home

Monday Afternoon Open Thread

Say hello to the new Scotus Blog,now sponsored by Bloomberg Law. I haven't had a chance to read through the the changes, but the Bloglift is really nice.

Boeing's stock rose big-time today with its delivery of the new Dreamliner. I wonder if they timed it with the premimere of Pan Am last night (which featured the inaugural flight of its big transatlantic plane of the day.) I think Pan Am (the show) is a winner. Anyone see it?

Breaking Bad was good last night, but not as riveting as the prior two episodes featuring Gus. Only two episodes left this season.

Desperate Housewives is definitely right to call it quits after this season if last night's show is any indication. Way too dark and depressing.

Time for the news, what's happening in the world? Here's an open thread to discuss it -- and any other topics.

< Sunday Morning Open Thread | Senate Passes Stopgap Spending Bill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    displaying suspect photos to eyewitnesses (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by desmoinesdem on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 03:06:45 PM EST
    Interesting piece in the Des Moines Register:

    When identifying criminals, it makes a difference whether witnesses view photos including the suspect's one at a time or all at once, according to new research.

    An Iowa State University professor who led the study says sequential presentation is better than simultaneous, with about a 10 percentage-point difference in accuracy. [...]

    A witness or victim of a crime often will be shown photographs of a potential suspect. The trick is to pick out the photograph of the guilty party from among other pictures of innocent people.

    It's important because eyewitness identifications are notorious for being wrong.

    Gary Wells, an ISU psychology professor, and others have spent years studying the issue. Why does the manner of presentation make a difference?

    When seeing several photos at once, witnesses may compare one picture against another, Wells said, and try to pick out the one that looks most like the perpetrator -- rather than the one they know was responsible.

    With the sequential method, the witness has to make a decision based only on one photograph. What the detective says to a witness during the presentation also is important, Wells said.



    From 1989 to 2011, the 12 members of (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 03:29:53 PM EST
    the SuperCommittee have raked in almost $41 million dollars from the finance, insurance and real estate sector:

    * That $41 million includes nearly $11 million from securities and investment donors and $4.3 million from commercial banking interests.

    • Sen. Max Baucus (D-­‐Mont.), chair of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, is the biggest recipient of financial sector cash since 1989 ($6.2 million).

    • Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-­‐Texas), first elected in 2002, is the top House recipient of industry money on the committee ($3.9 million).

    [snip]

    Donations from the PACs and executives of Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo -- banks that received $95 billion in federal bailout funds--make up one-­‐fifth of all contributions from commercial bank interests.

    The report (pdf) is here; the numbers are so obscene it may make you want to vomit.

    Yes indeed (none / 0) (#96)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 09:10:53 PM EST

    The art of the shakedown is something to behold.  At one time, "Pay up or else" was a crime.  Note that this is total is only for selected industries.  The grand total is much larger.

    Parent
    It's a black thing (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by loveed on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 05:00:27 PM EST
     I have told you several times,I am still a tomboy.
     But I had a diva mother. I am the youngest of five children. I can remember every suit and hat my mom brought.
     She loved her clothes especially her hats. Black women from the 20's-90's took pride in there hats. My mom have 100's of hats. The majority handmade.
     I would have given special people there hats at the memorial service (but I was sick). So today I am trying to close her apartment, and assign these hats.
     Certain hats with the suit goes to her sister,Her cousin(they grew up like sisters).
     All 10 grand daughters  will receive special gift wrap boxes with there hats (the hat is not to be worn), it's to remind them when things get tough, to think of her.
     She raised 5 children on her own. She lived through the depression  and a step away from slavery. She received her GED when she was 50, and learn to drive at 58yrs. Not one of her children ,grandchildren or great grandchildren have every been in jail. We all own our own homes, and the majority of our children have college degrees.
     People are starting to call requesting a hat or a suit (my mom was as a sharp dresser) not to wear, just to have a part of her.
     Black women think there hats are there crowns, and the legacy should be past on.

    that is lovely (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 05:45:31 PM EST
    loveed, i hope you will link to those pics of your mom when you feel ready

    thanks so much for sharing some of her story with us

    i hope you are feeling better

    Parent

    spoken for me too (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 08:26:46 PM EST
    A friend of mine here in Orlando told me about the crown tradition and showed me some pictures of her mother and aunts. What a treasure to pass on through the family.

    Parent
    Sounds like your mom was lovely (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 05:58:25 PM EST
    in all the best ways and that you and your family celebrated her life at her memorial.

    So happy that you got out of the hospital in time and hope that you are completely on the mend.

    Not black but love hats and have quite a few of them. No where close to the number your mom had but not too shabby for a white girl.

    Remember I was wearing a hat in a restaurant several years back and some woman turned up her nose and said in a very snotty voice:

    I didn't realize hats were in this year.

    I replied:

    Hats are in whenever I decide to wear one.

    I sure your mom made people realize that hats should always be the in thing. Hope your relatives enjoy their hats.

     

    Parent

    Hats are always in (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by loveed on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 11:16:00 PM EST
    I wish I was that girley girl she always wanted. But I always respected the hat.
     I use to buy her a hat whenever I traveled, she always looked forward to them.
     The bad thing is I really look good in hats.

    Parent
    Don't have to be a girley girl (none / 0) (#141)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 12:56:53 PM EST
    to wear hats. Some wonderful non girley girl hats out there. If you really look good in hats, find one or two that fit your personal style and wear them.

    Parent
    I have very thick coarse hair (none / 0) (#192)
    by loveed on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:25:32 AM EST
    Over fifty(pushing 60).
     Hats are to hot for me. After 5min my hair is all wet. I don't wear hats in the winter for the same reason.
     Exception bad hair days. I keep my hair as short as possible.

    Parent
    Maybe a Simone de Bouvoir (none / 0) (#156)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 02:08:55 PM EST
    beret, or one of those Maria Bello mini-fedoras. Live a little. I bet you'd look hot.

    Parent
    Or a fedora (none / 0) (#157)
    by sj on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 02:22:19 PM EST
    I seriously admire a woman who can pull off a fedora.

    Parent
    Wish I could wear one (none / 0) (#158)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 02:35:00 PM EST
    MO hats are 98% attitude (none / 0) (#162)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 02:46:01 PM EST
    and 2% finding the ones that suit your face and style.

    Parent
    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Rojas on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:23:03 AM EST
    As I read this an old photo of my mom came into vision. It was so clear and detailed it was like I was holding it in my hand. It was from the Kennedy era and she was wearing a hat in the manner and style that I'm sure was influenced by Jackie O.
    Mom was a beautiful woman and dad was a bit of a photo buff. I guess there were some diva years.

    Thank you again for your story and may peace be with you.

    Parent

    was it one of those pillbox hats? (none / 0) (#193)
    by loveed on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:27:33 AM EST
     

    Parent
    Very nice, sorry for your loss. (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 05:41:39 PM EST
    I'm happy that you'll... (none / 0) (#112)
    by desertswine on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 12:34:16 AM EST
    have some wonderful memories of your Mom. We're not all that fortunate, but I'm very sorry for your loss.

    Parent
    Shop at Amazon (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 06:59:27 PM EST
    Do you shop at Amazon because it's better to their employees than Walmart?

    Read this article at the Seattle Times site:

    Link

    International Business Times (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 07:12:30 PM EST
    Now beginning to report a bit on the Wall Street protest, sort of skewed toward "Anonymous" and "Anonymous" threatening revenge, but reporting none the less.

