is much more laffer-economics and much more conservative in general than the Clinton years.

    I'm not talking about what was passed, but in direction. Clinton was fighting a delaying action for about six years.

    He faced a republican senate, house, and Ken Starr, and ultimately impeachment, but he continued fighting.

    In history, military history, I'd say he reminds me either of Geronimo, or of Gotthard Heinrici, the German in charge of Army Group Vistula, the Eastern Front, from December or so until his relief by Himmler, if I'm not mistaken... He slowed the advance of an inexorable loss.

    Geronimo was more of a harassing force, but he still required the majority of US cavalry and infantry stationed in the west to be subdued.

    Yes, both examples lost. But the fought the good fight for long after most would have quit.

    The current president quit before fighting the good fight.

    Parent

    YES! Robert Reich was part of the (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:06:03 PM EST
    Clinton Administration.  The Obama administration wouldn't touch him and his ideas and opinions with a 10 foot pole.  He has been invited to please STFU.

    Parent
    Funny, I thought it was (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 08:16:50 PM EST
    because Bill Clinton wouldn't touch Bob Reich and his ideas with a 10 ft pole that Reich left that admin after the first term.  Or maybe his was the rare case of someone who really wanted more time to spend with his family.

     

    Parent

    There's probably (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 08:26:07 PM EST
    some truth in that but the fact that Reich was probably contributing to the conversation it would be shaping some of the stuff in a small way.

    I mean it's not like nothing liberal got passed when Clinton was president.

    And the irony is that Reich thought Obama was great. I guess he really got played.

    Parent

    Clinton was upset when they lost (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:09:09 AM EST
    on healthcare and the midterms.  It is no secret that Clinton hiring Dick Morris, trying to insure his reelection, along with the death of Ron Brown probably led to Reich leaving after Clinton was reelected.  He remained a Clinton confidant though and Clinton and Reich have been friends since they were Rhodes Scholars together.  I think that Clinton adopted his style of educating the people on the issues at hand from Reich because Reich does that and he was also an advocate for that approach.  It is something that President Obama doesn't do and I think he suffers greatly for it.

    Parent
    The reports at the time on (none / 0) (#71)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 08:32:40 AM EST
    Reich leaving had more to do with his advice about the need to infuse the economy with jobs and job training and spending on education being constantly trumped, year after year, by the deficit hawk crowd around Clinton.  I think Bill valued having him around for the liberal pov and for his intelligence, but Reich might have felt that if he was so valued, why were his views consistently being turned down?

    And I sensed some frostiness in the relationship long after he left, which may have been the reason he favored O in 2008.

    As for Clinton learning from Reich about educating the public, I wouldn't doubt it, but Bill was probably a natural teacher-pol from early on.  Obama also has a teaching background as well as good speaking ability like Bill, but to date he hasn't fully utilized it sufficiently as to learnin' the folks about fundamental Dem principles and certain basics about the need for a strong positive govt role in society.  Not too late to start doing that, but the clock is ticking and meanwhile he's squandering some good opportunities to capture the disgruntled mood of the moment.

    Parent

    Obama is not (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 09:14:17 AM EST
    a teacher. He's a lecturer which is quite common in college. I found out when I went to college that there are very few professors that actually know how to "teach". The majority of them know only how to "lecture" on a subject. Obama simply does not have the talent to be be able to communicate with the voters not does he emotionally connect with voters which has helped many a pol.

    Parent
    The curious case of the Clinton Adminitration (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 08:58:39 PM EST
    Reich did leave after the 1st term.  He complained that Clinton would bring in Rubin to counter his (Reich's) arguments.  I don't know if that was the sole reason for Reich's departure.

    Clinton raised the upper income bracket and added another bracket on higher incomes (not nearly high enough IMO)in '93, a good start but then degenerated after the '96 election.  In '98 (AIR) lowered capital gains to 20%.  Lowering capital gains allowed income disparity to take off again.

    Then he signed the Graham, Leach, Bliley Act that eliminated Glass-Steagall allowing commercial and investment banking to mingle.

    Clinton allowed Larry Summers to stop Brooksley Born at the CFTC from regulating derivatives.

    Let's not forget that he twisted enough Democratic arms to get NAFTA through Congress and later went along with China PNTR.  Both benefit the wealthy and leave American workers paying the price.

