home

Monday Night Open Thread

It's the final night the long holiday weekend. Aside from the Iowa caucuses which I have no interest in, there's not much to write about.

There's also little on TV, other than the premiere of The Bachelor, starring Ben from last year's totally boring season with Ashley. I think this season will be another dud, but I'll watch anyway. After 16 seasons, the formula has become dated and predictable. I wish they'd try something new.

Colorado is getting $400 million from the NDAA, with a big chunk for electronic surveillance. $70 million will go for construction of a new NSA building at Buckley Air Force Base:

The NSA building at Buckley Air Force Base in Aurora will cost a total of $141 million to complete. It will provide space for 850 people whose offices are now in temporary buildings.

Buckley is home to a large contingent of secretive agencies, including the NSA and the National Reconnaissance Office​; the Aerospace Data Facility-Colorado; Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine intelligence and information units; and Marine and Coast Guard cryptologic units.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< New Year College Bowl Game Open Thread | Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Now you've prompted me (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 02, 2012 at 11:19:28 PM EST
    to try and find out how much money WA State is getting from this nefarious bill, and for what. Though I am in total support of the Occupy movement, I haven't physically joined in on any of the protests. THe NDAA and its evil tentacles could very well get me protesting on the steps of the statehouse.

    Searing critique of NDAA by Jonathan Turley (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:21:47 AM EST
    in The Guardian.

    The latest claim is even more insulting. You do not "support our troops" by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the president. The "American way of life" is defined by our constitution and specifically the bill of rights. Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.

    The almost complete failure of the mainstream media to cover this issue is shocking. Many reporters have bought into the spin of the Obama administration as they did the spin over torture by the Bush administration. Even today, reporters refuse to call waterboarding torture despite the long line of cases and experts defining waterboarding as torture for decades.

    <snip>

    There are also those who continue the longstanding effort to excuse Obama's horrific record on civil liberties by blaming either others or the times. One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens. The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans' legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens as not just subject to indefinite detention but even to execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.



    Absolutely right (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 09:26:31 AM EST
    Everybody we know is outraged.  They aren't fighting so that every American can be given a colonoscopy against their will and without consent.  And almost every soldier over 25 years of age can tell you how much who gets to get phucked by what is on the books changes with the changing out of each President.

    What attack upon our country was successful because these executive powers weren't on the books?  What was broken again that this fixes?

    Parent

    In the "New Year College Bowl Open Thread, (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:21:53 PM EST
    Monday, Jan 2,"  Edger referred TL readers to an article about NDAA, by Naomi Klein.  I found Ms. Klein's thinking  interesting and  the commenters responses to be equally so--most agreeing or re-inforcing her concerns, but a minority (yet, seemingly a majority in the national context) did not realize the insidiousness and dangers of the provisions, including application to US citizens on  US soil; or belief that the ACLU will get the bill overturned; or that the president agreed with the concerns and his signing statement rectified the problems.

    Parent
    I love seeing (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 10:39:58 AM EST
    Newt Gingrich cry.  it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

    does that make me a bad person?

    No (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 11:11:30 AM EST
    The crying Speakers, (none / 0) (#50)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:31:04 PM EST
    different reasons but both involve holes: Boehner the nineteeth; Gingrich, trying to dig out of one.

    Parent
    QOTD (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:36:16 PM EST
    "sometimes the best isnt that great, but its the best"

      - Rick Santorum

    now theres a bumber sticker for the ages.

    In what Context ? (none / 0) (#72)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:02:35 PM EST
    Do you have a link.

    I just can't imagine anyone using that quote to justify mediocrity.

    Parent

    here (none / 0) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:20:16 PM EST
    Wow (none / 0) (#115)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 09:28:29 AM EST
    Used to describe himself...  hmmm, interesting to see a self-deprecating republican.  Still trying to wrap my head around that one, or how he could finish second in Iowa.

    Parent
    If you haven't been reading (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 03:38:54 PM EST
    Charlie Pierce on the cavalcade of clowns that is the Republican field, you are missing some great and biting commentary.

    I will concede that Obama is neither of the two men to whom you referred, but here's Charlie on the state of our economy:

    What are we being asked to unite behind? Austerity. Sacrifice for thee, but not for them. A crippled middle class is being asked, quite seriously, to cripple itself further, and being told that this is all in the national interest. Our great national purpose is being defined, a little at a time, as giving up that which makes life merely economically tolerable for millions of our fellow Americans as a blood offering to The Goddamn Deficit, which has been transformed quite deliberately into an effective antidote to any kind of optimism. How dare all those families struggling to get by on Supplemental Security Income place all that debt on my grandchildren? Nothing has done more to reinforce the narrative of government's being an illegitimate vehicle through which to pursue simple economic justice than the notion that trying to achieve it in the present is a criminal betrayal of a golden future that -- cruelest of all jokes -- is being made impossible by the policies being advocated today.