    Have the kids shattered the media blackout yet?  The blackout is all too obviously at this point deliberate.  Is this Egypt, Iran, or God forbid Libya?  How does this choke hold on media coverage of an event many people would like to attend if they knew it was ongoing happen in this country?

    Capital punishment (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 08:41:18 PM EST
    is the subject of an editorial in today's NYTimes.

    It clearly outlines the reasons for abolishing it.

    To the best of my knowledge, all the leading Republican candidates support capital punishment.

    And, the likely Democratic nominee, Mr. Obama, supports capital punishment.

    So, people who wish to express their feelings on this subject, as with many others, have no place to turn.

    Turn to state government. (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 09:09:05 PM EST
    Yep (none / 0) (#121)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 08:57:28 AM EST
    Since there have only been 26 executions (including military) in the federal system since 1950.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#123)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 09:48:06 AM EST
    If the momentum was there from the states to abolish it, it would eventually be abolished at the Federal level too. And as was pointed out, the states are where it is used much more so than the Feds.

    Parent
    The feds are largely (none / 0) (#171)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 03:31:15 PM EST
    out of the execution game.  

    It's a state issue. Blame your governors and state legislatures for this terribleness.

    Parent

    I know... (none / 0) (#173)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 03:33:40 PM EST
    But it would be nice if we had national leadership on this issue, instead of frightened rabbits.

    Parent
    5-6% for years??? (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 12:16:40 PM EST
    Sorry, have to vehemently disagree.  Then entire POINT of our current system (exacerbated by technology displacing human beings) is to hire as few people possible for as small a wage as possible.  Unless we start empowering working people, unless we start employing people FOR THE SAKE OF EMPLOYING THEM, larger and much more bloody disaster looms -- how many guns are out there in private hands in this country?  The private sector cannot profit off of every American's labor, not even close, therefore it will never employ anywhere near enough of them.

    This is simply the logical outcome of the system we seem incapable of changing.  We can't even DISCUSS the establishment of a humane and generous national floor that provides work when it cannot be offered by the private sector.  You are called a socialist or worse to suggest it.  I guess we'd much rather have all those people unemployed, desperate and angry.  No jobs program is perfect, no program private or public is, but what is much more imperfect is mobs of disaffected folks who feel ignored, neglected, abused.

    The private sector is not going to solve this problem.  They have no interest.  Unless they can profit wildly in the process, which is why they are sitting on record amounts of cash -- some illegally, it should be added, since they are required to pay dividends on many of those piles.  Has Apple paid one yet on their giant mountain of cash?  Nope.

    Needless to say, as you can imagine from my POV, I really wish Obama would get down to Wall Street with those brave souls getting maced and arrested.  They are people engaged in the ONLY thing freedom means -- the right to say no to the powers that be.  And what does NYC's finest have for them?  The tactics of a totalitarian state.  Stand with them, Mr. President, stand for genuine  reform right there in the belly of the beast.  

    I seriously doubt, ABG, that you think he should do that, which is fine.

    Peace out, my fellow free American.

    this is in respons to ABG, comment 129 (none / 0) (#133)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 12:17:16 PM EST
    Sorry

    Parent
    Dadler are you saying Apple's practice (none / 0) (#137)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 12:32:52 PM EST
    of not issuing dividends is illegal? If not, can you explain your beef with their practice of not issuing dividends?

    Parent
    No one could have predicted (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 12:43:47 PM EST
    20,000 SAMs Missing in Libya. Al Quaeda is active in Libya. Surface to air Missiles can hit passenger planes. I know I am a broken record on the subject, but I think deposing a dictator without a clear plan for the process and aftermath was a very bad idea.

    Hey Dadler (none / 0) (#142)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 12:59:03 PM EST
    One thing I CAN'T say is that is that I have twenty writahs that can give me that Dadler feeling..

    I've been meaning to send you some "props" (as the young people say), but I keep forgetting/getting distracted. I think you have a unique gift. Keep on grownin,' bro.

    Parent

    Just one more of those (none / 0) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 01:05:47 PM EST
    Who could have predicted thingees where you go "Duh."

    Anyone who spent the time to do an in depth risk analysis of  this so called kinetic military could have and should have predicted that this could happen.  

    Parent

    I don't know (none / 0) (#163)
    by sj on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 02:47:46 PM EST
    That seems to be part and parcel of the "keep us safe" priority as opposed to the "keep us free" priority.

    It's true that it's a dangerous world out there.  And think about it:  if we were to rise up against the US President (that's any President, mind you, not limited to Obama OR Bush) just think about how hard that would be.  The President is SO powerful largely because we've given our own government the tools to control us both as part of a "mob" and as individuals (and those are just examples).

    Sometimes... I think you just have to go for it.  You can't plan ahead for that -- there are too many variables.  Having said that, those sorts of weapons scare the bejesus out of me.  

    Parent

    More bad news for Social Security (1.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 02:08:48 PM EST
    So on Immigration... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 03:38:09 PM EST
    ... too many, and social security not enough.

    I wish there was a book from the right so I could understand the difference because from where I sit it's almost like wingers don't like brown people.  Granting some of them citizenship would shore AAA's concerns.

    The rub of course is when discussing immigration I am told we are at capacity, no one can tell me what that means quantitatively, just that we don't have room for any more peoples.

    Parent

    all wrong (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by CST on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 04:02:32 PM EST
    The solution is to eliminate access to, or education about, birth control and abortion so that women have no choice but to have more kids.

    That way we'll have more of the right kind of people.

    Parent

    See: (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 04:07:33 PM EST
    Uh, some of them??? (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 07:24:57 PM EST
    How would you do that?? Political test?? Physical??
    Intelligence???

    How about just shutting down the influx until we assimilate the 12 million or so illegal immigrants already here?

    Are we at capacity? Depends on how you look at it. More and more Hispanic immigrants will slowly change the culture. And that's not a judgement, just a fact. If you don't mind seeing the culture changed, then no problem. If you do, then there is a problem.

    Parent

    The question remains (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 10:25:24 PM EST
    How would you let some in, and not others?

    How would you do that?? Political test?? Physical?? Intelligence???

    We have some 12 million illegal immigrants here now. Why not assimilate them first before adding more?

    It's not like we need more entry level workers.

    Parent

    wingers don't like brown people. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 09:15:07 PM EST
    .

    Perhaps you are projecting.  As far as I'm concerned, people coming to this country seeking work is a blessing.  

    .

    Parent

    Stop freaking out (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 04:20:30 PM EST
    I just got the Army Times and Obama wants women under Tricare to go from paying $3 for their generic birth control pills to at $15 a month.  All of our drug copays will be going through the roof.  If you are a wounded soldier on several sophisticated drugs you are probably as screwed as some 60 year old with serious health problems too and no chance for insurance coverage for your preexisting conditions or even a job to make up for the one you lost.

    I digress, in no time the military should be spitting out extra children.  Hopefully preindoctrinated to deal with that ticking time bomb you hear.

    Parent

    what? (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 04:25:15 PM EST
    how does that align with this:

    "Beginning Aug. 1, 2012, all private insurance plans will be required to cover women's preventive services without a co-pay or deductible."

    But they are doing the opposite for public plans?  That's crazy.  Note - I'm not saying I don't believe you, I'm saying I think they're crazy.

    P.S. - don't click on that link if you don't want a good reason to punch Bill O' Reilly/Dana Perino in the face.

    Parent

    Note (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 04:39:19 PM EST
    you are saying services and MT is talking about prescriptions and I think Tri-Care is a private company that contracts with the government.