    On balance more of a Republican than a Democratic model and certainly contrary to the regulatory and policy reforms of the New Deal.

    Parent

    Out flanking the right on their right (none / 0) (#83)
    by Rojas on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:52:56 AM EST
    was fighting the good fight?
    From a history, military history, point of comparision, the clintons and theier DLC cohorts are more similar to Marshal Philippe Pétain. The rest is history, so they say.


    Parent
    No, they don't (none / 0) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 08:21:55 PM EST
    That's just silly.  BC was in an entirely different time and economic circumstance, and he's long since said he regretted some of the stuff he did on that score.  It made some kind of sense in his day, but has now been proven totally wrong.

    BC, whatever his flaws, was not a "sit back and watch" kind of president.

    Parent

    Yes, it's a dicey matter to (none / 0) (#47)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 08:40:48 PM EST
    engage in the game of predicting how a previous president would have reacted had he been governing in a slightly different era, though I tend to think Bill had he been governing today (or advising spouse prez Hillary) would have opted for a serious mid-course correction towards putting people back to work with direct action.  But maybe that's my largely very pro-Clinton bias showing.

    Well, at least O has a few more months to get jolted out of his deer-in-the-headlights stupor and into a more aggressive posture on jobs and related.  Some increasingly bad re-elect polls and disappointing fundraising, coupled with some face-to-face quality time with very disgruntled Dem leaders worried about the party's political future in the next Congress, might be what it takes, who knows.  Meantime, a broad-based activist group from the base -- perhaps along the Van Allen lines being formed lately -- is needed to be out there and vocal, for additional political pressure.

    Parent

    It's (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 06:10:45 AM EST
    interesting but I don't know if there's anything that will make Obama change course and do the right thing. Maybe there's nobody in his innner circle that can tell him the truth. He has a history of wanting to be surrounded by sycophants and being very thin skinned w/r/t to criticism. He seemed truly shocked to me at the 2010 election results. The only thing that seems to phase him is unfortunately elections. If he loses the election he will be learning too late and if he wins, he'll think he did a great job the last four years.

    Parent
    Usually what tends to concentrate (none / 0) (#72)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 08:48:00 AM EST
    the mind of a pol is the imminent prospect of an electoral hanging, so there's hope he'll be like the others and wake up to act if for nothing else than to save his political fortunes.

    As for surrounding himself with yes-men and being thin-skinned re criticism, he's probably somewhere in the average range for a president.  Johnson2 and Nixon were by far the worst in recent times for not tolerating dissent (a sign of "disloyalty" to them) and, in the former case, for allowing only one POTUS-approved dissident-adviser to speak up (George Ball, deputy in State Dept, on the VN War), with the arrangement only to cynically and falsely show the public that the president did in fact want to hear both sides.

    I don't think O is so sensitive, or paranoid like Nixon and Johnson2, as to arrange to eliminate all voices in disagreement (or bug their offices/tap their phones as Pres Johnson did with his VP Humphrey).  But I think he is a somewhat sensitive type who, perhaps from lack of sufficient political experience and years of toughening, takes a little too much to heart the criticism of his policies from others.

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 09:17:58 AM EST
    think he's paranoid by any means but I do think that he has people who tell him that's he wonderful all the time because he just can't seem to handle criticism. You saw his reaction to the criticism that he has been given and he lashes out instead of brushing it off. At least he lashes out at the people on the left not on the right. For some reason their name calling seems to work on him. Maybe if members of the party started calling him a marxist socialist muslim he might start doing something? It's really kind of nuts.

    Parent
    I have never been a President (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:14:20 AM EST
    nor have I been a leader of anything globally effectual.  I do know something about the job of advisors though because that is what my husband is considered now, senior warrant officers are experts in their specific fields and must be strong advisors to their commanders.  And my husband says that if you only go to your commander with one possible workable solution, that is called an ultimatum :)

    Parent
    If he sat back and watched more.... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 09:05:27 PM EST
    me and half my friends might not have prints in the system.

    A go-getter can go either way...Clinton ran dirty, his claim to fame is charging a slightly higher vig for his services and keeping better book.  