    And this has not been strictly a partisan project, either, although watching the various Republicans traipsing around Iowa trying to demonstrate how absolutely tough they'll be against the powerless is a rather vivid demonstration of the phenomenon. In their annual list of the nation's most overlooked stories, the editors of The New Republic shrewdly dug up a column by Walter Shapiro in which Shapiro pointed out that President Obama's fireside chat on the economy back on July 25 marked a turning point in our national conversation about what was done to our economy over the previous decade. The speech was a dead-assed appeal for a "balanced" approach to reducing the deficit.

    [snip]

    This was a moment, and the president's response to it was positively tone-deaf. Yes, I know, you campaign in poetry and you govern in prose. But there are all kinds of prose. A feed catalogue is prose, but so is Moby-Dick. Calvin Coolidge spoke in prose, but so did FDR. And, of course, we must never make the perfect the enemy of the good. But you know what else is the enemy of good? Timidity is the enemy of the good. Cruelty is the enemy of the good, and so are selfishness, bigotry, and ignorance. Why perfection is the only enemy of the good that ever seems worth fighting is a good question with which to launch the new year.

    [snip]

    There are now 146 million Americans who are ranked as "low-income" or "poor." Somebody really should do something about that. How we treat them in our politics is going to be the ultimate test of our moral credibility as a nation. Do we treat this situation as the national disgrace that it is, and commit ourselves as a nation to eliminating it? Or do we turn away from them, blame them for the malaise we feel in our lives, and drink deeply again from the supply-side, trickle-down snake oil? Do we look at the president -- a Democratic president -- and scream that this is no longer tolerable to us as a people? Or do we nod sagely and deplore the lack of civility and bipartisan cooperation in our government and hope that cooler heads will prevail, that the great national purpose of our age is to deprive ourselves further of what was supposed to be the promise of the country in the vague and futile hope that somehow, somewhere, things will get better down the line?

    As for Rick Perry - he's Ted Baxter with darker hair.

    So as of today, my son is employed (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 07:37:46 PM EST
    after a year of heartbreaking job searches.

    And it turns out that the job interview was a snow job.  He had to take the pay, insulting as were the so-called negotiations that turned out to be bait-and-switch as well about benefits.

    Now it is clear that the job description also was a b.s. job.

    I am going to keep encouraging him to keep him  going on the job search, since now he does not have to be subjected to that "we only hire those already employed" turndown.  But I am so angry for him and so many young people in his generation who are so smart and hardworking and want to work -- but who also are getting screwed again and again on the job search and on the job, as I hear when they request that I serve as a reference and then stay in touch afterward as well.  

    So it is fitting that the 2012 campaign starts today, too, as I am more determined than ever to wreak my vengeance as a voter.  And I applaud those in in their generation who are wreaking their vengeance as well.  (Loved "Occupy the Rose Parade" in front of the 1 percent in the grandstand.)  They remain too powerless now, but they will have the opportunity, and it will not be pretty.

    Parent

    Towanda, my sister (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 07:48:04 PM EST
    I'm glad he's got a job at last, but angry and sad for him at the circumstances.  I hope that he can turn this job into an eventual better opportunity elsewhere.

    Parent
    Your son is the backstory on the (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 09:01:02 PM EST
    unemployment numbers that the eyes-wide-shut, ooh-things-are-getting-better crowd simply refuse to see.

    I've lost count of the number of times I've asked people like ABG if the only thing that matters is that people are getting jobs, not what kinds of jobs they are, whether the jobs are paying as much or more as they were before, and whether these are jobs with benefits.  I am always told that it doesn't matter - that the Holy Grail is lower unemployment so Obama can have higher approval ratings.

    I read the other day that the manufacturing jobs that are opening up are paying $10-$15/hour less than the existing jobs, and it's believed these new hires will never catch up to their better-paid co-workers.

    It's certainly better to be working than not to be working, but it's just so discouraging to end up feeling that yesterday's unemployment can so seamlessly morph into today's indentured servitude - and it's just kind of galling that "grateful" is the emotion the newly-hired employee is supposed to be feeling.

    I sincerely wish your son can break through to something better, and more personally and financially rewarding.

    Parent

    This just breaks my heart (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by sj on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 10:13:48 PM EST
    I always believed the next generation would do better than ours.  This is all just so wrong.

    Parent
    Thank you all (none / 0) (#113)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 10:44:33 PM EST
    for sharing the pain, as I cannot do so with anyone else today, and I need to be "up" for my son.  Your thoughts are helping mine, truly.