    Parent
    not the best quote (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 04:44:44 PM EST
    from that article.

    But insurance companies are required to cover prescription birth control with no co-pay under these regulations.

    Parent

    The Army Times has a chart in it (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 05:20:05 PM EST
    of the drugs and how the copays will be affected and they included Ortho Norvum 777 on it saying that right now women under Tricare pay $12 a month and $3 for a generic version.  The new plan would have them paying at least $15 for the generic monthly.

    I wish I could link to it but it is currently in the online subscription section only.

    Six years ago I was paying the same $3 copay for bc pills.  Put I'm not taking them now.

    Parent

    Sorry, Ortho Novum (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 05:50:56 PM EST
    It isn't as if I haven't said the two words at least a 1,000 times in my life.  Just too ticked to type I suppose.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 05:34:46 PM EST
    but as I found out the hard way, legislation saying something is "covered" doesn't necessarily mean it is. The Army Times has probably read the fine print in the legislation and is reporting it.

    Parent
    Health Insurance legislation to go to SCOTUS (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 06:13:53 PM EST
    The Obama administration opened the door Monday for the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionally of the healthcare law before the next election.

    It opted not to seek a delay in the legal process, leaving little doubt that the court will rule on President Obama's controversial legislation just months before he faces voters.
    ...
    Legal experts have said they expect the Supreme Court to rule on the mandate in the summer of 2012. If the Obama administration had wanted to try to slow down the proceedings -- possibly delaying them until after the election -- an "en banc" review from the 11th Circuit was seen as its best opportunity.

    But the administration did not take that option Monday, and the Justice Department is now expected to appeal the 11th Circuit decision to the Supreme Court. link



    Parent
    Here is a better link (none / 0) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 04:49:12 PM EST
    You have the oddest world view (none / 0) (#19)
    by sj on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 02:42:47 PM EST
    Your interpretations of some of the things you read are just ... odd.

    In an article about the effect of under/unemployment on young adults today, that's the message you take back.  Really?

    And you realize of course that your truly stupid headline is not part of the article, even though you try to make it appear to be.

    Parent

    You didn't notice that there are (none / 0) (#21)
    by me only on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 02:50:08 PM EST
    two links.

    The first of which is titled:

    The World Will Be More Crowded - With Old People

    Parent

    More (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 02:54:24 PM EST
    From the first link:

    But in the future it will be the exact opposite. The U.N. now projects that over the next 40 years, more than half (58 percent) of the world's population growth will come from increases in the number of people over 60, while only 6 percent will come from people under 30. Indeed, the U.N. projects that by 2025, the population of children under 5, already in steep decline in most developed countries, will be falling globally -- and that's even after assuming a substantial rebound in birth rates in the developing world. A gray tsunami will be sweeping the planet.

    Which countries will be aging most rapidly in 2025? They won't be in Europe, where birth rates fell comparatively gradually and now show some signs of ticking up. Instead, they'll be places like Iran and Mexico, which experienced youth bulges that were followed quickly by a collapse in birth rates. In just 35 years, both Iran and Mexico will have a larger percentage of their populations over 60 than France does today. Other places with birth rates now below replacement levels include not just old Europe but also developing countries such as Brazil, Chile, China, Lebanon, Tunisia, South Korea, and Vietnam.



    Parent
    You're right (none / 0) (#36)
    by sj on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 03:30:02 PM EST
    I didn't notice that.  Thanks.

    Parent
    remarkable logical leaps (none / 0) (#76)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 07:21:28 PM EST
    .

    WTFO!  What is so hard to understand about fewer and fewer young people working to create wealth and more and more older people not working but consuming wealth?  

    Combine with the "promise" that you get more our of Social Security and Medicare than you put in, and the word "unsustainable" comes to mind.  

    .

    Parent

    What a fool (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 07:26:56 PM EST
    you are. No one is working to "create wealth". It's all about being able to keep a roof over your head and food on the table. Think third world. That's what conservatism has wrought.

    Parent
    Really GA (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 07:30:22 PM EST
    You call AAA a fool and Yman tosses the "liar" word around.

    Both of you need your mouth washed out and a lecture in how to disagree in an acceptable manner.

    Parent

    My statement (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 07:33:48 PM EST
    about young people struggling is more in line with the article than what he is saying. He's editorializing about social security.

    Parent
    That doesn't give you the right (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 07:39:11 PM EST
    to call him a fool. Fool and liar are fighting words. Why not make your point in a manner that facilitates discussion?

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 07:56:33 PM EST
    but I don't suffer fools lightly. This one just tops what he has written before because usually he at least doesn't rename the links and fabricate a story out of whole cloth. Usually he just links to some silly opinion piece.

    Parent
    No one does. (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 08:14:29 PM EST
    But we all have a right to our opinions and calling someone a fool is a disturbing trend. I suggest more self control.

    Parent
    Not sure what I have to do ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 07:55:37 PM EST
    ... with Ga6thDem's post, but if you don't appreciate being called out, you shouldn't lie about what Obama said, or more accurately, didn't say.

    Parent
    No, I don't appreciate being called a liar (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 08:18:27 PM EST
    The word liar is a fighting word. You understand it and you use it to insult and incite. You have no interest in debating and you shadow me to the extent that I consider it cyberspace stalking.

    And Obama said what he said. And you and every Jewish person in the world understood what he said.

    Parent

    I use it when it's accurate (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 08:33:20 PM EST
    "When you announce to the world that Israel should return to the 1967 borders you are announcing that you do not support Israel." - JimakaPPJ

    The problem is (as noted by Politifact), that's completely false.


    Did Obama really break with U.S. policy and call on Israel to return to its 1967 borders?

    No.

    Here's exactly what Obama said in a May 19 speech at the State Department:

    "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

    ...

    By definition, it means that the parties themselves -- Israelis and Palestinians -- will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.

    But I do appreciate you speaking for "every Jewish person in the world", although apparently that doesn't include Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who referenced Obama's speech in his own speech to a joint session of Congress just 2 days later:

    The precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated," he said. "We will be very generous in the size of a future Palestinian state. But, as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.

    Who knew Netanyahu wasn't Jewish?

    Parent

    You ignore his intent and (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 09:45:48 PM EST
    what everyone understood he meant.

    Fine.

    But since you can discuss without calling me a liar I will just end the conversation by noting that you are a bully of the first order and a demonstrated cyberspace stalker.

    Come back when you can control yourself. I am weary of dealing with such as yourself.

    Parent

    "Everyone"?!? The only ones who (none / 0) (#117)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:45:19 AM EST
    ... thought Obama was calling for what you claimed were a few TPers and Faux News, although even Chris Wallace pointed out that this was merely a continuation of the US position from the past several decades (including Bush I, Bush II and Reagan).  Namely, a Palestinian state based on the '67 borders with mutually agreed land swaps by both the Palestinians and Israel.

    BTW - I don't need your permission to "come back", Jim.

    But thanks anyway ...

    (LOL?)

    Parent

    Understanding (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 08:17:15 AM EST
    President Obama spoke to the Congressional Black Caucus awards banquet over the weekend.

    snip

    "If asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a Jew, uh, as a janitor makes me...."

    LATimes

    Well, we now have had, among other things, 57 states, the need to build intercontinental railroads, navy corpse man...... Now we want billionaires to pay taxes based on the same rate as a Jew.

    So let me understand. We can understand what he meant in these, but not when he brings up the 1967 border of Israel?

    I don't think so.