    Parent

    Wow man....you are cynical (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:25:59 AM EST
    And I think I will always be a Clinton fan because he actually did things that affected my life when I felt a little desperate. When I had a new baby and I was a single mom by choice, his earned income credit put a washer and dryer in my baby's house. If you have ever had a baby....well, you can't believe how horrible your life can become when you must depend on a laundromat. It's funny because I didn't know anything about this earned income credit thing either. I didn't originally fill out my taxes claiming it. Another single mom told me about it. I checked it out, then filed an amendment to my taxes and got my credit. But the word got out, and a little line formed at my door of single moms who had not understood it either and had filed their taxes. I knew how to do this amendment thing. I lost a whole weekend filling out amendments for others but it was worth it. The other change that I personally experienced was that the quality of childcare improved exponentially. It was wonderful. I was a working mom, I worried about how my child was being cared for constantly. Clinton changed the shape of the landscape in that area too, all daycare facilities wanted to qualify for the funds that were coming out of the welfare reform. They had to become much better facilities to do that.

    Parent
    Cynical as a mofo... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:59:25 AM EST
    but not in this case, thats just real.  The infamous Crime Bill, unprecedented offensive in the war on marijuana...that sh*t did damage.

    Glad he did some good for you and yours, ya can't be all things to all people...but he done me and mine especially dirty.

    Parent

    You come by your opinion (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 08:00:32 AM EST
    as honestly as I do mine. How can I argue with you :)

    Parent
    All good sister... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 08:50:41 AM EST
    a country can do worse, as we've seen in the 11 years since and 12 years prior...but a country can also do a helluva lot better.  

    I know he knew better, which makes high praise for the Clinton admin. hard for me to stomach...obviously this is a bit personal.  Or maybe I'm just mad at myself for voting for him on my first presidential ballot...two votes I regret, that one and Kerry in '04.  Never again.

    Parent

    The EITC preceeded clinton (none / 0) (#66)
    by Rojas on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:46:21 AM EST


    Parent
    I never qualified and neither did anybody (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:55:44 AM EST
    that I knew until he expanded it. We all needed help desperately in that income bracket at that time, but so what.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#79)
    by Rojas on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:30:46 AM EST
    It's funny because I didn't know anything about this earned income credit thing either. I didn't originally fill out my taxes claiming it. Another single mom told me about it. I checked it out, then filed an amendment to my taxes and got my credit.

    Seems pretty clearly a plea of ignorance.

    Parent

    This sounds to me like someone (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:56:11 PM EST
    who wants to get some Clinton hate on. I have never been on welfare, never knew anybody was going to give me credit for working hard and having a hard time making ends meet. I have always worked until the birth of my disabled son. I had to work through college too. So did most of my friends. It never occurred to any of us that someone would reward us for doing all we could to make ends meet by giving us a cash bonus based on how much effort we put into that during hard times.

    Parent
    Don't feel (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 03:34:18 PM EST
    bad. This particular poster seems to think that my ex-sister in law was better off having $200 a month to provide things outside of food for her children than under workfare where she was actually able to get a car and not depend so heavily on charities to help her take care of her kids.

    Parent
    Oh, ... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 03:44:11 PM EST
    This sounds to me like someone who wants to get some Clinton hate on.

    ... yeah.

    Parent

    Clinton issues (none / 0) (#92)
    by Rojas on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 03:35:51 PM EST
    Who has 'em?

    The cash bonus you speak of started with Ford, was expanded with Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. I believe it recently got another little goose with Obama.

    It's alot cheaper and easier to kill than a real saftey net.

    Parent

    Or, it's what she said (none / 0) (#81)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:45:38 AM EST
    I never qualified and neither did anybody that I knew until he expanded it.

    ... which is she didn't qualify (and no one she knew qualified) for the EITC until Clinton expanded it, giving a tax break to 15 million lower income families.

    Parent

    Perhaps, who knows (none / 0) (#87)
    by Rojas on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:50:35 AM EST
    She said she was ignorant and then she said she didn't qualify.
    MT has also credited clinton with civilian use the GPS system in the past.

    I knew a lots of folks who used the EITC pre clinton and several more who had GPS.
     