    Parent
    Charlie Is. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 03:42:49 PM EST
    Good one, Anne.

    Parent
    Yep - Charlie is going to get me through (none / 0) (#74)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:03:27 PM EST
    this election.

    did you see the piece on Mitt and Politico? Perfect.

    Precisely how many times are we going to be treated to public expressions of mock horror from Important Conservatives that 40 years of allying themselves with nativist hooligans, anti-intellectual crackpots, Christomaniacs, and the sad detritus of American apartheid finally has produced a field of presidential candidates that these same Important Conservatives find less than adequate?


    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:48:23 PM EST
    I love that paragraph. So true!

    Parent
    I need to bookmark this (none / 0) (#103)
    by sj on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 06:30:07 PM EST
    And, of course, we must never make the perfect the enemy of the good. But you know what else is the enemy of good? Timidity is the enemy of the good. Cruelty is the enemy of the good, and so are selfishness, bigotry, and ignorance. Why perfection is the only enemy of the good that ever seems worth fighting is a good question with which to launch the new year.

    D@mn straight.

    Parent

    One of my friends on facebook (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 02, 2012 at 08:28:18 PM EST
    just posted that he won't be able to stomach this season's Bachelor either.  He said the Bachelor is a weenie.  I cracked up because my friend isn't exactly the most masculine guy, and he says this season's Bachelor is a weenie.  And the girls, he said to give him a break :)  Don't know what that means.

    I just finished a Don DeLillo short story (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 02, 2012 at 08:31:01 PM EST
    entitled "World War III."  The two men in the orbiting surveillance thingee work for Colorado Command.  

    Some days. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 10:05:14 AM EST
    Wow. Some days I read the news and...... you know? Shakes head. 100 billion stars in this galaxy, and 100 billion galaxies, and I had to go and pick this planet?

    RawStory
    BP sues Halliburton over $42 billion oil spill bill

    LONDON (Reuters) - BP has called on contractor Halliburton to pay all costs and expenses it incurred to clean up the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, which the oil major previously put at around $42 billion.

    Are we to figure is this like a fracture in the fabric of the oligarchy or something?

    Is that $42 Billion going to trickle down any faster from BP's coffers than from Halliburton's to the people and wildlife poisoned by the oil leak?

    Nope.....that particular trickle (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 01:17:37 PM EST
    will probably go right to BP and replenish what they have already spent.

    It's a close call as to whom I would rather see have that 42 billion, but I think I go with BP.

    Parent

    You Haven't Heard ? (none / 0) (#78)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:08:27 PM EST
    According to all the republican talking points about taxes, any costs a company occurs will be, without a doubt, passed along to the consumer.

    The government should just reimburse them so they don't have to raise their prices.  Or better yet, just lower their tax liabilities, then everyone wins...  Or so I am told nearly daily.

    Parent

    saw it too (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 10:30:14 AM EST
    great.  and I agree about her.  she was by all reports very serious about the craft.  she was sort of like the Dolly Parton of film actors.  very serious about the craft but never really taken seriously because of how she looked.  well, ok.  Dolly is a bit more of a caricature but she is no less serious about her art.  with Dolly that would be music not acting.  here is a blurb about her that could have been said about Marilyn in another time and context.

    M

    ost folks outside the Country world think of Dolly Parton as a caricature, and on some level, they're not wrong; if anything, I would suggest that the power of her performance lies partially in the dissonance between the perfect, plastic exterior and the inner doubt and strength which she reveals in song. But because the everywoman's dream glamour-self which she has chosen to take on as her own public persona is so up front and out there, it can preempt serious consideration of her music. And that's a shame, because the empowering, truly feminist songs which she has crafted over a long career represent a stellar body of work.

    There's a reason why Dolly Parton is celebrated and covered by her peers: under all that glam and glitter is a genuine and perceptive soul, capable of capturing the universal poignancy in the small lives and big dreams of generations of girls and women struggling to break free of societal models. Here's some favorite folkcovers which strip away the rhinestones, the bleached blond hair, and the everpresent bustline, to reveal the true power of the songs, followed by a short bonus set of surprising covers from Parton herself. You'll never listen to Dolly the same way again.



    A while back (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by sj on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:43:34 PM EST
    Radio Lab had a segment on country music and Dolly Parton.  They talked about her music is practically revered around the world and how displaced persons particularly respond to it.  Even with no English.  There is something in her music that really touches those longing for home.  I wish I could remember more about it.  

    They have such good podcasts.  I should look that one up again.

    Parent

    Dolly Parton is musically brilliant (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 05:10:41 PM EST
    I began to realize this back in the 1970's, when I started listening to Emmylous Harris, who almost always included one of Dolly's songs on her albums. Dolly is a great songwriter and a great singer whose interpretation and intonation are spot on. If you listen to the second Trio album she did with Emmylou and Linda Rondsatdt you will be convinced of this. And I think her album, The Grass is Blue, is a masterpiece.