    Parent

    Yes, Jim ... a verbal gaffe (none / 0) (#120)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 08:48:30 AM EST
    ... in a speech gives you the right to twist and distort the plain meaning of a very clear statement - one subsequently explained in detail for the comprehension-impaired - on a completely unrelated subject?

    Wow.

    I guess, given GWB's dozens/(hundreds?) of verbal gaffes, we should then be able to "reinterpret" his words and divine his clear intentions on a myriad of completely unrelated subjects. Heyyyyyy, ... remember his famous "Fool me once" gaffe?  What that really means is that, when Bush says he had no specific warnings about the 9/11 attack, he really means is that he knew about the attack down to the last detail - and everyone knows that's what he meant.

    Heh, heh ...

    Your attempts at logic may be silly, but they sure are fun!

    (LOL!)

    Parent

    Uh this isn't about Bush, so quit (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 10:51:26 AM EST
    the "blame Bush" game.

    It's about you, and others, telling us that we should pay no attention to what Obama said, he didn't mean it that way, he meant it this way.

    And now that he says something that clearly indicates that he believes the 1967 borders should be reinstated.... why bring it up????


    Parent

    It's an analogy, Jim (none / 0) (#136)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 12:28:51 PM EST
    One constructed from the same type of "logic" you used

    It's about you, and others, telling us that we should pay no attention to what Obama said, he didn't mean it that way, he meant it this way.

    Actually, to the contrary, Jim.  I'm telling you to pay attention to what he said, as opposed to what you claim he said after reinterpreting his simple words and divining his "true intentions" through mind-reading.

    And now that he says something that clearly indicates that he believes the 1967 borders should be reinstated.... why bring it up????

    I know that's an attempt at some kind of question, but it's a little hard to decipher.  if you're asking why Obama addressed the issue after the speech ... that's easy.  It's because a bunch of wingers tried to lie about what he was saying in the speech.  As it turns out, what Obama said in the speech has been the US position for at least the last several administrations, and even Netanyahu noted that he agreed with Obama's premise:

    The precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated.  We will be very generous in the size of a future Palestinian state. But, as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.

    I wonder who else accepted Obama's premise (i.e. the 1967 borders with adjustments via "land swaps").  Let's see:


    Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides. While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous.
    - GW Bush 1/10/08

    Let's see what Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said:

    We must give up Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and return to the core of the territory that is the State of Israel prior to 1967, with minor corrections dictated by the reality created since then.
    - 11/11/08

    Wow - sounds like GWB and Olmert have the same position as Obama, and Netanyahu agrees that Obama was not calling for a return to 1967 borders.

    Parent

    Why all the chaff? (none / 0) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    Blame Bush. Blame.... anyone but Obama...

    "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

    Let's see.....I am not supposed to pay attention to his mistakes, and I am also not supposed to pay attention to what he said.

    When should I pay attention? Next Friday?

    "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on 1967 lines..."

    From the dictionary - base

    a fundamental principle or groundwork; foundation; basis: the base of needed reforms.

    That clearly shows that Obama wants Israel to collapse to the 1967 borders. That he may think that some unspecified swap of some unspecified "thing" is of no consequence. The 1967 borders are what he is basing his belief on.

    So he said what he said.

    Lewis Carroll said it best:

    `I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

    `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

    `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

    `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

    `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

    Through The Looking Glass - Lewis Carroll

    Parent

    Plenty of people in Israel (none / 0) (#146)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 01:06:50 PM EST
    are open to going back to those borders, as long as there's a reasonable guarantee of security, Ms Geller.

    And btw, nobody is "driving into the sea" a country that posesses 200 warheads, and whose top ally in the world has enough weapons of global destruction to irradiate the entire ME ten tops over.

    Enough with the hysterical, John Hagee fearmongering, already!

    Btw, "Shadow", in plain english means "mommy, tell them to stop picking on me!" Deal with it, if you wanna troll.

    Parent

    jondee (none / 0) (#151)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 01:30:08 PM EST
    The conversation is not about what the people want, or do not want.

    It is about what Obama said.

    Refocusing won't work.

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#154)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 01:43:49 PM EST
    "The conversation" isn't JUST about what you declare it's about. Particularly on an Open Thread.

    Now, go and check with The Heritage Foundation and Pam Geller and get back to me with your response.

    Parent

    Uh, this part of the open thread was (none / 0) (#164)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 02:53:28 PM EST
    about me saying that Obama was for 1967 borders for Israel and then Yman having a fit.

    You, of course, can write what you like but that doesn't mean it relates to the particular subject at hand.

    Parent

    uh (none / 0) (#167)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 03:07:22 PM EST
    yeah. I was way off topic in mentioning that many in Israel are in favor of that arrangement as long as security is gauranteed.

    What got into me, I wonder?

    Parent

    I don't know (none / 0) (#177)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 04:04:34 PM EST
    Perhaps you were wanting to engage in a discussion about Israel's security??

    And I would say that after watching us withdraw from Vietnam, Iran ('79), Iraq and soon to be Afghanistan our guarantees are not what they use to be.

    Parent

    "Chaff"???? Hahahahahahaha ... (none / 0) (#148)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 01:15:07 PM EST
    "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

    That's not "chaff", Jim ... that's called a complete sentence (although the rest of the speech is helpful in understanding his premise).  This, on the other hand, is called an incomplete sentence:

    The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on 1967 lines...

    Now, if someone was trying to completely distort/mislead/fabricate/lie about what Obama said, they could try to ignore the last part of that sentence by ommitting it.

    But that would be pretty dishonest, now, ... wouldn't it?  Not to mention, ...

    ... transparent.

    BTW - I'm not "blaming Bush".  I'm pointing out that Obama's position is essentially the same premise followed by Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Olmert, etc., etc., etc.

    But I understand why you'd like to pretend otherwise.

    Parent

    I can already see the trend (none / 0) (#149)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 01:25:53 PM EST
    developing: increasingly, we're gonna see him parroting Judge Roy Bean Perry's talking points and public statements from here on in..

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 01:34:00 PM EST
    the first part is a statement of belief and the second half is a qualifier. I did not ignore it.

    I just pointed out that it was of no consequence in what he said. The 1967 borders are a base to be swapped away.

    He said what I said he said and he meant what he said.

    You cannot change that no matter how many times you try.

    Parent

    I know we'll just (none / 0) (#153)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 01:39:46 PM EST
    go over and lethally inject all 'a 'em Palestinians. Look like illegal alien Meskins, anyway..

    EVERYTHING is potentially something to lost, or "swapped away", that doesn't mean it will be. Not when you have 200 nukes etc etc..

    Parent

    "Of no consequence" (none / 0) (#155)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 01:46:57 PM EST
    Like a doctor says, "You're going to die ...

    with the qualifier

    "... in about 80 years."

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    BTW - That second-to-last sentence was pretty funny.

    No joke.

    Parent

    The fact remains (none / 0) (#165)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 02:57:06 PM EST
    the base of Obama's comment was that Israel's 1967 borders were now in play. That comes from his belief that all colonial powers are evil and everything that comes from them must be "corrected."

    I will accept your apology for caling me a liar when you give it.

    Parent

    all colonial powers are evil (none / 0) (#166)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 03:03:44 PM EST
    and Obama said that when? In that dream you had the other night in which you were being chased by Marxist Muslims?

    Since Obama never said that, now I'm gonna call you a liar.