    Parent

    She didn't claim EITC didn't exist ... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:19:09 PM EST
    ... before Clinton, merely that he expanded the EITC to allow more people to qualify for it.  I didn't see her post re: GPS, but I presume she was taking about Clinton's decision to descramble the military GPS signals, expanding the application and use of GPS for "civilian" (commercial, scientific, personal , etc.) use.

    But I understand why that would upset some people ...

    Parent

    He "ran dirty"?? (none / 0) (#77)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 09:40:50 AM EST


    Parent
    Slang for... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:01:46 AM EST
    doing dirty deeds.

    Parent
    Does he also regret (none / 0) (#51)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 09:33:07 PM EST
    anything he's done lately, like attend the Peter G Peterson summit last month?

    Parent
    How do you know he isn't doing recon? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:57:31 AM EST


    Parent
    I meant to say (none / 0) (#11)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 03:03:09 PM EST
    'set interest rates', not 'set interests'.

    Parent
    I do love that clause. (none / 0) (#8)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 02:43:01 PM EST
    I think it came to light for me some months ago when BTD mentioned it, or maybe someone else.

    The US can't default. Not if the constitution means anything.

    Parent

    News on the son coming back to where (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 02:53:07 PM EST
    he was born front... I have to go to the COLOMBIAN CONSULATE to fill out papers to allow my son to travel with his Colombian grandmother to the US.

    He's travelling on a US passport.

    So... any lawyers want to email me on the right way to phrase an ex-parte custody order? jeffinalabama AT gmail.

    Hypothetically, of course. And would one take it to the court clerk, hypothetically, and which court, hypothetically, family, circuit, supreme?

    I'm so sorry (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Zorba on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 03:40:39 PM EST
    that you're still having to deal with this incredible bureaucratic muck-up, jeff.  Sending positive energy and hopes your way that it all resolves well, and quickly.  {{hugs}}

    Parent
    Can't help ya here... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 07:53:40 PM EST
    legal-ese is a strange alien tongue...ya would think laws of nature is all one would need refer to in your case to stamp "approved"...laws older than any nation or border or assorted nonsense we came up with to hassle people for no reason.  You'd think.

    Keep on keepin' on, and hopefully the series of painful wholly unnecessary hoops are near completion. We're all rootin' for ya.

    Parent

    Jelly making (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Zorba on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 03:38:19 PM EST
    Well, our cherry trees produced diddly squat, but the farm stand down the road had some very nice looking sour (pie) cherries.  Bought a bunch, juiced them, and am off to make cherry jelly.  I bought a few of their sweet cherries to try them (I like to make preserves out of the sweet ones), and they were unimpressive, so cherry preserves will have to wait until next year.  If the jelly turns out well, I'll buy more sour cherries to pit and freeze for pies later.  (Well, one pie for now, the rest for later.)

    Ummm, cherries (none / 0) (#24)
    by Nemi on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 04:29:13 PM EST
    ... and cherry pies, yummy. Do you have a pitter? Great fun if there are kids around. :)

    I once tried making cherry aquavit. What a disappointment when we tried it out a few days later - but eating the berries on the other hand was quite, ahem ...intoxicating. Lol, turned out it was supposed to steep for at least a couple of months.

    Parent

    I do, (none / 0) (#26)
    by Zorba on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:14:11 PM EST
    but that kind of pitter is way too labor-intensive for my needs.  I have one with an automatic feeder- you don't have to stick each cherry in individually.  Image.  Dump the cherries in the feeder, and start hitting the plunger.  It's great.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Nemi on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 06:48:25 AM EST
    mine is not all that different from yours - which also explains why the kids find it fun to help - but looking for a picture I fell for the cool looking, shiny tool. Kind of depressing to realize. :(

    Parent
    Thanks for the rec! (none / 0) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 08:26:42 PM EST
    Fresh made cherry pie is one of the glories of food, as far as I'm concerned, but it really takes some determination to do the pitting with a little one-at-a-time handheld gadget.

    I think I have time to order this and get it in before the all-too-brief cherry season is upon us here.


    Parent

    Wow - would've loved that ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:26:33 AM EST
    ... as a kid.  This thread just gave me a flashback to sitting on the back porch, pitting sour cherries with my sisters.

    Parent
    moving all weekend (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by CST on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 04:43:52 PM EST
    it blows.  And I'm not even close to done, just done for the day.