    I hate what she's done to herself with Botox and Restalin. She was a beautiul woman who didn't need to alter a thing in growing older. She and her pal Kenny Rogers discovered too late that the facial injections weren't all they were cracked up to be.

    Parent

    well hell (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 10:33:19 AM EST
    none of those links work but Im sure you can find them a version if google is your friend.

    Parent
    Santorum the ungoogleable (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 10:49:55 AM EST
    is going to win Iowa?

    I couldnt be more surprised if Rick Perry won the Nobel Prize for physics.

    Winning a popularity contest with 25% of the total (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 11:14:28 AM EST
    means that three out of every four voters didn't like you as much as they liked somebody else.

    And yet, dimes to donuts that the media will do their best to spin tonight's results as "meaningful."

    Parent

    still (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 12:36:20 PM EST
    winning is as Charlie says "winning".

    I saw a poll the other day that explains a lot.  it was about name recognition.  it was stunning how many of the respondents in Iowa did not even know who these people were.  especially Santorum.  he was the lowest I think.  
    now, how, for f*cks sake can they not know who these people ARE?  I would say they are idiots but that would be unfair to idiots.  
    honestly its hard for me to understand how you could live in the US and not at least know who these people are after the last year or so but how big of a rock must you live under in freakin Iowa to not know who they are??
    seriously.
    it explains perfectly the speed dating these morons have been doing for the last few months.  they honest to god do not even know who these people are.
    it is frightening.

    Parent

    I don't know man... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 12:50:27 PM EST
    sometimes I think all knowing who these people are is good for is getting angry and raising your blood pressure.

    I know who they are but I kinda wish I didn't...they're ugly, with the exception of a couple bright spots in the Ron Paul platform.

    Parent

    well that is sort of my point (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 01:04:19 PM EST
    you dont want to know but do.  granted you and I are  probably both more informed than the average joe but honest to god.  this is IOWA.  Santorum has been to every freakin county.  does he have to go to every house.  or cave.  or where ever these people live?

    seriously.  who are these people?  
    besides the people who are going to play a major role in launching the next republican candidate for the most important job in the world.

    it explains why the discourse gets dumber by the day and it is truly, at least to me, frightening in its implications.

    Parent

    I mean (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 01:06:27 PM EST
    these are the people, so we are told, who are soooooo involved.  sooooo informed.  the first in the nation.

    sheeesh.

    Parent

    That is the worst part. I hope this year (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 01:13:12 PM EST
    shows the ridiculousness of the whole emphasis on Iowa and NH.

    Parent
    I hear ya... (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 01:40:29 PM EST
    my point is I wonder who the real idiots are...those in the know or the blissfully ignorant.

    Parent
    they will be (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 01:54:05 PM EST
    blissful until Santorum appoints his first supreme court justice.

    Parent
    After how Obama's appts... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:03:11 PM EST
    ruled on Citizens United, and Kentucky v. King, we're still supposed to cower in fear of GOP appointments?

    That dog don't hunt so well no more.

     

    Parent

    I am pretty sure the Obama appointees (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:09:25 PM EST
    ruled in an acceptable way on citizens united but I have not looked to be sure.

    but if you honestly think there is no difference between Obamas picks and any republicans (who have all stated Thomas and Scalia are the model) maybe I was wrong about how informed you are.

    Parent

    There's a difference... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:19:07 PM EST
    just not enough of a difference to scare me to vote against almost all my other interests.  

    When the court rules 8-1 to further weaken the search warrant requirement, it tells me the court is not gonna protect my rights no matter who is doing the nominating.  Brand D needs a better boogeyman to scare a vote outta me.

    Parent

    this is going to be a very big (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:21:29 PM EST
    year for the court.  we will see how it goes.

    Parent
    here (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 01:10:24 PM EST
    A poll from August??? (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:00:33 PM EST
    so? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:10:33 PM EST
    you think they arrived in Iowa in September?

    Parent
    the truth is (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 03:09:50 PM EST
    I linked to the wrong poll.  but I dont think it matters.

    Parent
    Every other poll (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 03:27:17 PM EST
    Up to today shows Romney winning and Santorum in third.

    Parent
    Im not betting but (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 03:40:30 PM EST
    I have a feeling about Santorum.  

    Parent
    Capt H., I don't think that (none / 0) (#75)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:04:23 PM EST
    the Iowa caucus will necessarily play "a major role in launching the next republican candidate."  Remember, Mike Huckabee won the Iowa Republican Caucus in 2004.  John McCain came in fourth.  Just sayin'.    ;-)
    (But I totally agree with you that the "discourse gets dumber by the day."  And it is, indeed, frightening.)

    Parent
    Zorba (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:55:32 PM EST
    I totally agree.

    Much like the person who read that people in the front row get better grades.  So they got their early every day for one of those magical seats.  But nothing, turns out out those seats aren't magical, smart kids just happen to sit up front, but once the normal process is disrupted by some clown who thinks those seats is magical, it ceases to be true.

    Now that Iowa and NH are considered magical, the normal process is disrupted and it ceases to be true.  Rick is simply sitting in the front row thinking it will magically make him the candidate.

    Correlation does not equal causation.

    And for the record, what has happened in Iowa, Huckleberry and the Mad Dog, really ?  The state, I was told has well informed people who use the legendary Caucasus process, needs to quit falling under the spell of shysters or lose their reputation and with it status.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:21:57 PM EST
    Iowa launched a senator from Illinois a couple of years ago.  

    Parent
    Although, (none / 0) (#89)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:45:00 PM EST
    that was the Democratic Caucus, not the Republican one.   ;-)

    Parent
    I was just being (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 05:23:57 PM EST
    argumentative.  but I honestly think this year may be different.  things are so in flux.  Gingrich is now royally pissed and is going to go after Romney hammer and tong.  something no one has done so far.  I really think almost anything could happen.  

    Parent
    I have kind of wondered (none / 0) (#98)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 05:35:18 PM EST
    if the Republicans will be so divided that it will come down to a totally contested Primary, with a  different "consensus" candidate.  Jeb Bush, perhaps?  

    Parent
    I simply have a hard time (none / 0) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 05:48:32 PM EST
    seeing Romney as the candidate.  they hate him.  if he is the candidate there IMO is a 100% chance of a serious third party.  and it could be Ron Paul.  they have sh!t all over him.  and he is not planning to run for congress again.  I think the only reason he wouldnt do it would be some fear of poisoning the well for Rand.  who will no doubt take whack daddies place as the perennial choice of whack jobs everywhere.

    in any case.  it is going to be a very interesting year.  so far the clear winner of the republican primary is Obama.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#102)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 06:27:51 PM EST
    Every Republican seems crazier than the next.  And they're all busy shooting at each other in the circular firing squad, which is poisoning their well further.  All Obama has to do, regardless of the Republican nominee, is play his opponents' negative ads from the Republican campaign, trashing that particular Republican.

    Parent
    Gringrich (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 06:12:50 PM EST
    mad means extra crazy. Gingrich going after Romney is probably going to make Gingrich look like he's ready for the insane asylum. Oh, boy, I have to say that nobody deserves the shellacking they are taking more than Newt and I will be the first one to cheer Romney on when he cuts Newts legs out from under him.

    Parent
    well sure (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 06:25:57 PM EST
    if Romney is up to it.  but I have to say.  if I had to be in this knife fight I might rather be on Newts side than Romneys.

    Newt is an artist at this and Romneys ah shucks stuff may seem like he is bringing a spork to the knife fight.  no one has really taken Romney on so far.  that is about to change.  the next two debates (this weekend, right?) will be all kinds of fun.


    Parent

    I don't know (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 06:45:09 PM EST
    Romney seems pretty good at it because I think he's the one that's been leaking all the oppo research to all the press lo these past months. I understand he has one of the best hit teams out there. Gingrich seems better perhaps on the surface but you have to realize that everytime Newt has gone up against somebody he loses be it Bill Clinton or the bug man.

    Parent
    yep (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 07:27:05 PM EST
    Romney is great at leaking stuff has the best hit teams money can buy.  his problem is that they will not be on the stage in these next two debates coming up very soon.  Newt will be and he will not be leaking he will be using a fire hose.

    Parent
    Agree (none / 0) (#106)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 07:30:12 PM EST
    I think Newt's really good at the outward bluster, but he doesn't seem to have the organization to back him up.  Anyone with "staying power" needs the organization and the "boots on the ground," not just the swagger.  "All hat and no cattle" would seem to describe Newt.

    Parent
    I dunno Capt (none / 0) (#107)
    by sj on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 07:35:00 PM EST
    Newt is a vicious fighter to be sure, but in the process he makes himself as unappealing as he has his target.  

    But what do I know?  I've never sat in their camp.  And anyway, I think they're all unappealing as all get out.

    Parent

    at this point I dont think (none / 0) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 09:11:51 PM EST
    Newt cares about being appealing.  he just as much as said so on fox.  all he wants to do is destroy Romney

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#90)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:46:25 PM EST
    With help from college kids bused in from Illinois.

    Parent
    Silly Howdy; Iowans don't live in caves. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:18:14 PM EST
    They don't even know what caves are, they're so dumb. Instead they roam the prairie in herds, searching for someone who is more informed to come along and lead them to shelter.

    Parent
    free range (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:22:19 PM EST
    morons

    Parent
    Hey! (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 05:02:10 PM EST
    Gay marriage is legal in Iowa.  Not so in California or many other "enlightened" places.

    Parent
    we are talking about (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 05:22:19 PM EST
    Iowa republicans.  you know, the ones who recalled the judges who did that?

    Parent
    Iowa was never a liberal state to begin with (none / 0) (#114)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 08:53:20 AM EST
    An gay marriage is still legal, despite the recalls, yes?

    Parent
    short memories.... (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 01:10:50 PM EST
    Santorum was a member of the Senate GOP leadership just a few short years ago, was he not? I know I have hated him for many years. If he wins I'm sure all of the old baggage will come out again, like it did for Gingrich. Like his house in PA that they never really lived in, but qualified him to run for the Senate. He is as much a total Washington hack as Gingrich, and makes Gingrich seem downright likeable to boot.

    that said, yes, let him win tonight. the entertainment value of his demise will be worth it!

    Parent

    not to mention (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 01:34:42 PM EST
    the balls out bliss of seeing Romney AND Gingrich beaten by Pee Wee Hermans evil twin.

    Parent
    separated at birth (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:12:09 PM EST
    No (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:03:01 PM EST
    short memories. They are just latching onto the next person. Read a blog like Redstate and they are freaking out about Santorum leading the pack

    Parent
    freaking out (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:18:48 PM EST
    has come to the the normal state of places like that.  btw, who would they NOT freak out about in this field.

    I love it.


    Parent

    Rick (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 03:22:44 PM EST
    Perry is who they think is great. They hate Romney and don't want him to win and can't stand Paul either but think Perry is Presidential material? Perry is nothing short of awful.

    Parent
    heh Perry (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 03:45:57 PM EST
    I honestly think he would have done better if Dubya was not still so much with us.  someone said Perry is like Dubya minus the intellectual curiosity.  I think that is true on more than one level.  he somehow conjures Dubya AND makes him look good at the same time.   at least for me.  

    the fact that he was the governor of Texas repeatedly tells us a lot about Texas I think.
    or at least republicans in Texas.

    Parent

    Yup - the memory of Dubya has cursed both (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 03:54:30 PM EST
    Perry and Jeb bush.

    Every time Perry talks he sounds just like Dubya. No one can stand the thought of 4 more years of that. And at the same time, Perry seems dumber, and who would have thought that was possible?

    I agree about the Texans. They elected these guys one right after another?

    Parent

    I had to Know... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 11:28:05 AM EST
    ... what Ungoogleable meant, so I Googled it, way too funny.  

    First two hits:

    Santorum
    spreadingsantorum.com/
    Santorum 1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. 2. Senator Rick Santorum.
    6,778 people +1'd this

    Spreading Santorum

    blog.spreadingsantorum.com/
    18 hours ago - In other news, Santorum is totally going to win in Iowa, isn't he? And has anybody checked out CNN today? It's the f*cking Santorum channel. ...

    Huckabee won Iowa in 2008, McCain actually came in 4th.  Iowa is no longer a predictor, but someone forgot to tell the media...

    Parent

    that has been (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 12:37:21 PM EST
    his one and only claim to fame for years and years.

    Parent
    First Worthless Piece of Amusing Info for 2012 (none / 0) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 01:39:36 PM EST
    I had no idea...  but it's funny as hell.

    Parent
    one more reason (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:17:10 PM EST
    to love Dan Savage

    Parent
    I must admit (none / 0) (#77)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:08:14 PM EST
    that I love the fact that Dan Savage's definition of "santorum" comes up first when you Google it.  Does that make me an evil person?  Well, then, so be it.    ;-)

    Parent
    It is pitiful that Santorum, (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 03:48:24 PM EST
    a man who appears obsessed with gay men and women and who has made it a part of his career to advocate oppression of  a category of Americans, has support as as a serious candidate for president of the USA.--even for Republican caucus goers and among the dismal choices available to them.  Even in his writing as a "Catholic US Senator" (Catholic Online, July 12, 2002) on the priest sexual scandal he attempts to blue pedophilia and acceptance of "alternate lifestyles".  

    And liberals have inevitable blame as well, as is: "...it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."   Santorum urges reliance on the moral directives of the Vatican.

     Of course, we knew that one of the most conservative  members of the Catholic hierarchy, Bernard Cardinal Law was just months later (December 2002) forced to resign as Archbishop of Boston, having been found, through court records, to have been just the first member of the hierarchy shown to have actively covered up  clergy abuse. (the disgraced Cardinal Law received a plum post as Archpriest of St. Mary Major Basilica in Rome, was on Vatican Boards and participated in the 2005 conclave that elevated Cardinal Ratzinger to Pope--until his retirement in late 2011).  

    Parent

    honestly (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 03:54:17 PM EST
    I am no more shocked or offended than I am for enthusiastic support for the lunatic leprechaun Ron Paul or for the guy who constantly quoted Pokemon and very likely sexually assaulted several women and was only driven from the race when a consensual affair was brought to light or for the guy who thinks poor children should be made to clean the toilets of rich ones.

    really.  what is a little man on dog in a year like this?

    Parent

    Fair and understandable point, but (none / 0) (#79)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:09:12 PM EST
    arguable.   Personal or character deficiencies and flaws (e.g., Herman Cain was not likely to advocate laws to enable sexual harassment) seem qualitatively different to me than a president who may not see anything wrong, and, indeed, a lot of good, in loading a category of Americans into boxcars.  

    Parent
    I bet (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 11:12:29 AM EST
    he won't win but he'll come in as one of the top three. The Anne Seltzer poll has Romney winning with Paul and Santorum close.

    Parent
    Santorum will come in 3rd (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 01:27:59 PM EST
    No way he even comes close to winning.  

    Parent
    Santorum veers off track ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 11:20:49 AM EST
    ... from a question about "foreign influence" on the US economy into a discussion of federal entitlement programs, telling a mostly-white audience he doesn't want to "make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money."

    Or maybe he was right on track ...

    the definitionof a gaffe... (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 01:14:50 PM EST
    when they accidentally speak the truth..

    Parent
    NDAA (none / 0) (#17)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 11:41:35 AM EST
    Personally, not being a defense attorney, I'm not too worried about being detained indefinitely based on this summary at Lawfare here.  Specifically in light of the threshold that must be met in order to even be considered for military detention.

    Does the NDAA authorize the indefinite detention of citizens?

    No, though it does not foreclose the possibility either. Congress ultimately included language in the NDAA expressly designed to leave this question untouched-that is, governed by pre-existing law, which as we explain below is unsettled on this question.

    and further....

    the NDAA clarifies that the government possesses detention authority as an option in cases involving members and non-member supporters of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and "associated forces."  The NDAA then goes on to impose certain requirements in cases involving a subset of that detainable group.  The important questions are: Who is in this subset? When must that categorization decision be made? What exactly is mandatory when a person does turn out to be covered? And can the government still find a way to use the civilian trial option instead? The answers to all of these questions make the mandatory detention provision a lot less mandatory than it used to be, and a lot less mandatory than people think.

    I'm sorry but, IMO, if you want to blow up me or my fellow citizens here or abroad, then you should be dealt with....harshly.

    NDAA (none / 0) (#18)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 11:41:38 AM EST
    Personally, not being a defense attorney, I'm not too worried about being detained indefinitely based on this summary at Lawfare here.  Specifically in light of the threshold that must be met in order to even be considered for military detention.

    Does the NDAA authorize the indefinite detention of citizens?

    No, though it does not foreclose the possibility either. Congress ultimately included language in the NDAA expressly designed to leave this question untouched-that is, governed by pre-existing law, which as we explain below is unsettled on this question.

    and further....

    the NDAA clarifies that the government possesses detention authority as an option in cases involving members and non-member supporters of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and "associated forces."  The NDAA then goes on to impose certain requirements in cases involving a subset of that detainable group.  The important questions are: Who is in this subset? When must that categorization decision be made? What exactly is mandatory when a person does turn out to be covered? And can the government still find a way to use the civilian trial option instead? The answers to all of these questions make the mandatory detention provision a lot less mandatory than it used to be, and a lot less mandatory than people think.

    I'm sorry but, IMO, if you want to blow up me or my fellow citizens here or abroad, then you should be dealt with....harshly.

    Both of those are good (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 01:03:40 PM EST
    I had never seen The Misfits until earlier this year. Really a great flick all the way around. I always heard stories about how hard she was to work with on that film, but did not realize the end result was so good. Gable was perfect also.

    You were doing fine until (none / 0) (#54)
    by brodie on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 03:01:02 PM EST
    that last unfortunate para.  I haven't bought the last years Downward Spiral Leading to Suicide -- not even the outstanding Coroner who did her autopsy could say that -- not since reading the very persuasive account of her life and death by author Donald Spoto written back in the 1990s, a book I commend to all interested, the best, most thorough and honest sleuthing and analysis I've come across.

    Spoto nails it as far as suspecting it was most likely a royal screw up by the two separate physicians who were prescribing her meds both of whom were lax in communicating with each other and coordinating their dosages.  This was compounded by the strong suspicion that MM's housekeeper/nurse had been the one who innocently administered a cocktail of drugs, now at a too high dosage, and had improperly done so at MM's request (enema method) without a supervising licensed physician being present as per the law.  Result was an accidental overdose.

    Spoto also finds that Marilyn in her final days was actually getting herself together after the Miller marriage dissolved and other setbacks (Arthur apparently was condescending to her and mocked her for her private efforts at intellectual self improvement).

    Marilyn in the end was also happy about a possible re-uniting with ex Joe DiMaggio who himself had apparently done much growing up since their troubled marriage.  Joe Jr confirms this.

    Spoto also disposes of the vile rumors re RFK and her demise as well as any amorous relationship between the two.  At most re JFK there might have been relations on 2-4 occasions only, and he ended it in a gentlemanly manner leaving Marilyn still admiring him but knowing that aspect of their relationship was now closed.  (This from an actual confirmed close friend of hers.)

    That anyway is my understanding and recollection from having read the book some 15 years ago.

    Parent

    She had her insecurities (none / 0) (#84)
    by brodie on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:22:17 PM EST
    and so forth but these have been greatly exaggerated over the years.  She was a somewhat neurotic perfectionist wrt her acting performances, but even that situation was vastly improved in her final months  by her own conscious efforts, after some friendly frank advice and self reflection.

    Let's also not overlook two things:  the pressure on major stars to perform well and produce box office commensurate with the hefty salaries they were paid, as well as the long hours they had to put in on the set while always having to be sharp.  The temptation to get assistance from uppers would have definitely been present with frequent long work days and little time off.

    Finally re the meds remember 50 years ago physicians had but a barely developed understanding of some drug interactions.  And if the professionals didn't have this now known danger on their radar, their civilian clients would have been completely unaware of the risks .  Just saying her taking all the meds wouldn't necessarily have been well beyond the pale at that time for someone in her lofty professional position and thus we shouldn't necessarily ascribe it all to some major mental problems.  

    Parent

    Guessing Game (none / 0) (#35)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 01:48:34 PM EST
    One of the ?s about tonight--since there don't appear to be too many ???s about it all despite media hype--may be the implications of how many Repubs show up to caucus tonight?  First, the number: More or less than the 120,000 that caucused in 2008? Second: Does Romney better his 30,000 from 2008? Third: Does the result have any meaning, in any event?

    I doubt the turnout (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:15:01 PM EST
    will be particularly high.  and I think it could be consequential for Romney depending on if he is first second or third.  and I honestly think it could be very consequential for Santorum if he wins.  he could start raising tons of money.  I still dont think he could win but I aint bettin nothin in this crazy year.


    Parent
    I think it matters if Mitt wins (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:56:56 PM EST
    If he does, I bet a lot of the non-Mitts drop out.

    If one of the non-Mitts ekes out a win, I don't think it matters. He will dispatch them later.

    Parent

    probably endsville for Bachman (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 03:17:08 PM EST
    which I have to confess makes me a little sad because while I think she would be a disastrous president I think Marcus Bachman would be a FABULOUS first lady and some small evil part of me would love to see that.

    Parent
    Yeah, I kind of think she got a raw deal (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 03:57:40 PM EST
    She is everything they are looking for except male. She is perfectly knowledgeable and articulate about all of their policies, personable, good looking...

    batsh*t crazy, but so are they all...

    Parent

    i think the most rediculous thing (none / 0) (#73)
    by CST on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:03:26 PM EST
    to come out of the republican primary is that I agree that Bachmann got a "raw deal"

    Parent
    I know, odd isn't it? I never saw that coming (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:05:15 PM EST
    Oh yeah, who would not want to see Marcus (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 03:59:31 PM EST
    at the inaugural ball? You know he can dance!

    Parent
    Betsey Johnson ya think (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:25:01 PM EST
    or Christian Dior?

    Parent
    Good grief! Omaha Beach & (none / 0) (#66)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 03:53:31 PM EST
    Pearl Harbor (Newt's reference in the past week)...and, the Repubs aren't past Iowa yet. Whats left? Night of the Living Dead.

    I am thinking more & more that if the Repubs cannot turn out a number--without snow, sleet, or too much wind--much higher than their 120,000 caucus-goers in 2008, that is a story about these nud-nicks in itself.

    Weather won't be a factor re turnout (none / 0) (#80)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:09:35 PM EST
    It was single digit cold here in 2008, versus the 40 degrees it hit earlier this afternoon. And there's no snow or ice on the ground like four years ago.

    If the Iowa GOP doesn't turn out tonight I'd bet it's because they're as sick of the circus as the rest of Iowa is.

    Parent