    Parent

    Technically, Jim never actually ... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 03:20:02 PM EST
    ... said that Obama said that "all colonial powers are evil and everything that comes from them must be "corrected."  He said Obama believes it.  If you claim that someone said something that's patently ridiculous, you might get called on it.  OTOH, if you claim that they believe something, there's no way to prove or disprove it, so you can pretty much make up anything you'd like.  For example:

    "The Tea Partiers believe this mind-reading tactic makes their silly claims sound more factual, when in reality, it's completely transparent".

    See?

    Easy-peezy.

    Parent

    technically.. (none / 0) (#172)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 03:31:47 PM EST
    true enough.

    Though it's getting really reckless to claim someone believes something based on no public statements the person has ever made.

    But, I guess that claim does conform to the logic/paranoid delusionary system that seems to believe that all Democrats secretly hate America, America's allies, the West, motherhood, apple pie, traditional marriage, religion et etc

    Parent

    Don't forget ... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 03:49:04 PM EST
    Subtle (none / 0) (#176)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 03:55:48 PM EST
    You can't help but admire the light, nuanced touch of these teabaggers..

    Parent
    Who do you know that works for (none / 0) (#178)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 04:06:10 PM EST
    Lipton tea??

    Jondee, you are the poster child of insult instead of debate.

    Parent

    It oozes from his pores (none / 0) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 04:07:52 PM EST
    Read his books, look at his policies. That explains them quite well.

    Parent
    his pores (none / 0) (#188)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 08:10:55 PM EST
    interesting metaphor.

    Are we in skin-color-and-funny-soundin' names territory now, or are you referring to something more substantial. Because I KNOW you haven't read his book.

    I could say Rick Perry hates the fact that he can't teabag prisoners before they're Texacuted, (and practice christian divination with their entrails afterward) but that doesn't make it a verifiable fact, just another read-between-the-lines intuition.
    Like your Beckian "Obama hates.." observations.

    Parent

    And I am going to note (none / 0) (#182)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 04:18:32 PM EST
    you as another example of someone who can't debate so they always go for the insult.

    It does so define intelligence level.

    Parent

    Heh, heh, heh ... (none / 0) (#185)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 05:09:17 PM EST
    Ohhhhhhhhh, noooooooooooooooooooooooo ....

    BTW -

    And I am going to note you as another example of someone who can't debate so they always go for the insult.

    followed by the insult:

    It does so define intelligence level.

    Classic Jim!


    Parent

    When you call someone a liar (none / 0) (#187)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:18:00 PM EST
    and then beg for mercy....

    I am reminded of the story about the child who killed his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court because he was an orphan.

    ;-)

    Parent

    "Mercy"? (none / 0) (#190)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 09:02:10 PM EST
    "Beg for mercy?"  What are you talking about?

    I'm just amused by your hypocrisy.

    Seriously amused.

    Parent

    Ohhhhhhhhh .... now it's the BASE ... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 03:08:13 PM EST
    ... "the base of Obama's comment was that Israel's 1967 borders were now in play".

    So, rather than actually stating "Israel should return to the 1967 borders" (your original claim), you're now saying that Obama the "base" of his comment was that "Israel's 1967 borders were now in play"?

    Wow.

    You mean like every other President and Israeli Prime Minister for the past several decades?

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    BTW - Start holding your breath now, Jim ... maybe stomp your feet a little, too.

    I'll get right back to you.

    Parent

    The subject was never what anyone else (none / 0) (#181)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 04:09:32 PM EST
    said.

    It was what Obama said.

    And since he said what he said you are trying to change the subject.

    Parent

    He did indeed say what he said (none / 0) (#184)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 05:01:27 PM EST
    The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.

    He just didn't say what you said he said.

    When you announce to the world that Israel should return to the 1967 borders you are announcing that you do not support Israel.
    - JimakaPPJ

    See if you can tell the difference.  I know, I know ... it seems like a trick question because it's so easy, but ...

    ... it's really not.

    Parent

    Same thing (none / 0) (#186)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:15:24 PM EST
    The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on 1967 lines

    When you announce to the world that Israel should return to the 1967 borders you are announcing that you do not support Israel.

    Take off your blinders. Millions have.

    Parent

    "Blinders"? What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#191)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 09:23:53 PM EST
    Can't even post the entire sentence of his quote, huh, Jim?  I wonder why you cut it off right there ....

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    BTW - I have no "blinders" when it comes to Obama.  In case you haven't noticed, I'm often very critical of him and his numerous flip-flops, broken promises, etc.

    That being said, I also have little tolerance for wingnuts who have to resort to lying about his record to try to make him seem worse than he actually is, or who post pictures of him dressed as Osama Bin Laden.

    Parent

    and four of them (none / 0) (#194)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 03:27:24 PM EST
    were people who didn't read entire Left Behind series.

    Parent
    maybe if you had (none / 0) (#189)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 08:32:10 PM EST
    said, "Obama sees colonialism as problematic for the colonizers and the colonized" we'd have something to debate and discuss, but when you say "Obama hates.." it's fairly obvious that you're grandstanding once again for the Great White Brotherhood of the Sacred Teabag. Which has nothing to do with honest, intelligent debate thinking, or tactics.

    Parent
    BTW - love the irony (none / 0) (#150)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 01:26:50 PM EST
    The first part of your post, followed by the Lewis Carroll reference.  Although, to be quite honest, ...

    ... Carroll's fairy tales are much more believable.

    Parent

    Well it matters not your purpose (none / 0) (#92)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 08:48:42 PM EST
    .

    Well it matters not your purpose for working.  The fact remains productive work creates wealth (goods and services).  The retired depend on the younger set producing the wealth (goods and services) that they consume.  

    The demographic problem with Social Security and Medicare is that the number of wealth producers (workers) relative to wealth consumers (retirees) is declining.  

    In 1950 it was about 16 to one.  Now it is about 3 to 1.  

    Raising the payroll tax has two problems. One is that it makes American labor less competitive.  The other is it makes it more difficult to raise more children thus exacerbating the demographic problem.

    .

    Parent

    AAA (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 07:28:08 PM EST
    Bringing up facts is really not appreciated by some of the folks here. They demand political correctness at all times even when it is plain that the PC is bad for people and the country.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 07:31:33 PM EST
    Jim of the fact free analysis who uses "opinion pieces" as fact. I don't think anyone is going to take you too seriously anymore. LMAO.

    Parent
    GA, I have long noted that (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 07:45:45 PM EST
    I don't write for anyone's approval. So feel free to take what I write or leave it alone.

    But cease the insulting fighting words.

    Parent

    Genial discussion has been the rule here long (2.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 09:50:19 PM EST
    before you arrived. And you are one of the ones who take every opportunity to take nasty shots.

    If you cannot debate without doing what you, GA6th and Yman have done then I will call you on it. It is obvious that you can't debate, just insult.

    That is a signature on many blogs, both Right and Left. It has never been so on TalkLeft.

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#93)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 09:00:54 PM EST

    Have you read "Shattered Sword"?  Its great.

    Parent
    You know, I feel exactly the same (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 09:55:10 PM EST
    about you.

    And since you are the aggressor, why don't you just ignore my comments??

    Parent

    Oh please (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 10:30:18 PM EST
    You rush into a conversation and when your comments are not accepted you accuse me of whining?

    Parent
    Nope, I looked at it over (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 09:56:07 PM EST
    at Amazon and it looks interesting.

    Parent
    Pearl City Tavern (none / 0) (#126)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 10:43:10 AM EST
    .

    Don,

    Do you know if the Pearl City Tavern is still in business with the monkey bar and bonsai?

    .

    Parent

    A Harry Dent (none / 0) (#115)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 01:31:40 AM EST
    disciple, right?

    Parent
    Human interaction vs machines (none / 0) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 01:03:56 PM EST
    MANCHESTER, Conn. -- When Keith Wearne goes grocery shopping, checking out with a cashier is worth the few extra moments, rather than risking that a self-serve machine might go awry and delay him even more.

    Most shoppers side with Wearne, studies show. And with that in mind, some grocery store chains nationwide are bagging the do-it-yourself option, once considered the wave of the future, in the name of customer service.
    ...
    Big Y Foods, which has 61 locations in Connecticut and Massachusetts, recently became one of the latest to announce it was phasing out the self-serve lanes. Some other regional chains and major players, including some Albertsons locations, have also reduced their unstaffed lanes and added more clerks to traditional lanes.
    ...
    Overall, people reported being much more satisfied with their supermarket experience when they used traditional cashier-staffed lanes. link

    Good news for cashiers in the area.

    Now that is a trend I can get behind (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 01:47:29 PM EST
    The store I go to used to be an Albertson's, and I would use that line if I only had a couple of items.  Half the time I needed a cashier to come over and fix some error anyway. Store was replaced by a Publix without the machines, and plenty of cashiers. I hardly ever even have one person ahead of me in line. Very nice.

    Parent
    Me too. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 02:22:54 PM EST
    We still have the machines at the major chains here and a small number of people use them.

    I reluctantly tried them once or twice when I was in a super hurry and only needed one or two things. They took almost as much time as standing in line. Also, I would much prefer to interact with real people and for them to keep their jobs.

    Parent

    I suspect it gets (none / 0) (#113)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 01:12:01 AM EST
    easier to use if you use it regularly, but I'm with you.  Not worth the hassle.  Besides, the professional baggers do a MUCH better job than I do at the auto-checkout.

    Parent
    I Refuse (none / 0) (#40)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 03:58:20 PM EST
    I am not paying the same prices for groceries and let them think I am so dumb I will do their job for nothing.

    If I wanted to work at Kroger as a clerk and bag boy I would, but not for free.

    No offense to anyone meant, but the clowns that continue to use them only encorrage that type of corporate thinking.  "Hmmmm, if I put Joe on the floor and the lines increease, the sheeple will slid over to the machines and do our jobs, then  I can fire joe".

    I see people waiting in line, looking up carrots codes, and bagging their groceries and I know they think that 20 seconds they saved was well worth.  And Joe, at 16, just figured out his A got replaced by a machine that doesn't actually do his job.

    Parent

    A grocery chain here has no checkers (none / 0) (#55)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 05:09:10 PM EST
    and excellent prices (along with a lot of local produce etc). And they actually pay their plentiful/helpful staff a couple bucks an hour more than the other major chains in the area. They have pretty decent weekly coupons for dollars off your total vs individual items (those are available also), which works for me since I don't buy much in the way of brands or processed food :)

    Parent
    In my local store, they expanded from (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 02:34:50 PM EST
    self-serve checkouts to hand-held scanners, so you can scan and bag as you go through the store; when you're finished, you put the scanner on the belt, the cashier "reads" it, you pay and you're finished.

    I haven't tried it yet, for one because I think it would take me longer, and for another, because I hate the idea that it's helping keep staff low.

    Parent

    They are Working on Putting... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 04:17:53 PM EST
     ...RFID chips on all products.  Then in theory you pass through the readers and pay.  No human interaction because nothing gets past the scanner.

    Entire containers of products can be scanned in seconds w/o every opening it, trains, semis, all with instant information that requires no humans to screw it up.

    RFID chips will be in phones soon, some think the iPhone 5 may have one.  Just like a credit card with the chip, pass it over the reader and wholla.

    Receipt is sent to the phone.

    Every feel like Sarah Connors is already born and in about 20 years Arnold is gonna show up naked in an alley to kill her.

    James Cameron never mentioned Corporate America was the enablers of the machine take-over.

    Parent

    true (none / 0) (#67)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 05:48:46 PM EST
    James Cameron never mentioned Corporate America was the enablers of the machine take-over.

    just like they never mentioned in high school, when they said that such & such would go on our "permanent record," that said record would be stored at the bank

    Parent

    I have to admit (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 02:44:15 PM EST
    I LOVE the hand held scanners at my Giant.  It really helps me see what I'm spending, so I'm not shocked when I get to the checkout,and helps me to make better choices. And it speeds things up - while I can bag as I go, I still have to go through a checkout line and pay, so generally, it's still a live human that has to take care of me.  Bonus, because it's technically "one itme", I can have $100 worth of groceries in 3 bags, and I still get to go through the "15 items or less [sic]" line.

    Parent
    Interesting...I have not heard of that (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 03:08:07 PM EST
    Not sure I would use it. Do you get a discount for doing all the work yourself? Even so, I'd rather let someone else to do the work. I'm lazy.

    Parent
    I read about those a while back (none / 0) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 03:22:01 PM EST
    To the best of my knowledge none of the stores have implemented that technique here.

    Not sure that I would use it because like you I'm not fond of ideas that make me do more work to keep staff levels low. Right now, I'm able to keep a loose running total in my head of what I'm going to have to pay at check out.

    If I'm forced to adapt a much stricter budget at a time when I'm not able to approximate my costs, I might be more inclined to use one if they were available.

    Parent

    I think there's a phone app (none / 0) (#56)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 05:16:41 PM EST
    that you can scan with that gives you best price in the area. If ya have to resort to hand scanning, might as well bargain shop at the same time :)

    Parent
    Won't help if, (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Zorba on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 05:27:09 PM EST
    like me, you have an old "stupid" phone.   ;-)

    Parent
    I do have a stupid phone, lol!~ (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 05:34:09 PM EST
    it just keeps going and going . . .

    Parent
    So does mine! (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Zorba on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 05:39:47 PM EST
    I figure, why should I replace something that works?  It doesn't take pictures, it doesn't connect to the web, and I don't care.  All I want to do is make and receive calls, which it does just fine.  Maybe I'm a Luddite.  

    Parent
    Like Zorba (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 05:34:01 PM EST
    I have a dumb phone.

    Parent
    I'd gladly volunteer to... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 01:33:23 PM EST
    put my Louisville Slugger to those evil machines myself, "Player Piano" style.

    Like Office Space... (none / 0) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 04:20:42 PM EST
    ... and the printer, film it like Reservoir Dogs in slow motion.

    Parent
    Romney (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 01:33:58 PM EST
    getting ready to unload on Perry
    link


    Ooohhh! (none / 0) (#114)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 01:14:13 AM EST
    I'm trembling with anticipation. (not)

    Parent
    Fantastic day of football yesterday. (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 01:37:20 PM EST


    Jimmy The Greek... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 01:44:16 PM EST
    I ain't!  Good thing I prefer poker and ponies to sports betting or I'd be destitute:)

    Parent
    I hope BTD is not off someplace (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 01:48:38 PM EST
    pawning the family silver.

    Parent
    I think BTD... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 02:17:58 PM EST
    sticks to NCAA ball primarily, and wisely so.  

    I don't think Sam Rothstein could make money in today's NFL...parity is great for fans, for punters not so much.  

    Parent

    Am I the only one who thinks the (none / 0) (#10)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 02:16:30 PM EST
    lockout, with resulting lack of OTA's and compressed training camps have something to do with what seem like an inordinate number of injuries for only being through three weeks of regular season football?

    I mean, it just seems like there are a lot of impact players who have gone down, or who are struggling with nagging injuries.

    On the plus side, I guess, there are openings for others to step us and get a chance to shine; were it not for Lee Evans sitting out yesterday because of an ankle issue, I doubt that rookie Torrey Smith gets a chance to score three touchdowns off of three Joe Flacco passes in the first quarter of the Ravens/Rams game.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 02:26:54 PM EST
    Injuries have been on the rise, even prior to this season.

    Parent
    I Was Gonna Say... (none / 0) (#46)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 04:24:03 PM EST
    ... there was a boatload last year early.  Out fantasy league scrabbled to figure out how to handle it.  Like one or two on every starting team.

    Parent
    Interesting addition to new contract (none / 0) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 10:08:53 PM EST
    WASHINGTON -- The NFL has removed a hurdle for professional football players who may be thinking of coming out as gay, banning discrimination based on "sexual orientation."

    The new language was quietly put into the 2011 collective bargaining agreement, ratified by the players on Aug. 4, and first noticed by Pete Olsen at Wide Rights.

    The contract reads: "Section 1. No Discrimination: There will be no discrimination in any form against any player by the Management Council, any Club or by the NFLPA [NFL Players Association] because of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or activity or lack of activity on behalf of the NFLPA."

    "Sexual orientation" was not in the 2006 collective bargaining agreement, which read there would be no discrimination based on "race, religion, national origin or activity or lack of activity on behalf of the NFLPA." link



    Parent
    Segue: gay (I guess that's the segue). (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 10:22:22 PM EST
    Anyway, I read this article on CNN this morning.  Quite interesting re gay man, not currently in a relationship, tapped for executive position in Mormon church in SF: link

    Parent
    Indeed, my teams did win. And NE lost. (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 02:36:13 PM EST
    Speak for yourself.... (none / 0) (#30)
    by magster on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 03:20:57 PM EST
    Orton is a loser! Tebow! Tebow! Quinn! Quinn! Anyone else! Anyone else!

    Parent
    I Went to the Super Dome... (none / 0) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 04:43:16 PM EST
    ... to witness the Texans' defense throw away another 4th quarter lead.

    But it's New Orleans for the weekend, even a team loss can't mess that up.

    Parent

    If you'd like more info on the Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 01:54:14 PM EST
    blogger meet up, see Armando's post at DK.  

    Where is Armando's post at DK? (none / 0) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 02:18:07 PM EST
    I can't find it. What name is he posting under? BTD, Armando or Armando Liorens? What is the title?

    This is the second or third time someone referenced that he had a post there and I couldn't find it. Help! What am I doing wrong? Do I need a secret decoder ring - handshake or key stroke? ;o)

    Parent

    Armando (none / 0) (#18)
    by me only on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 02:41:35 PM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 02:55:49 PM EST
    Evidently I didn't go back far enough. Not sure what I'm doing wrong with their search function because I didn't get a hit there either. Rarely go there so I no longer know how things work.  

    Parent
    Add "Armando" to your (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 02:52:47 PM EST
    "following" or "stream" on "my page."  If I can do it, you can do it!

    Parent
    O.K. something new since I last (none / 0) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 03:04:16 PM EST
    paid attention. I think maybe I added him. Not sure how that will work if I don't go back there for months on end but who knows.

    Parent
    Well, you will need to check! (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 03:47:04 PM EST
    Clinton should be sitting in on Wall Street (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 03:23:36 PM EST
    That he isn't, I think, that more pols and power players aren't, says it all.  They ain't on our side, and never will be, until their own cushy existences are threatened.  

    Anyone in San Fran on Thursday, there's a march in the financial district from 3-6.  Please attend.  Here's a LINK to events coming up in NoCal and SoCal.

    Parent

    The time to make and energy efficient house (none / 0) (#118)
    by Rojas on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:50:05 AM EST
    is when you build it. Standards should have been raised and enforced by FHA back when we were building all this crap. Clinton is always a visionary after the horse has left the barn.

    Parent
    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 03:27:17 PM EST


    EU Climate Chief (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 03:34:45 PM EST
    Shocked that US presidential candidates can actually deny climate change with a straight face.

    "I'm shocked that the political debate in the U.S. is so far away from the scientific facts," she said, according to The Copenhagen Post.

    "When more than 90 percent of researchers in the field are saying that we have to take [climate change] seriously, it is incredibly irresponsible to ignore it. It's hard for a European to understand how it has become so fashionable to be anti-science in the U.S.," Hedegaard said in the Post account, which reprints comments she made to the Danish paper Politiken.

    "And when you hear American presidential candidates denying climate change, it's difficult to take," she said.



    Sadly, that's not far off... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 05:33:10 PM EST
    ...from the answer you'd get, though it would contain more obscenities, a slur or two, and I don't think the spelling or grammar would be so accurate.  

    Parent
    At 40% of Suskind's book. (none / 0) (#62)
    by lilburro on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 05:34:34 PM EST
    It's nothing if not dense.  Damn.

    Not riveting? Not riveting!? That last 10 (none / 0) (#70)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 06:06:52 PM EST
    minutes of Breaking Bad was some of the most edge of your seat television I've seen in a lonnnnnnnngggggggg time. And the last 3 was bizarre and brilliant.

    Oh how I wish you coulda seen... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 06:24:42 PM EST
    ...where I lived a decade ago.  Meth manufacturers/dealers living right behind us.  Thought someone was going to end up dead every day there.  Psychosis at high volume 25/7.  Nothing like a cranked up freak doing car repair at 3 a.m.  Cops did nothing about these folks.  Musta been getting their crank from them, I dunno, although we found out the landlord was, which is why he didn't want to evict them.  When someone was finally shot to death on the sidewalk outside our bedroom window, while my wife and I were doing what young lovers do, it was just a little too riveting.  Police couldn't have cared less either.  "Yeah, he's dead, young black guy, ho hum" was about the level of concern.  

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 07:06:21 PM EST
    that sounds like a nightmare of a living situation.


    Parent
    Good times, good times (none / 0) (#109)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 10:52:57 PM EST
    We lived there until our son was old enough to walk away on his own.  That was it.  Sold the house at the height of the real estate illusion.  Good for us, not so good for the fool who bought the house from us.  Luckily, we didn't buy again and banked the profit, which has done us very nicely since.  

    BTW, a few months ago, I wrote about this situation with the meth dealers, and how we ended up in neighborhood arbitration with them, along with the rest of our exhausted neighbors.  Hilarious and pointless an exercise it was.  But it resulted in the most bizarre and entertaining potluck dinner you've ever not wanted to attend.  Was supposed to "bring us together" as neighbors.  Didn't exactly work.  Meth family was constantly running back across the street to do business during the potluck.

    Parent

    The neighborhood's name? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 10:54:05 PM EST
    Good ol' NORMAL HEIGHTS.  Seriously.

    Parent
    If you haven't already written about it, (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 12:01:06 PM EST
    this would be an interesting subject.  Why is "Normal Heights" named "Normal Heights."

    Parent
    It was named... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 12:21:21 PM EST
    ...for the State Normal School, the predecessor to SDSU, which was located there at the time.

    Tried to get THE READER to publish a longer piece about my time in the Heights, but Ernie Grimm, conservative editor deluxe, passed, as he does on everything from me.  Most of my tales of the place are in the memoir which I'm trying to rewrite.

    Parent

    2007 Pakistani attack on US military ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 08:58:10 AM EST
    ... deliberate?

    Link

    MT - have you heard anything about this?  Sounds like they've gone to great lengths to keep it quiet.

    Irish Austerity (none / 0) (#124)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 10:12:59 AM EST
    I never had a chance to follow up on why it might be working.  Their economy has made surprising strides relative to other economies.  Obviously, their situation is still a bad one.  The metric I am focusing on is the vector of their recovery compared to other countries.

    Here are some links outside of the WSJ from various folks in the know:

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/09/the-luck-of-the-irish.html

    http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2011/09/23092011-qna-for-q2-2011-decent.html

    Given that the US recession was declared (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 11:05:46 AM EST
    to be over, what, two years ago, and we are still dealing with high unemployment, low demand, and declining quality of life for the majority of residents, I don't think you can declare that austerity works simply by looking at the same kinds of numbers - you have to look at people's lives.

    Have a read:

    From the very beginning of the crisis, the Irish Government's response has failed to protect vulnerable people and has damaged the long-term prospects of the economy.

    [snip]

    To date, the government has had four national budgets during the crisis period. (Details available on www.budget.gov.ie) The first budget, at the end of 2008, was two months early in order to respond to the emerging global financial crisis. Taxation was raised and public spending lowered. This budget did raise the level of unemployment payments, but subsequent budgets cut the rates and qualifying criteria for benefits to a greater degree than this budget raised them.

    In the 2009 budget, the Government announced a policy of encouraging workers back in to employment by cutting their social welfare payments. Payments for young people (20-24) were set at special low rates. For all other cases, the rate was to be reduced where job offers or activation measures were refused. Further cuts and tax increases followed in the 2010 budget.

    The fourth austerity budget, for 2011, again reduced social welfare payments. The national minimum wage was also reduced by nearly 12 per cent. Increases in personal tax in this budget have also disproportionately impacted on the low paid. Changes to rates and bands meant that an employee on €20,000 per year paid as much extra tax as an employee on €200,000. In addition, changes to social insurance created a new Universal Social Charge, which introduced much higher rates onto low- and middle-income employees than had previously been the case. And, of course, people on lower incomes are more reliant on the state services that are suffering cutbacks.

    Unsurprisingly, consumer spending in the economy has collapsed and Ireland continues to experience negative growth in the domestic economy; GNP continues to fall. Unemployment is at 13.4 per cent and renewed high emigration masks a higher rate of job losses. The situation is better for GDP, which is growing again (albeit at low levels) due to strong performance by exporting firms.

    The last budget was merely the first instalment in a four-year plan, which envisages further cuts and tax increases. Polling day in Ireland's General Election is 25 February. The result will determine the extent and timing of further austerity measures, but one thing is sure: much more pain is yet to be inflicted on the Irish people.

    I don't know - maybe this looks like it's working to you, but I'm not seeing what you're seeing.  


    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#129)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 11:48:23 AM EST
    I am not blind.  I understand that things aren't utopia in Ireland.  The point, again, is the pace of recovery. If we had every policy we wanted enacted right away unemployment wouldn't be in the 5-6 range for years.  

    So I am interested in directions and trends. Now I understand that a progressive EU blog may have a certain view on the status of things, but I think our most objective sources are the best gauge.

    Many objective observers think that Ireland's performance has been fairly surprising.

    Parent

    Since you are the same one who (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 01:04:21 PM EST
    told us months ago that, with Obama doing what he's doing, unemployment would be in the 5-6% range by the time he was re-elected, and now are pegging that rate to the requirement that every single aspect of policy be exactly what we want - which totally lets Obama off the hook (in your eyes) - and the time-frame for getting there to "years," it is impossible to accord you any measure of credibility.

    Parent
    Anne (none / 0) (#160)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 02:42:28 PM EST
    1. I never said unemployment would be in the 5-6 range. I said the 7-8 range.  

    2. My prediction about our own unemployment numbers would have been wrong even if Obama had followed every policy that you describe because our unemployment numbers are tied to the global economy, as I have regularly mentioned.  I believe that additional stimulus at the start would have us in the mid to low 8% range at best.  If you believe that Fed policy could neutralize the fact that China and the EU are stagnating or contracting, you aren't really understanding my points.

    Shorter: If the EU enters a full blown recession, Ralph Nader could be president and our unemployment numbers wouldn't decrease.

    I have been banging this drum for months now, and the predictions I made about the importance of Greece and Italy are coming to fruition.

    The American economy is a global one and if the globe crashes, we do to.  We caused the last global recession and the globe is now paying us back.

    Parent

    Wow. A celebration of (none / 0) (#147)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 01:10:32 PM EST
    14% unemployment in Ireland. The banksters are happy so all is well with the world.

    Parent
    You'd think, at some point, that having (none / 0) (#159)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 02:37:41 PM EST
    to keep moving those goalposts would be exhausting enough to make ABG consider the wisdom of continuing to do it - and why it's necessary in the first place.

    For someone who says he is interested in trends, he seems blissfully unaware of his own.

    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#174)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 03:37:12 PM EST
    I have tried to search but it is not pulling up the comment where I made the predictions.  Feel free to look for it but I have been saying that the number would be in the 7-8% range for some time.

    I am wrong about enough things.  No need to make things up that I am wrong about.  There is no winner's prize here. It's a discussion.


    Parent

    There is a difference (none / 0) (#161)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 02:43:30 PM EST
    between an evaluation of a static number and an evaluation of a trend.

    Parent
    There is also a difference between (none / 0) (#169)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 03:18:16 PM EST
    financial polices that line the pockets of the banksters and the traders which make them claim "it's working" and the rest of the population. They only experience the ongoing "trend" of loss of jobs, income and very basic services that they need to survive. All sacrificed to bail out the banksters etal. who demand that all government policies are structured for their benefit.

    The trend in Ireland has been will continue to be more and more cuts to the things that ordinary people. Another 12 billion euros in are scheduled between 2012 and 2015 -- probably more if global economic prospects worsen.    

    Parent

    Geez (none / 0) (#180)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 04:08:33 PM EST
    Look, I am not talking about how the bankers are doing. I am talking about things like basic measurements of whether an economy is growing, which is what ultimately produces jobs.

    Is your point that GDP is not a good measurement of the health of an economy?  That's the number I was referencing.  If a countries GDP is growing, jobs follow as a general rule.  That's the whole point.

    Parent

    Go back since 2009 and see the times (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 04:27:48 PM EST
    when we saw reports of better than expected GDP growth here in the U.S. Talk by many (including you IIRC) in the country about positive trend lines. The economy was turning around. People were hurting but what the heck, the market was going up and the trend lines were looking good.

    Then go forward a few months after those rosy statements and read how those numbers were revised downward. Go forward a few more weeks or months and read how the projections on future growth were revised downward and downward once again.

    The reports of whether or not the GDP was growing at better than expected pace have been misleading on how well the economy is doing to put it mildly. Not to mention the fact that your projections on the economy have not been accurate enough (gross understatement) for you to lecture me on how the economy works.

     

    Parent

    Nancy Grace wardrobe malfunction ... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 10:32:28 AM EST
    ... on DWTS.

    Link

    I'm not generally in favor of censorship, buuuuuuttt ...

    She is acting all "girly." Very (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 12:03:28 PM EST
    surprising.

    Parent
    Hey - she IS a mom! (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 12:25:09 PM EST
    Yes - different to see her in that context (none / 0) (#138)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 12:40:22 PM EST
    and without her air of complete certainty. Maybe she is human after all.

    Parent
    She's no different than any other lawyer :) (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 12:45:53 PM EST