    I'm covered in bruises, my back is killing me, and I'm probably going to murder myself or my roommate at any second.  Thank god my roommate is my sibling so I can scream bloody murder at her for an hour and 30 seconds later we're over it.  Of course that's a two way street.  It actually really helps when you're moving to be able to unleash a verbal assault on someone with limited repercussions or hurt feelings.

    Now it's time for a beer to wallow in my misery about losing to Mexico yesterday.

    Sympathies (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 08:32:40 PM EST
    I ended up with, no kidding, a mild but really upsetting case of PTSD after I moved out here.

    Do you expect to be able to stay at the new place long-term?

    I'd moved into my mother's house five years before to look after her, then spent six grueling months trying to clear out her enormous house after she died in order to put it on market, then another frantic 6 weeks further sorting and disposing in order to move here.  When I had to clear out my big front room here in order to have the floor done, I had a panic attack and near collapse and had to postpone the work for a couple weeks in order to get my head together.


    Parent

    unfortunately not (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by CST on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:45:31 AM EST
    We will probably be moving again in 6 months.  Our lease just happened to be up at the same time that my dad is about to move to Africa for 6 months on an internship for grad school - who is starting over at over 60, for economic and retirement "goal" reasons.  But this will leave our mother alone in the house for the first time, and there is a lot of maintenence that needs to be done, so she asked the two of us if we could come home for 6 months to help with the bills and work.  Since we were ready to move on from our kind of cr@ppy apartment anyway, we said yes.

    So we are moving home again, for a little while, which will end up saving us a bunch of money, but it also means we are most likely going to be moving again in 6 months or so.  Unless dad figures out a way to stay there, and mom finds a way to join him, in which case we will just take over the house and bills while they are gone.

    In addition to all this we have had to help our parents clear out their attic, and find storage for a lot of our stuff (kitchen, furniture, etc...).  They are trying to downsize, as my mother just cleaned out her mother's house, and I think it made her realize that she doesn't want to leave us in the same spot, so we're all starting it now together.

    It's just a ton of work.  If they don't end up moving to Africa, which is actually a legitimate possibility, than I'm seriously thinking it may be time to look at some property to buy.  I don't want to have to do this many more times. After years of moving around a lot, I am starting to get sick of being mobile.  I have officially acquired too much stuff.  I just don't know that it's possible/affordable, even with two of us and help from the 'rents.  Property here is so frikken expensive, even with the downturn.

    Parent

    So ease on up to VT! (none / 0) (#94)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 01:16:31 AM EST
    I know, I know, too far away.  But still.

    Vermonters complain bitterly about how expensive property and property taxes are here, and as an ex-Bostonian, I can only marvel.  I bought a house and two acres of land for less than an efficiency condo would cost in the Boston suburbs, and the prop. taxes are also comparatively tiny.

    PS Good on your dad! That takes real inner strength.  I admire him for that.

    Parent

    Last time I moved ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:38:20 PM EST
    I hired people.  I really couldn't afford it.  But I never regretted it.

    Parent
    Have 2 or 3.... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 08:11:02 PM EST
    or 6...thats cruel and unusual pal.

    Utter epic collapse...brutal.

    Parent

    maybe this is why the trial was stopped (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by loveed on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:52:45 PM EST
     Maybe the trial is over?

    Fox news is reporting that the prosecution contacted the DOD to have a defense witness removed.
     The media never talks about the hearings
    after the jury leaves.

      Here is video

    http://www.wftv.com/video/28351869/index.html
     

    Who made the first contact? (none / 0) (#46)
    by 1980Ford on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 08:35:03 PM EST
    The prosecutor to the DoD or the DoD to the prosecutor? Ashton said they called him. Either way is fishy, but if Florida instigated that call, it should be misconduct. The state knew all along it did not have the evidence for a 1st degree murder conviction, which is why, for one of many fishys, it hid that Caylee could get in the pool by herself and that Cindy said she did the search for chloroform. A few minute search as proof of premeditation? Please, think of all the searches done just as a blip on the radar.

    For a preview of what is coming in future episodes, see Deputy Refuses To Accept Firing Over Response To Call

    Parent

    Fox news says prosecutors (none / 0) (#49)
    by loveed on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 09:02:35 PM EST
    made first contact. Your link did not work. Please resubmit

    Have you seen this one?http://www.wftv.com/video/28338524/index.html

    It have to be something BIG (It's against the prosecution) for this judge to stop the trial.

    Parent

    Fixed link (none / 0) (#57)
    by 1980Ford on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:42:57 PM EST
    Try this one.

    And you are probably talking about Defense witness William Rodriguez may not be allowed to testify
    .

    BTW, you can get in trouble if the links are too long. Here's how to do it.

    Parent

    Thank you I did not know about the length (none / 0) (#59)
    by loveed on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 04:01:22 AM EST
    I was so proud to finally learn to cut and paste.Also thanks for the instructions.

    Parent
    Newt criticizes NY gay marriage (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 09:40:40 AM EST
    Newt Gingrich as the defender of heterosexual marriage.

    In fairness, he doesn't say very much about it, but then again, in his case, that's probably a good idea.

    TPaw's campaign still a beltway fiction (none / 0) (#3)
    by Addison on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 12:44:31 PM EST
    Tim Pawlenty, still not attracting actual voters to actually support him. Finally paying some sort of price (albeit far less than should be exacted at this point) in the media coverage for having no real constituency.

    http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/06/26/iowa-poll-romney-bachmann-lead-republican-pack/

    When will people accept that in order to win actual elections you need more than a "first-rate team" (whatever that means) and the backing of Newsweek magazine and some folks at CNN? I'm looking at you, too, Huntsman.

    Also, congratulations to Mexico, truly CONCACAF's best team. And an honorable mention to Freddy Adu -- welcome back! So maybe now we can get rid of Bob Bradley?

    I would say (none / 0) (#35)
    by Makarov on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 07:01:33 PM EST
    Team USA should consider getting rid of Tim Howard and the back 4, if anyone.

    In another vein:
    http://www.latinorebels.com/2011/06/26/united-states-national-soccer-goalie-tim-howard-slams-concaca f-for-post-gold-cup-ceremonny-in-spanish/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=united- states-national-soccer-goalie-tim-howard-slams-concacaf-for-post-gold-cup-ceremonny-in-spanish

    Maybe Howard didn't realize the only channel the vast majority of Americans could see this on was Univision. That might explain the ceremony being primarily in Spanish.  Seems that Fox Soccer Channel is in the sports tier on most/all cable/satellite systems, and it was the only English-language broadcaster of the final.

    Parent

    Howard's solid... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 08:19:29 PM EST
    he just laid an egg...his frustration got the better of him I think, being a home away game and all.

    Parent
    I am secretely in love (none / 0) (#82)
    by CST on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:47:24 AM EST
    with Tim Howard.  And he's actually pretty awesome, even if he did kind of $hit the bed on this one.

    Parent
    Happens to the best of 'em... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:08:58 AM EST
    Goalies are on an island...when they f*ck up there's a spotlight on it.

    I'm much more troubled by our backline play...we'll never consistently hang with the best if we can't play lockdown D.  And ya gotta hand it to Mexico, they got the skills to pay the bills and make every mistake hurt.

    Parent

    yup (none / 0) (#85)
    by CST on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:13:01 AM EST
    The ball's gotta get through the other 10 players before it ever gets to the goalie.  They just get the spotlight.

    Maybe at least BTD will get his wish and Bradley will be gone.  Team USA looks like it has a lot of holes to fill.  The back end, the front end, and even occasionally the middle mucks it up.  I also feel like this team is lacking a cohesive style of play.  Whatever your style is, whether it's German efficiency, or the "beautiful game" - it helps to have a plane that the whole team is on.  I don't feel like team USA has that.

    Parent

    Well said... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:17:27 AM EST
    we have no identity...and look like chickens without heads out there half the time.

    I wasn't as down on Bradley as BTD, but I'm starting to see it his way...no identity, no cohesive game plan...that's coaching.  Considering we're outclassed against a Mexico, Germany, Brazil, etc...we really can't afford to be outcoached.

    Parent

    I like how (none / 0) (#53)
    by desmoinesdem on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:02:01 PM EST
    Pawlenty's campaign immediately tried to change the subject from this poll to a steering committee with a bunch of state legislators.

    I think Bachmann will do quite well in the caucuses, but I don't see things coming together for Pawlenty, even though he has the most Iowa GOP establishment support so far.

    Parent

    Nearly a great comeback for (none / 0) (#4)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 01:15:05 PM EST
    the Canadian women's soccer team against the heavily favored Germans.  A late, perfectly bent free-kick goal broke the Deutschelanders shutout streak, then very late a long pass in front of the German goal was mishit by the Canadian striker, who didn't realize she had ample time and space to line up an easy equalizing goal and instead rushed a one-timer that wasn't close.

    Too bad for the Canadians who at least didn't give up though they looked exhausted.  

    I think that's it for WC women's soccer today.  US plays NKorea in a day or two in their opener.  Should be interesting

    World class creep... (none / 0) (#5)
    by desertswine on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 01:19:05 PM EST
    Koch, buys the only authenticated photo of Billy the Kid.

    hmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by sj on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 04:26:01 PM EST
    robber... robber baron... robber... robber baron...

    I'm thinking he either feels a kinship or he's envious of the Kid's more direct approach.

    Parent

    I think he's envious ... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:23:14 PM EST
    of Billy's cardigan.

    Parent
    Hate to admit it. but (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 03:05:09 PM EST
    My enthusiasm for the special exhibit on Bali @ Asian Art Museum is kind of low. Is it possible to overdoes on culture?

    Maybe it's time for ... (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 03:43:32 PM EST
    a bit of "low brow" entertainment.  A tractor pull, perhaps?

    Parent
    RP, I happen to love (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 03:46:38 PM EST
    Monster trucks... Tractor pulls are also good. Wonderful entertainment, cholesterol food (funnel cakes, chili dogs), and rides!

    Parent
    You are the only one I know (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:53:32 PM EST
    that is remotely in danger of overdosing on culture. You will have to report back to  the rest of us!

    Parent
    Oculus, (none / 0) (#14)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 03:14:13 PM EST
    you need some low culture. Next time you fly through Atlanta, let me know, I'm an hour and a half from the airport.

    The Varsity, barbecue, and diddling for catfish. Oh, bring a swim suit, I'll provide the glove.

    Parent

    The Varsity? (none / 0) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:45:18 PM EST
    I'll take one chili cheese slaw dog and a sweet tea please.

    Parent
    More bad news about the current (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 03:46:12 PM EST
    planned implementation of lifting DADT.  The military is currently taking the stance that same sex marriages will not be legally acknowledged, same sex marriages are not eligible for the same benefits that opposite sex marriages have.  I don't know how this can legally stand.  Can someone explain that to me?  How they can do this?  My marriage is legal, licensed, and acknowledged by the military via the laws of the state that I got married in.  There is no separate military license of a legal marriage that I had to obtain.  How can it be legally be any different for a same sex marriage in the military?  I'm really confused as to how this can stand.

    That will take a (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 03:47:37 PM EST
    same sex couple appealing this to federal court. Ought not take long.

    Parent
    The is a specific and separate federal law (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Peter G on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 04:27:01 PM EST
    dealing with non-recognition of gay marriages, called the "Defense of Marriage Act."  Passed during the Clinton Administration.  A month or so ago (covered on TL, no time to search for link), the current Admin announced its new schizophrenic policy on this law ... federal agencies (including DoD, in other words) will continue to enforce it, but the DOJ will not defend the constitutionality of DOMA in court if those agencies are sued by people adversely affected.  No, I can't explain this ....

    Parent
    do you think (none / 0) (#23)
    by loveed on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 04:29:07 PM EST
    it's time for the government to get out of the marriage business. This is strictly an equal rights issue. When this country start living by there constitution,it will be a much better country.

     Civil union should be require by everyone who want to validate there relationship to the government.
     Marriage is different. And should have different rules. Some will argue that it between a man and a women. To me it a commitment to god. It should be through the church. Since we have freedom of religion in this country. There are churches already who marry gays. It's a commitment forever until death do you part. This part is taken so lightly because of  the government involvement. prenups before a marriage is an escape clause, so why make the commitment? The least important part of marriage is money. You should be willing to ,sharing all aspects of your life together.
     If you are worried about your money,not sure you want to make this type of commitment civil union are for you. Even now some people go to the justice of the peace.

    Parent

    MoDo hammered Obama (none / 0) (#28)
    by kmblue on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 05:32:09 PM EST
    in her column today.  I've been skimming the comments, and those who responded are ANGRY with the Prez.  Guess ABG's comment didn't get printed. ;)

    Funny thing is, I quit reading Modo a while back.
    Found her obsessed with Village crap.  Twas the headline that caught my eye today:  "Obama is BI"

    I hate MoDo (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 07:18:46 PM EST
    even if I might agree with her on this. I didn't read the column but I see her as a large part of the problem. I guess I'm still mad at her for her crap about Al Gore and earth tones.

    Parent
    she is a waste of prime newspaper space (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by desmoinesdem on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:02:58 PM EST
    I don't even read her column most of the time.

    Parent
    60 Minutes repeated a story tonight (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:20:11 PM EST
    on America's Motel Generation.

    Heartbreaking.

    I happened (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 07:19:45 PM EST
    to watch that when it was on the first time. Yes, it is heartbreaking but at least the families are able to stay together.

    Parent
    The security state wins one or the little people (none / 0) (#52)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 09:57:49 PM EST
    .

    Safety first.

    .

    Highly recommend the special (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:02:09 PM EST
    exhibit on Bali @ Asian Art Museum in San Francisco. Lots of video for fuller understanding of the customs and culture. Didn't know Bali is the only predominantly place outside India.

    Also "Tales of the City," the musical @ A.C.T. is much better than the reviews. Although, of course, three hours if toooo long, the actress playing Mary Ann is too sophisticated and too buxom for the part.

    And here I thought (none / 0) (#56)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:36:56 PM EST
    you were off to the monster truck and tractor pull

    Parent
    That'll be the day. Gay Pride parade (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:48:30 AM EST
    was today--350,000 people strong.  Big party in front of Asian Art Museum.  Jehovah's Witnesses had a booth set up for LGTG outreach.  Strange.  I tried to chat up a young man wearing combat boots and a box pleated camouflage skirt re this but he wouldn't respond.  Perhaps he thought I was a Jehovah's Witness missionary.  

    Parent
    Did a lot of reading (none / 0) (#88)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:22:04 PM EST
    over the weekend regarding Obama's re-election plans and strategies. Without going into all the details there are several issues that are clear.

    1. Obama, and his advisers, are fully aware of the disillusionment, or disgust, by a great block of those that enthusiastically supported him in '08, namely the youths, and the real Liberals.

    2. While he will attempt to energize them somewhat for '12, he has no intention of doing it by policy initiatives they hold dear.

    3. His well publicized groveling for money trip he took recently was his way of saying "I'm sorry for calling you fat cats" and letting Independents know his fidelity to Wall Street is sincere.

    4. Finally, and it seems abundantly clear, that what we've postulated here on TL many times is, in fact, true: His campaign theme will be: "I know you think I suck, but let me tell how much more they suck."
    A truly inspiring (none / 0) (#95)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 05:43:51 AM EST
    campaign theme.  Not.

    Parent
    What we should understand (none / 0) (#96)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    is that there's no level of competition greater than the contest for the Presidency of the United States. We should accept the fact that the "players" are world-class pros, know what they're doing, and have only one goal in mind....to win.

    The somewhat tongue-in-cheek slogan in my #4 may contain the "yuck" factor, but for Obama and his team the question is simply, is it a "winner?"

    I think it may be. Sure, hold your nose and shake your head in disappointment, but these guys are nothing short of 100% cold hearted pragmatists. They don't care if you hate their guts, as long as you pull the lever for them.

    Had Obama governed the way most of those who voted for him thought he would, you would hardly have needed any money for a re-election. The evidence, and results, would have been all around for all to see. However, since his governance is seen as a betrayal by so many and your "lying eyes" only see things being worse for the forgotten middle class & poor, another strategy is needed if he hopes to win.

    And that's what the Billion dollars is for; its gonna be one helluva campaign. 1% will be devoted to convince  us that mediocrity is something wonderful. And 99% will be used to graphically show what horrors await us should the R's win.

    It might just work.

    Sunday Morning Open Thread: | 96 comments (96 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment