home

Tuesday Open Thread

SXSW begins March 7. If I were going, I'd like to see The Legend of Shorty, a new documentary by the producers of Where is Sugarman, about Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman." Here is the description from Channel 4 News which will air it after the SWSX showing, as to how it was filmed and what it is about. I don't know of anyone else who is airing it now in the U.S. From Protagonist:

Filmmakers Angus Macqueen and Guillermo Galdos set themselves on a perilous and quixotic quest into the Mexican sierra and the heart of "Shorty's" forbidden lands to try to find him. What they discover will forever change the way we see the war on drugs.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Oscar Pistorius Trial | Republicans Block Apppointment for DOJ Civil Rights >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Alleged crime spree... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 01:15:25 PM EST
    going on right under my nose...targeting the undocumented for theft.

    No wonder so many things are illegal, the guilty make quiet crime victims.

    When ruffian and I were walking (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 05:10:09 PM EST
    Through Central Park, four street dancers were about to start their thing.  The leader yells out to the park crowd, "Hey white people, there are only four sexy black guys over here and many more of you.  There isn't enough of us to hurt you!"

    The opening of their show :)

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#72)
    by lentinel on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:25:50 AM EST
    think I would have stayed for the show...

    Parent
    Update (5.00 / 9) (#48)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 10:48:49 PM EST
    Tomorrow is my last day of Proton Therapy treatment.

    Then I get a week off to recover and rest up.

    Then a week of scans to get a new baseline on the tumor.

    Then 6 months of chemotherapy.  I was a little stunned that you could do that long a treatment but my oncologist wants to kick the tumor while it's down and make sure that if this works we never have to go back.

    Wish me luck.  I'll keep you guys in the loop.  Your thoughts, prayers and kind words are always appreciated.

    Good luck Slado, do good. (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by desertswine on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 11:03:50 PM EST
    Good Luck (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by sj on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 12:39:18 AM EST
    You sound like you're keeping your spirits up, which can be its own battle. May this treatment be even better than you hope for.

    Parent
    Wow - that sounds aggressive, but (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:17:30 AM EST
    when it comes to cancer, why dilly-dally around, right?  I like your oncologist's attitude!

    Hope it goes well, that your side effects are minimal and manageable, and that 6 months from now, you get a clean bill of health.

    Will keep you in my thoughts and prayers.

    Parent

    I'll keep you in my thoughts, Slado. (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by caseyOR on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 07:27:53 AM EST
    I know how exhausting such a chemo regimen can be. Eat well. Sleep all you can. For my sister reading proved to require too much concentration, but Turner Classic Movies (do you have cable?) was a godsend.

    TL is a good place to come to for kind and comforting words and a community that will support you to the very limits an anonymous internet relationship allows. So, come here often, tell us know how you are doing, and let us bolster your spirits.

    Parent

    Geez Louise... (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:01:42 AM EST
    no rest for the weary, eh Slado?

    Best of luck...you've beat it before, you'll beat it again.  Hang in there pal.

    Parent

    Hope it went well, big sigh of relief this evening (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 04:42:49 PM EST
    Hang in there, we need your feisty self around here.

    Parent
    That's pretty intensive treatment. (none / 0) (#50)
    by shoephone on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 10:56:49 PM EST
    Six months of chemo? How many rounds is that, and how much of a break will you get between rounds?

    Parent
    I know right (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 11:15:27 PM EST
    I do 3weeks on and one week off for 6 months.

    It's about a two hour treatment once a week intravenously.  I shouldn't need a permanent stint.

    It's only one drug and I might get away with fatigue being my only real side affect but my doctor cautioned while not one of the nastier drugs everyone is different.

    I am of course a little nervous but am actually relieved that this is an option.  My sarcoma type tumor can be no. Responsive to chemo but they did genetic testing and this drug came back positive that it could work against my tumor.   I am glad that ill be doing something for a little while longer rather then sitting around and hoping the radiation worked.

    I will update when I know more.

    Again thanks for the kind words. ,it really helps to have a place to vent.

    Parent

    Good luck! (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 12:04:55 AM EST
    Hope + New Treatments counts for a lot. Sounds like your doctors are really on it.

    Parent
    Not all chemo treatments are the (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 12:16:21 AM EST
    same and not all people react the same, but a friend who is being treated for her second bout of cancer receives chemo every week vs a regime of every 3 weeks. She says that she has not experienced the side effects with the weekly treatments like she did when she received a larger dose every 3 weeks. She has remained very active so I'm convinced that this is working out much better for her.

    Hopefully it will work well for you also.

    Will keep you in my prayers.

    Parent

    Chemo (none / 0) (#57)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 11:25:25 PM EST
    is much improved over what it was twenty years ago, much more targeted, more precise dosage, so they can deliver as much as you can tolerate. Struggle hard and people do win.

    Parent
    Sounds like you are getting good (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 05:55:30 AM EST
    Aggressive treatment, and treatment has made so many advances.  Please keep us posted as to how you are doing and if you need anything.

    My FIL just took on what used to be considered a very aggressive lymphoma, and though it is not curable he is now in a remission that his doctor graded 100% clear for now.  The day after his I.V. chemo seemed to be pretty challenging at the start.

    He also had six months of form fitted to his cancer chemo.  We were all prepared for someone to go stay with him too, but he managed it very well without someone invading his home and space.  He is very busy now though, he has new goals.

    Parent

    Best to you, Slado. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:54:24 AM EST
    Wish you luck, Slado--and (none / 0) (#98)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:11:09 AM EST
    more.   The proton therapy and chemotherapy sounds appropriately aggressive.  My very best wishes.

    Parent
    I have (none / 0) (#108)
    by lentinel on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:52:16 AM EST
    been reading about foods, flaxseed oil and cottage cheese, that when blended, have a positive effect on reducing and even melting tumors.

    Basic information is here.

    The article contains a history of the diet, as well as specific instructions.

    It was created by a nobel prize winner Johanna Budwig.

    It could complement your present therapy.

    I wish you the best.

    Parent

    Hang in there, Slado (none / 0) (#159)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 02:51:59 PM EST
    keep on smilin'.

    Parent
    The Proton Therapy seems to be getting excellent (none / 0) (#164)
    by Amiss on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:14:17 PM EST
    results here in gatorland. Keep positive thoughts and your chin up! You will be a winner!

    Parent
    Not the same cancer, perhaps... (none / 0) (#174)
    by unitron on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 04:01:26 PM EST
    ...but you might enjoy reading at

    http://www.butdoctorihatepink.com/

    (a tivocommunity.com buddy of mine)

    She writes well and entertainingly.

    Keeping good thoughts for you.

    Parent

    Sending positive (none / 0) (#178)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 04:53:00 PM EST
    thoughts and prayers your way, Slado.
    Think positively, and we all wish you well.

    Parent
    NSA's Keith Alexander shows his hand (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by shoephone on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 10:54:17 PM EST
    in these statements in The Guardian.

    The outgoing director of the National Security Agency lashed out at media organizations reporting on Edward Snowden's surveillance revelations, suggesting that British authorities were right to detain David Miranda on terrorism charges and that reporters lack the ability to properly analyze the NSA's broad surveillance powers.

    General Keith Alexander, who has furiously denounced the Snowden revelations, said at a Tuesday cybersecurity panel that unspecified "headway" on what he termed "media leaks" was forthcoming in the next several weeks, possibly to include "media leaks legislation."

    <snip>

    The general, who is due to retire in the next several weeks, said that the furore over Snowden's surveillance revelations - which he referred to only as "media leaks" - was complicating his ability to get congressional support for a bill that would permit the NSA and the military Cyber Command he also helms to secretly communicate with private entities like banks about online data intrusions and attacks.

    Who believes they aren't already able to do that, and that they already are doing it? What this says to me is that Alexander is desperate to get legislation moving by the time he leaves his post, so that the NSA can finally have legal cover to do what they have already been doing illegally. And journalists are going to be treated like traitors and terrorists, and get thrown in jail for keeping the American people informed about what the government is doing to violate our civil liberties.

    These a$$holes are so transparent.

    That was a supremely disturbing article. (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:36:44 AM EST
    I found the following passage to be revealing and chilling:

    In an October interview with the New York Times, Alexander said: "I do feel it's important to have a public, transparent discussion on cyber so that the American people know what's going on."

    But staff at Georgetown University, which sponsored the Tuesday cybersecurity forum, took the microphone away from a Guardian reporter who attempted to ask Alexander if the NSA had missed the signs of Russia's invasion and occupation of Ukraine, which appeared to take Obama administration policymakers by surprise.

    Although the event was open to reporters, journalists were abruptly told following the NSA director's remarks that they were not permitted to ask questions of Alexander, who did not field the Ukraine question. Following the event, security staff closed a stairwell gate on journalists who attempted to ask Alexander questions on his way out.

    Translation: "discussion" means "we tell you what we want you to know; you do not get to ask questions."

    And shame on Georgetown for assisting in the kind of evil Alexander longs to assert against the public and the media; if I were a donor, I'd ask for my money back.

    Bigger question: is this effort/attitude being supported by the administration, or is Alexander completely off the reservation?  Who is in charge?

    Parent

    "Who's in charge?" Very good question. (none / 0) (#146)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 02:11:24 PM EST
    I wonder who's in charge of the decision to have the CIA spy on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which was tasked with investigating the CIA's torture regime.

    The CIA Inspector General's Office has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations of malfeasance at the spy agency in connection with a yet-to-be released Senate Intelligence Committee report into the CIA's secret detention and interrogation program, McClatchy has learned.

    The criminal referral may be related to what several knowledgeable people said was CIA monitoring of computers used by Senate aides to prepare the study. The monitoring may have violated an agreement between the committee and the agency.

    The development marks an unprecedented breakdown in relations between the CIA and its congressional overseers amid an extraordinary closed-door battle over the 6,300-page report on the agency's use of waterboarding and harsh interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists held in secret overseas prisons. The report is said to be a searing indictment of the program. The CIA has disputed some of the reports findings.

    I'm wary of posting too much of the article, but this is really a key thing, since we already know that Brennan lied to the Senate committee last year about spying on the American people. How much more did he lie to the committee about?

    The committee determined earlier this year that the CIA monitored computers - in possible violation of an agreement against doing so - that the agency had provided to intelligence committee staff in a secure room at CIA headquarters that the agency insisted they use to review millions of pages of top-secret reports, cables and other documents, according to people with knowledge.

    Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, a panel member, apparently was referring to the monitoring when he asked CIA Director John Brennan at a Jan. 9 hearing if provisions of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "apply to the CIA? Seems to me that's a yes or no answer."

    Brennan replied that he'd have to get back to Wyden after looking into "what the act actually calls for and it's applicability to CIA's authorities."

    The law makes it a criminal act for someone to intentionally access a computer without authorization or to go beyond what they're allowed to access.



    Parent
    Mark Udall says Obama knew (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:04:51 PM EST
    Udall says Obama knew the CIA was spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

    I didn't post the letter Udall wrote to Obama before, because I don't want to post too much text from the McClatchy article (ie., copyright stuff). But now the Guardian is embellishing on it:

    A leading US senator has said that President Obama knew of an "unprecedented action" taken by the CIA against the Senate intelligence committee, which has apparently prompted an inspector general's inquiry at Langley.

    The subtle reference in a Tuesday letter from Senator Mark Udall to Obama, seeking to enlist the president's help in declassifying a 6,300-page inquiry by the committee into torture carried out by CIA interrogators after 9/11, threatens to plunge the White House into a battle between the agency and its Senate overseers.

    This spying nonsense is really starting to blow up. There is now consistent pushback against the Obama administration by senators on the intelligence committee, with Wyden and Udall at the forefront.

    Parent

    Very interesting article. Looks like a CIA (none / 0) (#148)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 02:14:51 PM EST
    Insider leaked to the Senate committee and then the CIA hacked into the committee's computers.  

    Parent
    That's possible (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 02:28:27 PM EST
    But I think it's likely the CIA intended to monitor them from the outset. The secret detention and torture program is something they want kept under wraps forever. Even Maher Arar couldn't get justice after what we did to him.

    When you consider that the FBI has been spying on senators and congressional reps for decades, it's not hard to imagine the CIA and NSA having gotten into the act a long time ago. The Congress works on behalf of the citizens, while the shadow government works on behalf of...?

    Parent

    McDonalds tells gamblers.... (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:51:56 AM EST
    to prepare for a more equitable sharing of the McNugget...the strikes, protests, and bad publicity are working, they're gonna have to give the people who make all the profit possible a raise or the gravy train might well be over.

    Just gotta keep the pressure on.

    Must be an election year (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 12:02:48 PM EST
    Let it be someone else's problem.

    Two-year extension on old health plans expected

    WaPo

    Senate defeats (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 12:36:06 PM EST
    nominee to head DOJ Civil Rights Division

    Eight Senate Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), joined with Republicans in voting against Debo Adegbile, whose nomination was adamantly and vocally opposed by conservatives due to his participation in an appeal filed on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal -- an internationally-known prisoner convicted of the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.

    The vote was expected to be close -- with Vice President Biden on hand to potentially cast a tie-breaking vote -- but the final tally was 47-52 in opposition to the appointment.

    Reid initially voted for Adegbile, but he switched his vote to no, giving him the right as Senate leader to bring up the nomination again at a later date.

    Adegbile becomes the first Obama nominee rejected under the new Senate procedures approved in November that require just a majority of senators present to agree to proceed to a vote on most presidential nominees.

    Other Democrats who voted against the Obama nominee were Chris Coons (Del.),Bob Casey (Pa.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin (W.V.), Joe Donnolly (Ind.) and John Walsh (Mont.).



    Darrel Issa proves he's still an a$$ (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:26:19 PM EST
    He didn't get what he wanted out of Lois Lerner, so he punishes Democrats by cutting Elijah Cummings' microphone. Cummings -- who just happens to be the ranking member of the committee -- isn't putting up with it.

    Way to go Issa...you're still stupidest gangster in the Congress.

    OMG, the video is even worse than (5.00 / 4) (#172)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:48:35 PM EST
    the mental picture I was getting; that video should be shown to every Democratic lawmaker out there, and used to fire up the party to get those kinds of Republicans out of office.

    "A$$" might be the kindest thing you could say about Issa - the other words aren't permitted here.

    Parent

    Can't (2.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 12:59:21 AM EST
    Cummings make the speech he wanted to include in the hearing at a press conference?

    He had no questions for the witness, witness took the 5th, end of hearing.

    Parent

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 292 (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 01:26:42 PM EST
    Callin all cars, calling all cars... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 01:40:20 PM EST
    PC Police be on the lookout for "transphobic" Oscar host Ellen Degeneres.

    The PC police got this one twisted...if Ellen was offensive to anybody it was Liza, or maybe drag queens and/or female impersonators.  Not the transgendered, the joke had nothing to do with the transgendered.  

    Somehow (none / 0) (#4)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 02:03:22 PM EST
    I doubt that the hypersensitive transgendered community will ever be anything like a looming threat to free speech in this country..

    I will say though that if DeGeneres' only competition were Seth McFarland, they could give her the lifetime achievement award for grace and class right now.

    Parent

    I think there's a mild... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 02:14:32 PM EST
    chilling effect to free speech, but yeah no grave threat or anything.

    I just found it humorous that if the mild comedic stylings of Ellen are deemed offensive, where does the Academy go from there for a host?  

    Parent

    Who seeks such perfection? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 07:50:51 PM EST
    Not me, not my Klatch.  But when Ellen did that, it did make me wince.

    Taken as a whole though, I thought that Ellen did a fine job.  Not perfect, but as my dad used to say, "Look what happened to the last perfect person."

    Parent

    Oh look (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 02:38:12 PM EST
    compared to other periods in history, nowadays you can say anything. And now that you can, nobody says anything. Saying Mohammed smells like pork or Ellen's a dyke isn't saying anything; it's writing on a bathroom wall. More like grunts than speech.

    Parent
    I accusing... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 02:48:12 PM EST
    Ellen of being a transphobic bigot not the grunt of groupthink cavemen?

    Excuse me, cavepersons.

    Parent

    Typo, s/b "Is accusing Ellen..." (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 02:48:48 PM EST
    It's just as much free speech (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 04:47:44 PM EST
    as what Ellen said..

    This why-can't-anyone-say-anything absolutism still has to deal with issues like libel and the propagandizing, scapegoating, and dog whistling that wraps itself in "free speech" the way some wrap themselves in motherhood, apple pie, and the flag.

    Parent

    But of course... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:36:21 AM EST
    let free speech ring brother...but lets be clear on which speech and context, in this instance, that is potentially libel and possibly hateful.  That is the speech of the PC Police...no?  It's their right, but that don't make it right.

    Ellen, imo, was good naturedly taking the piss out of Liza.  Like the joke or not, there's no bigotry to see here...and to claim otherwise is a cheap shot. That being said, I guess it comes with the territory with comedy.  The Academy will just have to get even blander in their host selections, and the event will suffer.  Don't wanna entertain anybody...err, offend anybody.  God forbid.  

    Parent

    Ellen was taking cheap shots at the (none / 0) (#81)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:49:24 AM EST
    expense of someone who didn't really deserve to be the butt of anyone's jokes.  I mean, so okay - Minnelli is an icon in the drag-queen community - she's probably been "done" more than any other female performer.  But to make jokes about how she looks like an impersonator of herself was just mean.

    And in my book, mean is no better than bigoted - it might even be worse because it can encompass everything.

    Just my opinion, but Liza looked like she was trying to be a good sport even as she was struggling to understand why she deserved to be made fun of in such a not-nice way.  I felt bad for her, just as I felt bad for Kim Novak - who just looked lost and confused.  Had to hand it to McConaughey for being so gentle with her, but I thought it was maybe the most painful moment of the evening.

    Parent

    These types of affairs... (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:10:36 AM EST
    often are roast-like...it's part on the fun and not mean-spirited, imo.  

    Parent
    The problem I have with "roasts" is (none / 0) (#128)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:40:22 AM EST
    I think they give people permission to be mean and pretend like it's all in fun; there's a lot of underlying hostility that is excused because it's supposed to be "just kidding!"  

    Parent
    I don't think... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 12:04:57 PM EST
    it's pretending to have fun, it's having fun taking the piss.  No underlying hostility.  

    If I'm wrong, I've got the most hostile friends and family alive! Here I thought their roasting was a sign of affection.

    Parent

    the transgendered pc police (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:26:41 AM EST
    have no power..which is probably a big part of the reason they're hypersensitive.

    The pc police are a pain in the A, but imo, publicly addressing the botox-laden Minelli as "sir" in front of thousands is no triumph of free speech..

    I really don't get why people are so proud that we can speak in public like a bunch of drunken, cow-tipping fratboys.    

    Parent

    True... (none / 0) (#74)
    by lentinel on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:31:34 AM EST
    but that is a pretty low bar.

    Bringing out pizza pies was her high point.

    It was amusing to see how readily the rich and famous would reach for a slice.

    Yum.

    Parent

    Did Ms. Minnelli laugh? (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 02:08:20 PM EST
    (No segue:  poor fashion choice.)

    Parent
    A Liza Minnelli impersonator, regardless (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 03:51:29 PM EST
    of sexual preference, would have probably made a better fashion choice.

    Parent
    Now that's a... (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:39:49 AM EST
    thelephobic thing to say MO. ;)

    Parent
    Sorry don't understand the reference, kdog (none / 0) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 07:17:36 AM EST
    My comment had nothing to do with the phobia that you referenced. I'm not sure how you got there unless of course you were for whatever reason dwelling on that part of the anatomy when you wrote your comment.

    Liza's outfit was the wrong choice for her body type and was not the least bit flattering. Numerous other styles would have worked much better for her. Trust me on this.

    The few impersonators I've seen on stage have had great costumes.  

    Parent

    Not dwelling... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:08:23 AM EST
    just joking, the fashion critics were on about her dress and visible nipplage.

    Parent
    That was one of those (none / 0) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:18:47 AM EST
    "What the fck" moments

    Now I understand. Missed the fashion critics talking about visible nipplage (no TV) and evidently I didn't notice when I viewed the one picture on your link.

    Just noticed that the style and color was all wrong for her.

    Parent

    Some images were quickly cleaned up (none / 0) (#106)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:46:37 AM EST
    but you can still find them via google  ;)

    Parent
    Thanks for the info (none / 0) (#111)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:09:19 AM EST
    The fact that the images were cleaned up is interesting.

    Don't think I'll google it. Not an issue I care about one way or another. I'm kinda from the school of women have boobs, deal with it.

    Fashion and fashion choices is a subject that interests me to some extent so I googled until I found a post with photos of what the stars wore. Have to admit I did a running critique through the whole thing on what I thought worked or did not work. FWIW I personally think the mermaid look looks much better on ... well mermaids.

    An aside: As a breast cancer survivor, I have to give a standing ovation to Angelina Jolie for her fashion choice which tastefully emphasized her reconstructed breasts. She looked stunning.

    Parent

    Kinda sorta, judging by the vid. (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 02:18:23 PM EST
    Although I read she said she was not offended at all really likes Ellen.

    Parent
    Yeah, she didn't really appear to (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:15:42 AM EST
    have gotten the joke to me. I wonder if she was even paying attention before Ellen came up to her.

    I'd be more interested in her unvarnished opinion of Pink's rendition of Over The Rainbow.

    Parent

    It looked like she verified with her sister (none / 0) (#105)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:42:41 AM EST
    that it was her Ellen was referring to. What she did with her face after that, may have been because she suspected she was on camera. Check out some of the 'looks' she was giving on the red carpet and during interviews . . . I thought she was a bit of a mess . . .

    Parent
    I watched it live and she wasn't laughing. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 05:25:41 PM EST
    She seemed annoyed, didn't smile until Ellen asked for a selfie with her, and the smile wasn't really a smile.  

    Parent
    Body and facial reading is in the eye (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 07:57:30 PM EST
    Of the beholder :)

    I thought Ms. Minnelli shrank away from Ellen's person, and the look on her face reading that I made was,"I must have just misheard this person in front of me with the mic, but I'm frightened that maybe I didn't."

    Parent

    Yeah, I'm with you on that one (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:20:27 AM EST
    Looks like someone just asking a dumb question....which will now be repeated as 'well, you know people are asking about this'

    Parent
    Bill Clinton, January 8, 2008 (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 02:36:18 PM EST
    re: Obama's Iraq War stance

    It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution, you said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war. And you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004. And there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since. Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.

    Yesterday, the Washington Post Editorial Board: President Obama's foreign policy is based on fantasy.

    Wondering if the usual suspects (dKos, Maddow, Olbermann, Maher, etc.) will now accuse the Washington Post of being racist ala Bill Clinton?

    Not for nothing (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 03:16:26 PM EST
    that was a really dumb editorial.  They offer no solutions/alternatives whatsoever.

    Why is this news to you, who seem IMO, a realist, that politicians often walk a fine (and sometimes hard to see) line?

    The real question is, is the world more stable or not and what if anything did/can our president do about it?  Who cares about 2008?

    Parent

    I think the point the editorial is making (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 03:21:46 PM EST
    (And it's not their job to offer solutions, BTW - Mr. Obama has plenty of staff and pundits on his side to do that.  There's also Congress, a whole State Department, a Defense Department, and Special Advisors, not to mention allies).

    But I digress.

    I think it's very relevant - to show how one comment, always taken out of context by liberal pundits, makes them scream their bloody head off, but an editorial which highlights the now all-too common bungling (or at the very least, gross misreading of events) of foreing policy is being ignored.  

    My comment was really about the media and blogosphere - but you knew that.

    Parent

    No, I did not know that (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 04:13:45 PM EST
    My comment was really about the media and blogosphere

    Ignored by who?  There's been a lot of talk about that very editorial on MSNBC yesterday (or at least the theme you raise.)  I think I remember seeing it on Maddow's show.  I thought you don't watch that channel?

    and c'mon, your post is really about the media & blogosphere......?

    .....highlights the now all-too common bungling (or at the very least, gross misreading of events)

    there's a little extra something there....

    IMO, we've not bungled anything.  Again, what are the alternatives?

    Parent

    But yet (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 04:24:59 PM EST
    I bet none of that talk on MSNBC is calling the WaPo racist for saying virutally the same thing Bill Clinton said.

    Because they are hypocrites.

    I guess we could sit on our thumbs and do nothing while Putin marches in to Kiev. I mean - it isn't like he's afraid of us or anything.

    That should work well.

    I'm not saying military action is needed at this point, but all I'm seeing is a lot of finger wagging and the never-worked philosphy of parents - "Don't make me count to 3!  One....two....two and a half.....two and three quarters....!"

    Obama had time on his schedule to visit with pre-schoolers who were coming to the White House today, and you can bet he isn't going to miss the DSCC private fundraiser he's schedule to attend tonight in McLean, VA, so I think there's lots that can be done.

    Parent

    To the extent anything can be done (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 04:46:48 PM EST
    I would guess the administration is doing it.  As you note, they have a panoply of advisers.  

    Perspective from the news people that work at the paper that posted your editorial.

    Like the United States, Poland is seeking a relatively more aggressive stance against Putin, calling for diplomacy but also preparation for economic sanctions and other punitive steps.

    And yet, other powers in Europe -- including Britain and Germany -- have offered harsh condemnations of the Russian intervention in the Crimea region of Ukraine, while keeping one eye on the economic interests they have cultivated with Moscow since the fall of the Soviet Union.

    Money, or risk of losing it, will be what solves this problem.

    Re: anyone that called Bill a racist, wev. I didn't agree w/them then. I think it's a waste of energy to worry about even-handedness now. ymmv


    Parent

    Wrong (none / 0) (#45)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 10:34:40 PM EST
    The administration is doing nothing.

    They could have recalled our ambassador.

    They could be putting economic sanctions in place and moving troops into Poland or other nearby NATO countries for military exercises.

    There are many actual,things they could be doing but instead they're talking. Math at they're good at.

    To make matters worse they've started this new theory that Putin is actually losing and Kerry keeps pounding on podiums that Russia is not acting like a 21st century power.  As if Russia Cares.

    Obama as in every case is going to slow walk this and just hope things get better.  More importantly he is hoping we the public and more importantly the media move on to something else.  That is his foreign policy strategy.  Talk, ignore and then move on.

    Parent

    This (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by lentinel on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:37:22 AM EST
    is, imo, Russia doing what the US would do, and has done, under similar circumstances if she felt her interests threatened.

    My guess - and it is only that - is that Russia will do what it wants, and the US will send out some hot air, and maybe get a missile defense system in the Ukraine...

    $$$$$$$

    Parent

    And then, what do we do ... (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 02:13:29 PM EST
    Slado: "The administration is doing nothing. They could have recalled our ambassador. They could be putting economic sanctions in place and moving troops into Poland or other nearby NATO countries for military exercises."

    ... after we've recalled our ambassador? Will we threaten to huff and puff and blow Vladimir Putin's house down? President Kennedy never recalled the U.S. ambassador to Moscow, even in the midst of multiple direct confrontations over Berlin and Cuba. How do you maintain an active dialogue and line of communications with Russia during such troubled times, when you unilaterally call all your people home and then slam the door loudly behind them upon their return?

    This isn't a TV show like "Homeland," Slado. You just don't declare the imposition of sanctions, and expect them to magically appear and take effect instantaneously. Given that this crisis bloomed only in the last two weeks, it will take time for U.S. international financial and securities experts to properly identify key Russian assets and financial activities within the international commodities and financial communities, in order to impose the types of economic sanctions that could be the most effective. Those things are being done, even as we speak.

    Further, while Poland has called an emergency meeting of the NATO security council under what I believe is Article 5, that country hasn't exactly invited us to move into its territory militarily, probably in large part because the Poles know all too well what's it's like to be an actual battleground between east and west. If we and our allies move troops into Poland, Russia will simply have further motivation to occupy the whole of Ukraine, rather than just part. And suddenly, Russian troops will be once again on Poland's borders. Then what do we do at that point?

    You need to accept the fact that the days of American exceptionalism and unilateralism are over. We need to work with our allies, and take their views and needs into account as we craft an effective policy. Further, you would do well to crack open a history book, and learn how international crises such as the one presently taking place in Ukraine and the Crimea can often be protracted.

    The 1938 crisis that erupted over Hitler's demands that Czechoslovakia cede the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany remained at an acute impasse for over six months, before the Allies flew to Munich to meet Hitler and subsequently caved. Now, the British and French didn't have to give away the Czechs' farm at Munich, but they chose to sell them out because they were both impatient and afraid. And in that impatience and fear, they failed to understand that they still held the superior position relative to Germany, from standpoints both military and strategic, and allowed themselves to be bluffed into concessions they clearly didn't have to make.

    So you can rest assured, the Crimean problem isn't going to be resolved overnight. And more often than not, the actual strength and resolve of a great power is demonstrated by its deliberate willingness to negotiate, rather than  immediately resort to saber-rattling and threats of war in order to compel a potential adversary to come to terms.

    We have all the time in the world here. By virtue of their own acts of aggression, Vladimir Putin and the Russians feel that they do not, and as a result they've boxed themselves into a corner where there are actually very few good options available to them. If we're both patient and deliberate in putting the screws to Putin, we will get the result we're seeking, without the need to fire a single shot on Ukraine's behalf.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Russia will swallow whatever part (none / 0) (#189)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:31:17 PM EST
    of the Ukraine it wants.

    The game went into play when Obama/Hillary, I can see no difference between them, decided to hit the "reset button."

    The game was lost when Obama told Putin he (Obama) would have more flexibility after he was re elected.

    And Donald, Great Powers don't draw lines and then not enforce them. Credibility is everything.

    Parent

    You sure it wasn't when your boy ... (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:39:49 PM EST
    ... Bush ignored the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008?

    Funny how you wingers are so upset at this invasion while you completely ignored one just 4 years ago.  Some might call that hypocrisy ...

    Parent

    Russia will swallow whatever part (none / 0) (#190)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:31:57 PM EST
    of the Ukraine it wants.

    The game went into play when Obama/Hillary, I can see no difference between them, decided to hit the "reset button."

    The game was lost when Obama told Putin he (Obama) would have more flexibility after he was re elected.

    And Donald, Great Powers don't draw lines and then not enforce them. Credibility is everything.

    Parent

    Economic sanctions by U.S. (none / 0) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 10:56:51 PM EST
    would accomplish little.

    U.S. sanctions would mean little to Moscow as U.S. trade accounts for less than 2% of the Russian economy. "Our levers of influence here are particularly limited here," says a House Democratic aide. "The administration is working on lining up support in Europe. But that's the big question: how proactive, how robust are they willing to be."

    Most of Russia's trade is with Europe and Asia, so no sanctions regime has even a chance of working unless they agree to join in. So far they haven't, and for the obvious reason: they have a lot of trade with Russia. Sanctions would hurt them as much as it would hurt Putin.

    Europe

    German officials emphasized the need for diplomacy, while Dutch diplomats ruled out sanctions for now. A British document photographed by a journalist said the government of Prime Minister David Cameron would not support trade sanctions or block Russian money from the British market...."It's particularly important for the United States to bring Europe along," said Julianne Smith, a former national security aide to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. "To the extent that the United States tries to put economic pressure on Russian industry, they won't feel the impact as much as they would if we had Europe standing with us. That's easier said than done."


    Parent
    That would be the glass half empty (none / 0) (#56)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 11:18:59 PM EST
    Approach.

    If Obama had good relations with European leaders he could make this sell and hurt Russia.

    He doesn't and he also appears to lack the will.

    Also just accepting that he can't do anything leads to Putin being more emboldened.

    He is on a winning streak vs. Obama and Obama appears to be unaware he's losing.

    Parent

    Countries have a real tendency to (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 11:43:16 PM EST
    base their policies more on whether or not they perceive that those policies will be financially beneficial for them rather than on some kind of magical popularity contest. Countries are going to cause serious harm to their economies because they love a politician in another country. Ya, sure.

    Gaining international agreement for other forms of economic sanction would be equally difficult. Both in terms of trade and finance, Russia is now quite highly integrated with the West. For instance, nearly 10pc of Britain's car exports are to Russia, and an even higher proportion of Germany's. Move over China, Russia is, in fact, by far the largest and fastest growing of the UK's emerging markets for exporters. This is one of the reasons why, up until now, David Cameron has been so keen to restore relations with Mr Putin's Russia. It was meant to help rebalance the UK economy.

    What is more, Germany, France and Italy obtain up to 30pc of their gas supplies from Russia, which in turn is even more highly dependent on Europe as a market for its exported oil and gas. Without these sources of income, Kremlin revenues would collapse. The economic pain imposed on both sides by Iranian-style sanctions would therefore be extreme.
    ...
    Alternatively, we could be more selective, and refuse rich Russians with obvious connections to the Kremlin their visas, or freeze their assets. Or we could ban transactions with Russian banks. In extremis, we could even confiscate Chelsea football club. You only have to take this line of argument to such a logical extreme to see how much of a non-starter it really is. Britain thrives on an "open economy" model. It would be shooting itself in the foot by sequestrating the Russians.    

    That is reality - your so called popularity contest theory is nothing more than fantasy based on right wing propaganda.

    Parent

    Unaware he is losing?? (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:27:47 AM EST
    Since day 1 he hasn't even known that there was a game.

    Parent
    From the supporter of a guy ... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:53:46 PM EST
    ... who can't even spell the word "game", that claim is pretty funny.

    Parent
    Same thing Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 07:18:54 PM EST
    said when?   What is Bill's position now?

    Isn't that the more salient issue?

    Parent

    Not when you're stuck (none / 0) (#117)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:51:27 AM EST
    in a time warp.

    Parent
    Who cares about 2008? (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 07:16:48 PM EST
    Good question.

    Parent
    I am smitten (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 07:59:51 PM EST
    That WaPo editorial is just (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 03:57:27 PM EST
    Fred Hiatt once again cheerleading for war - in my opinion.  It might as well have been written by John McCain or Lindsay Graham.  Hiatt says "they" - this group that isn't placated by words - aren't asking for boots on the ground, they just want action - what action would that be?

    I get so sick of the drooling and slavering over war - I could just scream.

    Parent

    The very serious people (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 05:34:17 PM EST
    just can't seem to find enough areas for the U.S. to invade or bomb into oblivion. The media as well as Republicans and some Dems are so hungry for war that they would blow up any chance of an equitable solution in Iran. The chants for war have been heard from these very serious people each and every time that they gotten the opportunity in numerous areas throughout the world. I echo this sentiment:

    I get so sick of the drooling and slavering over war - I could just scream.

    Although I do not like some of his foreign policy decision (drones and assassinations), I do approve of many of his efforts to pursue diplomatic solutions rather than completely unleash the dogs of war.

    Parent

    You're right (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 04:11:43 PM EST
    His foreign policy has been outstanding.

    Parent
    Mitt would know what to do.. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 04:36:33 PM EST
    Mitt did call it (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 04:54:01 PM EST
    And Obama mocked him for it.

    Guess who looks silly now.

    Parent

    Not at all (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 07:22:27 PM EST
    Do you really believe we should be more interventionist with Russia right now?  If so, say why.  Can you do that without referring to you-know-what?

    Parent
    Romney wasn't saying we should be (none / 0) (#46)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 10:40:29 PM EST
    Interventionist with Russia he was saying they were our biggest threat in foreign policy.

    Let's recap shall we?

    Syria
    Iran
    Crimea

    Who is standing between us and our foreign policy goals?

    Also it annoys me that we continue to treat Russia like an honest government.  Putin is a mobster who jails and sometimes murders his opposition.   Why we treat him like anything other then a dictator is beyond me.

    Mitt was right, Obama was wrong.

    As the WaPost piece points out Obama wanted Russia to be a G8 partner in the world and with the west.  Mitt pointed out they weren't and Obama just didn't want to see it.

    I hope he gets it now.

    Parent

    The people who keep fulminating (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:54:28 AM EST
    about "our foreign policy goals" can't ever seem to enumerate what they are.

    Parent
    Russia is not (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:25:22 AM EST
    a direct threat to the U.S.  This whole thing is overblown.

    Conservatives bemoan the fact that the Old Soviet Union imploded.  They do love a bogeyman.  And they do love the cowboy ways of George W. Bush.  

    The invasion of Crimea is overblown.  It was part of the Soviet Union for decades.  It is as if we allowed the State of Texas with all their Right Wingers to secede and then decided to invade them.

    I do not care about Ukraine.  No more Dick Cheney foreign policy.

    We stood by and allowed Hungary and Czechoslovakia to be invaded during the Cold War.  

    Here we go again with conservatives panicking and wanting to go to war.  They do love and pray for (literally) Armageddon.

    Parent

    Agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 04:07:12 PM EST
    The east/west "crisis " is a disproportional and ahistorical  response to the Russian reaction to the ouster of their man, the corrupt autocrat,Yanukovych,  and their fear for the loss of influence in not only Crimea, but also, in all of the Ukraine.

    Moreover, the "crisis" of east/west seems based on the west's overly-enthusiastic and unrealistic  expectations for the Ukrainian revolution--will it be the "Ukrainian Spring"  or a change of governments, meet the new government, same as the old.  The quick cancellation of Russian as an official language by the revolutionaries no doubt did not sit well with Russia.

    A possible middle ground will be struck with the return of Yulia Tymoshento, the former prime minister, recently released from jail.

    However, what was a clear loss for Putin has now been portrayed as weakness by the West, and particularly, questions of leadership by President Obama. Putin is the one with the tiger by the tail--does he invade Ukraine with the unpopularity of not only a war, but a war between "brothers." Does he assume the responsibility for a nation on the economic ropes, when his own economy has difficulties?  Our role is to sit back, watch, wait, and, in the interim, work with the Europeans to make economic life for Putin more difficult. It will not end well for Putin in even the near term.

     I think the old KGB colonel is smart enough to know that he does not need to have title to have ownership.  Keeping Crimea a part of Ukraine, with its ethnic Russian voters, will assure him of control of the country.  Surely the untenable nature of occupying a feisty country has not gone unnoticed.  And, Putin has long experience of troubles with Chechnya.

    Yet, after our own experience of containing the nuclear power, the Soviet Union, for over 45 years, the drums are beating for a war over an issue that has not existed for 45 days.  However, all bets are off if the West appears to corner him--humiliating a bully in front of his constituents can bring an un-predictible response.

     Our entire Russian policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union needs to be reviewed and re-thought. We did try to push the re-start button, but never seemed to find the switch.  Expansion of NATO eastward (supposedly, so as to aim better at Iran and, perhaps,  enable the sale of more arms) was ill-conceived in terms of solidifying new relationships and mutual respect.  While Russia was belatedly brought into the G-8, creative thinkers would have discussed movement of Russia into NATO.   But, that is the past, but as the Bard is to have said, what is past is prologue.

    Parent

    Treating Putin like a Dictator (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:30:04 AM EST
    Really?

    If you go by conservative policies, and Jeanne Kirkpatrick in particular, treating someone like a dictator often means first class treatment by the U.S.  The list of dictators that conservatives have loved to support is long indeed.  Let's state with Mubarak.

    The issue is no more U.S. wars.  No more Bush and Cheney style invasions....

    Parent

    Treating Putin like a Dictator (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:30:18 AM EST
    Really?

    If you go by conservative policies, and Jeanne Kirkpatrick in particular, treating someone like a dictator often means first class treatment by the U.S.  The list of dictators that conservatives have loved to support is long indeed.  Let's state with Mubarak.

    The issue is no more U.S. wars.  No more Bush and Cheney style invasions....

    Parent

    Please don't go all "squeaky" on me... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 05:27:23 PM EST
    I didn't say any such thing, nor do I think any such thing.

    But, let me start by saying that I feel like we read two different editorials.  And it took me a while to make any connection at all between Clinton's comments from 2008, and what Hiatt wrote in 2014.

    Did they both use the word "fantasy?"  Yes, but for very different reasons.  At the time, Clinton used it because he didn't like that Obama was packaging his views as being different from Hillary's when the record suggests they weren't all that different.  Hiatt is calling Obama's current foreign policy a fantasy because he thinks it's from the "wishful thinking" school - that somehow wanting a more peaceful, rational world will make it happen.

    Hiatt is annoyed that Obama's not doing enough, not matching Putin in his bellicosity; given that much of the left is opposed to more military involvement, I would venture to guess that the talking heads will regard Hiatt's label of "fantasy" to be along the lines of a compliment, rather than an insult.

    But, who knows any more? The opinions of the chattering classes don't seem to be based on any particular principle, but on who's up, who's down, which position will benefit them the most.

    I don't trust Putin, not even as far as I could throw him.  I don't pretend to have any expertise or insight into how he is best handled.  I, like a lot of other people, can't do much more than look on from the sidelines and keep my fingers crossed that nothing blows up - literally or figuratively - and that the people in the immediate path or area in which all of this is happening do not suffer for any of the decisions made on either side of the whole thing.

    Parent

    Agree, that is a typical Hiatt lazy editorial (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:45:21 AM EST
    And that Clinton quote is totally out of context.

    I don't pretend to know the right solution either, but i am pretty sure Obama is doing a lot more than wishing. There is a wide range of options between wishing and air strikes.

    Parent

    The Clinton quote (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:35:28 AM EST
    were the words he actually said.  What was taken out of context were the words "fairy tale" and applied by the dKos and MSNBC cheerleading crowds to make it appear that BC said Obama's campaign was a fairy tale.

    And the editorial is pointing out that, not just in this case (although several commenters here want to make it about just Russia this week), but in many cases, Obama has had a floundering foreign policy.  Add to that, he doesn't really have the relationship with our allies that he needs to have to weather this crisis and show a unified front.

    Not a good combination.

    Parent

    Syria shedding chemical weapons (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:14:39 AM EST
    Last week, Russia this week....he's such a loser

    Parent
    I do remember that episode well (none / 0) (#115)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:37:46 AM EST
    They were WAY out of line there IMO. But I know I don't get around the internet or TV news as much as others, but so far the only one I have seen making the connection between that Clinton quote and the Hiatt piece is you. So what is the point in bringing that up?

    Parent
    IIRC CG brought this up in the last (none / 0) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 05:49:29 PM EST
    open thread.

    Ukraine crisis sends stock markets sliding; Russia's MICEX tumbles ...

    The Russian stock market slumped when trading began, with the main MICEX index tumbling as much as 9% on the prospect of tough economic sanctions being imposed on Moscow.

    European markets are expected to fall around 1% when trading begins at 8am, and the price of both oil and gold is rising.

    Russia's central bank has announced an emergency interest rate hike this morning, raising its key borrowing rate from 5.5% to 7% after seeing the ruble crash to new record lows against the euro and dollar.

    In a brief statement, The Bank of Russia explained:

    The decision is aimed at preventing the emergence of risks to inflation and financial stability associated with the recently observed increased levels of volatility in the financial markets.

    The financial impact of Russia's decision and any financial sanctions imposed by the international community will IMO accomplish more to modify Russia's actions than any saber rattling by the U.S.

    Parent

    The eventual outcome (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 07:35:51 AM EST
    can often be found in economic numbers.

    For comparison purposes, every stock exchange in Europe is up for the year anywhere from 5% (Britain) to 29% (Italy), and all are at or near 52 week highs. The Russian Micex is down 9.5% YTD with 2/3rds of that happening since Monday. That's a lot of lost rubles from puffing one's chest.

    Parent

    Of course there was a time when (none / 0) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 07:09:04 PM EST
    the very serious people had a different perspective on Putin.

    Conservatives have been getting their freak on over the Russian/Ukraine conflict and attacking President Obama vociferously since he told Putin that there would be consequences if he invaded.
    ...
    But when George Bush was in office and waxed poetically about Putin, they said nothing. What a shock, right?

    Q: As president you met and dealt with many foreign leader...you write, "I've always been able to read people." Vladimir Putin, when you first met him you said you got a sense of his soul...

    Bush: I looked in his eyes and saw his soul.

    Ukraine: What a Difference Partisanship Makes

    As Russian troops entered neighboring territory the president of the United States, in an address to the nation, expressed his deep concern at reports that Russian troops have "invaded a sovereign neighboring state." "Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century," the President said.

    Referring to how Russia's actions have raised serious questions about its intentions in the region, the President said, "These actions have substantially damaged Russia's standing in the world. And these actions jeopardize Russians' relations -- Russia's relations with the United States and Europe. It is time for Russia to be true to its word and to act to end this crisis."

    NBC News reported that, while waiting for the results of a European Union initiative, the administration and its allies are debating ways to punish Russia for its invasion, including expelling Moscow from an exclusive club of wealthy nations and canceling an upcoming joint NATO-Russia military exercise and that the President "and his top aides are engaged in urgent consultations with European and other nations over how best to demonstrate their fierce condemnation of the Russian operation."

    NBC also reported that "In the medium term, the United States and its partners in the Group of Seven, or G-7, the club of the world's leading industrialized nations that also includes Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, are debating whether to effectively disband what is known as the G-8, which incorporates Russia, by throwing Moscow out, the officials said." Officials also said, "Russia's pending membership in the World Trade Organization might also be affected." However, "[t]he officials spoke on condition of anonymity because no decisions have yet been made and consultations with other countries involved were still under way."
    ...
    On Special Report, Charles Krauthammer explains that when the president says that the United States will stand with the international community he really means that "we are going to negotiate with a dozen other countries who will water down the statement" and that when the president affirms that there will be costs: "meaning in making a statement not even imposing a cost, but in making a statement about imposing a cost -- for any military intervention" -- whatever that means.

    "What [the president is] saying is we're not really going to do anything and we're telling the world," Krauthammer says.

    At this point I have to disclose that the president making the remarks, above, about the Russian invasion is not President Obama but rather President Bush in August 2008, during the Russian invasion of Georgia. source



    Parent
    For just the one time... (none / 0) (#41)
    by unitron on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 09:16:12 PM EST
    ...I find myself in agreement with Pat Buchanan on what there is to see in Putin's eyes.

    Parent
    Nothing you are saying (none / 0) (#47)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 10:44:56 PM EST
    Excuses the terrible job Obama is doing now.

    In fact it makes it worse and confirms the WaPost oped.

    Knowing the Putin embarrassed Bush Obama was so confident in his own abilities he thought he could somehow "reset" our relations.

    He believed in a fantasy, made fun of Romney when he pointed out the obvious fact the Putin was  an obstacle to our foreign policy goals and here we are.

    Worse off then when he started in office.

    Thanks for helping me make my point.   Obama is really screwing this up.

    Parent

    I would really be interested in reading (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 11:07:52 PM EST
    some of the comments you made during the Russian invasion of Georgia outlining what a terrible job Bush was doing and how he was a complete failure.

    Because unless you were ranting and raving about how Bush was a failure at foreign policy, you have proven the point that was made in "Ukraine: What a Difference Partisanship Makes."
     

    Parent

    I find Fred Hiatt's opinions to be ... (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 09:24:24 PM EST
    ... useful as cockatiel cage liner, and not much else. This one is certainly no exception. The guys restates the obvious, offers a litany of complaints and a healthy dose of snide condescension, and then demands that somebody in the White House do something about all this Russian aggression and Chinese muscle-flexing.

    Well, what exactly does Fred expect the Obama administration to do in this particular case? Does he think we should throw Russia out of the G-8? Embargo Russian banks and businesses? Send the U.S. Atlantic Fleet into the Black Sea to lay siege to Sevastopol? Stop serving Stoli martinis at official White House dinners? Demand that the Boston Pops not play Tchaikovsky's "1812 Overture" at the next July 4th celebration? He doesn't say.

    Fred Hiatt is the Ryan Leaf of armchair quarterbacks.

    Parent

    Awesome comment (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:33:26 AM EST
    Fred Hiatt (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:36:42 AM EST
    like Ryan Leaf, still knows more than you about their particular subject area.

    Parent
    Hardly. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 02:20:45 PM EST
    The fact that you all happen to live in D.C. doesn't automatically entitle you to claim the status of Smartest Guys in the Room. More often than not lately, you seem to be looking at the rest of the nation and world from the inside of a fishbowl.

    Parent
    Hiatt totally (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:28:24 PM EST
    lost me when he supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  And I was not best pleased when the WashPost supported the Keystone XL Pipeline, or when it defended the Republican position on allowing Social Security private retirement accounts, or defended certain free trade agreements.
    In way more ways than I am happy with, Hiatt has shown himself to be a neoconservative.  Or maybe a neoliberal.  Hard to tell the two apart at times.
    And, BTW, although I do not live "inside the Beltway" myself, I am still considered to live (more or less) in the environs of DC, so to speak, or at least in the area where we can get daily home delivery of the Washington Post.  We do not all think the same way, and I do not feel that we are all looking at the rest of the country or the world "from the inside of a fishbowl."  Just saying.   ;-)

    Parent
    Generalissimo of the 101st Fighting Keyboards (none / 0) (#43)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 09:43:46 PM EST
    What year is that from? (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 07:15:21 PM EST
    What was the context of that quote?  What was it during the middle of?

    Still going over old ground.....unreal.

    Parent

    More problems for PSU (none / 0) (#10)
    by ragebot on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 02:39:40 PM EST
    ESPN headline is reporting that former PSU QB who was a key figure in the Sandusky mess was abused as a child.  Details were few and no names were named.

    On the other hand the article said the QB was betting on one game he played in and had debts from his gambling losses.  In addition to criminal violations the NCAA takes a dim view of university players betting on games they play in.

    ESPN

    And the NCAA should take a (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:34:59 AM EST
    dim view of players gambling on games....

    As well as taking a dim view of the NCAA, the schools and the coaches and the media making billions of dollars off the backs of players who are paid zip.

    Time for a union. Time for a stroke.

    Parent

    I hope you meant (none / 0) (#109)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:54:26 AM EST
    "Time for a strike," not "stroke," Jim.    ;-)


    Parent
    A stroke... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:03:38 AM EST
    is what the NCAA would have if their indentured servants did strike.  

    Parent
    A successful strike requires leverage. (none / 0) (#157)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 02:48:50 PM EST
    Simply put, what leverage do these college football players have? Were I a college president facing a players' strike for money, I'd simply declare their scholarships null and void, and literally leave them standing on the sidelines, so to speak and pun intended. And I can assure you, there are more than enough other players out there who'd be more than willing to take their place. And if push actually came to shove, I'd drop the intercollegiate sports programs altogether, much as the University of Chicago did back in the 1930s.

    Speaking for myself only as a former student-athlete with a full-ride scholarship, I don't believe that certain college athletes in select sports should be paid a salary in addition to their scholarships. They're already getting an opportunity for a college education that would otherwise cost them and / or their family upwards of six figures. (And if they aren't, or if some coaches are impeding or otherwise interfering in their players' academic pursuits, we need to be asking why and then act accordingly to correct the situation.)

    Those college players who demand to be paid a salary for their services should immediately make themselves available for the NFL and NBA drafts, or request that those two leagues institute and develop a farm system as it exists in Major League Baseball.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    If Basketball players... (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:22:50 PM EST
    striked right before tip-off of March Madness, or football players right before kick-off of bowl season...they would have all of the leverage.  All of it.  We're talking billions of dollars made off the backs of these kids, the vast majority of which never sniff the pros.  

    If Duke tried to trot out an all walk-on team of scabs for their NCAA Tourney opener, CBS is stopping payment on that check.

    Parent

    Oh, I think a judge could be found to uphold their (none / 0) (#187)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:23:45 PM EST
    right to organize....and to strike.

    And whatever the "education" value is that doesn't anywhere near pay them for what they bring to the school.

    Come on, Donald. Join this Social Liberal and support the schools doing the right thing.

    Parent

    jimakaPPJ (none / 0) (#188)
    by ragebot on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:29:56 PM EST
    Just what kind of pay scale would you come up with that would meet Title IX requirements.

    Parent
    Interesting topic (none / 0) (#136)
    by ragebot on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:33:15 PM EST
    even if it is a little bit of thread drift.  Not sure what the right solution is.

    I have little experience in labor law buy the NW position is that football players are not employees and as a back up they are temp employees at best and as such not allowed to unionize.

    There is also the argument that if the players want to go to work they could play in several 'semi-pro' leagues.  Problem is that from a financial standpoint semi-pro football has been a failure, even if the players were basically at the college skill level.  So how much of the money universities get from football fans is from the skill of the players and how much from watching the school they are cheering for no matter what skill level.

    Several legit studies have valued specific university football programs.  The current NC, FSU is valued at about 1/3 of the most valuable programs.  One of the most valuable programs is PSU which is not really that good, under NCAA sanctions, not eligible for the NC or bowl games, and is stained with the Sandusky mess.  Same for several other highly valued programs, they make bigger bucks than the teams that win on the field.

    Another problem with paying players is how much do you play them.  Title IX requires all athletes be treated the same which many would take to mean a bench warmer on the women's volleyball team gets the same pay as a star QB on the men's football team.  Sure football makes big bucks, but only a few university athletic departments are in the black.  So where would the money come from to pay players at universities that are in the red.  And all of this ignores how to prevent a few rich teams from dominating.

    As bad as the current system is I have not seen ideas that would be better.  Not saying some incremental changes like better health care and injury prevention and strict academic standards are not good ideas.  Just don't see how paying players would solve problems.

    Parent

    Not sure if you are using stroke (none / 0) (#137)
    by ragebot on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:37:49 PM EST
    in the health sense

    or the porno sense

    or if it was just a typo.

    But I got a laugh out of this.

    Parent

    Florida justice? (none / 0) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 06:26:11 PM EST
    Florida State Attorney Angela Corey will seek to triple Marissa Alexander's original prison sentence from twenty to sixty years, effectively a life sentence for the 33-year-old woman, when her case is retried this July, the Florida Times-Union reports.

    Alexander was convicted on three charges of aggravated assault in 2012 for firing warning shots in the direction of Rico Gray, her estranged husband, and his two children. No one was hurt. Alexander's attorneys argued that she had the right to self-defense after Gray physically assaulted and threatned to kill her the day of the shooting. In a deposition, Gray confessed to a history of abusing women, including Alexander.

    In September of 2013 a District Appeals court threw out the conviction on grounds that Circuit Judge James Daniel erroneously placed the burden on Alexander to prove she acted in self-defense, when she only had to meet a "reasonable doubt concerning self-defense." digby



    ugh... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by sj on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 06:49:49 PM EST
    ... that makes me feel ill. With a helping of that right on top of Suzie talking about how/why it's expensive to be poor, I don't know how much more mental fast food I can take for a while.

    Parent
    Media (none / 0) (#58)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 11:39:13 PM EST
    Seems to have lost the ability to read court documents in this case, and only uses statements from Alexander to base their stories on.

    "Warning shots" and Rico's deposition are total baloney, that stand up to no scrutiny whatsoever, yet every media story revolves around them.

    Parent

    Statement made by your favorite (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 12:04:13 AM EST
    SYG hero were in your opinion the only true facts of that case but in your totally unbiased opinion the defendant's or a deposition are not valid in this one.

    It is really amusing to read a comments about "facts" and what is and is not total baloney from someone who rarely deals in facts and has a tendency of making things up. You know kinda like your "fact" that dozens of people were killed in the Boston bombing or your "fact" that GZ left his truck to follow Martin because he wanted to protect all the neighborhood children who were playing out in the rain that night.

    Parent

    Despite Chief Lee's mis-statement... (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by unitron on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:56:17 PM EST
    ...it was the completely separate immunity clause (776.032) of Florida's Justifiable Use of Force law, and none of the sections which mention SYG, that legally prevented the Sanford PD from charging Zimmerman that night as they did not, at that time, have sufficient probable cause indicating that it was not self-defense.

    For some reason the addition to the JUF law of SYG back in '05 or '06 seems to have convinced everyone in Florida to call the whole thing "the SYG law" when it is no such thing, and once the bandwagon of stupid started rolling the press were only too happy to hop on board instead of actually doing their jobs.

    Parent

    Although Zimmerman (none / 0) (#179)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 04:55:14 PM EST
    waived his right to a "stand your ground" pretrial immunity hearing and O'Mara didn't cite the Stand Your Ground law during trial, Florida requires the judge to inform the jury of the stand your ground provisions as part of his jury instructions in every case of self-defense.

    O'Mara, Zimmerman's lawyer, would like to see this change.

    Attorney Mark O'Mara said he will send to the Florida Bar this week a proposal to let judges decide when juries should be instructed to consider stand your ground.

    "Only include it in those cases where the 'stand your ground, no duty to retreat' issue is relevant," O'Mara told Reuters on Wednesday.

    O'Mara argued self defense on behalf of his client Zimmerman in the Florida shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in 2011. Unarmed Florida teen Jordan Davis was killed in 2012 and his killer, Michael Dunn, also claimed self defense.

    Jurors in both trials told reporters the instruction on stand your ground affected their work, leading to Zimmerman's 2013 acquittal in Martin's murder and a hung jury on February 15 in Dunn's case.

    O'Mara said his proposal was "a nice polishing of the jury instructions that will address people's concerns that juries are getting confused about stand your ground when it's not appropriate." link

    To say that the SYG ground was not part of the Zimmerman trial or had no effect on the verdict would be inaccurate IMO. The judges instructions are a very critical part of any trial and can have great impact on the jury's decision.

    Parent

    If a member of the jury (none / 0) (#203)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 01:23:39 AM EST
    thought syg applied, then they did not understand the basics of the law, same applies to anybody else that doesn't understand it did not apply.

    How can anybody think screaming for help and trying to escape for a minute doesn't fulfill any duty to retreat?

    Once out of sequester I think the jury clearly saw they were standing in front of a bus and needed to act quickly to protect themselves and their families. Looking just now it doesn't seem like the names have been released yet, thinking that was originally 6 months.

    Parent

    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 05:11:14 AM EST
    There hasn't been a discussion here of anybody SYG applied to. As for Zimmerman, I accept the view of the police who interrogated him, vs the media that lied about almost every issue in the case.

    Google Marissa Alexander dismissal motion, educate yourself.

    Twin lakes was family residential area and kids were out in the light rain, and it was dusk, not night, a time when it would not be unusual for people to walk the dog etc. Watching a suspicious non resident was the prudent neighborly thing to do. The ridiculous view is that it is provocative and makes Zimmerman somehow culpable for being attacked.

    Parent

    Maybe I should google (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 07:39:07 AM EST
    The Cat in the Hat since you have used that as the basis for one of your sparkling, fact free, legal analysis.

    BTW, you demand that people provide data contained only in the transcript of the trial and yet you write fairy tales stating that the reason GZ left his truck was to protect the children. Give me the quotes and links from the transcript where GZ said he left his truck to protect the children playing in the area. From the transcript , provide me with a list of the names, ages and location of all those children that were playing in the path that GZ and Martin followed that night.

    Also I would appreciate the names of the DOZENS of people that you claimed Dzhokhar Tsarnaev killed in the Boston Bombing.

    Unless you have missed the point, you lose all creditability when you consistently make things up.

    Parent

    You grant the cat too much credit (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 07:48:55 AM EST
    you lose all creditability when you consistently make things up.

    One must have something before they can lose it.

    Parent

    Good point (none / 0) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 07:57:37 AM EST
    I don't need to (none / 0) (#113)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:21:07 AM EST
    be credible to you, reasonable sensible open minded people also read these threads.

    I don't see why you fail to understand my comments are speculation as are all related to "getting out of the truck". I doubt if Zimmerman "knows" why he got out of the truck, all I am doing is suggesting some possible reasons that fit the rest of the known evidence. What I absolutely do not believe is that he left the truck with the intention of approaching Trayvon, or allowing himself to be approached.

    Marissa Alexander is a MUCH simpler case to any that bother to look at the real evidence of the case instead of being led by the nose via media tales.

    Parent

    So you think he was lying? (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:47:07 PM EST
    Because Zimmerman said he wasn't following him, but that he got out of his truck to find a street sign ...

    ... because he couldn't remember the name of the street

    ... which he had just told the dispatcher a few seconds before ...

    Maybe you're on to something.

    Parent

    Disgusting (none / 0) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:11:57 AM EST
    Florida (none / 0) (#171)
    by Amiss on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:42:44 PM EST
    Changed the penalty from what I understand. It is no longer the place I grew up.

    Parent
    Groan. Another Bush on the make: (none / 0) (#44)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 10:00:49 PM EST
    George P. Bush has been nominated as Republican candidate for Texas Land Commissioner.

    He is considered the face of the "new" GOP, but check out that face.  Doesn't he bear a striking resemblance to Richard Nixon?  


    Ugh, you made me look. (none / 0) (#52)
    by desertswine on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 11:02:34 PM EST
    Saddest state in the nation: West Virginia (none / 0) (#60)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 12:02:40 AM EST
    Happiest states:

    North Dakota
    South Dakota
    Nebraska
    Minnesota
    Montana

    Unhappiest:

    Ohio
    Alabama
    Mississippi
    Kentucky
    West Virginia

    poll

    Whats with the media bashing the rich? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:03:21 AM EST
    Makes me nervous whenever some group gets picked out for target practice, open season in jokes etc. Isolate, ridicule, then attack is the old formula, so I have to wonder what is coming up.

    In a previous thread the claim was made the rich exploit the poor or are in some way the cause of poverty, but the thread hit the 200 post cutoff before discussion got started. I agree the rich get rich exploiting other people, but its not the poor who have nothing to exploit, its average working stiff and higher, the people who actually are producing goods and buying them.

    The rich have no incentive to keep people poor, just the opposite they are the good who benefit the most from people having money to buy things. The only group I see with something to gain by keeping people poor are politicians.

    The rich have sadly been allowed (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:08:09 AM EST
    To buy our government, and via that have been legislatively gaming the system.  They don't pay their fair share now either, and they are at this point creating poverty.

    Parent
    The working stiffs ARE the poor if they are (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:27:50 AM EST
    working for minimum wage these days. Show me a coalition of rich people fighting to raise the minimum wage and I will at least listen to your argument.

    Parent
    Why would the (none / 0) (#116)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:44:02 AM EST
    rich be in favor of not allowing lower skilled people to have jobs?

    Minimum wage doesn't give a low skilled worker more money, it takes away their job and gives it to a higher skilled worker or a worker willing to work harder.

    The purpose of minimum wage is to reduce the effective labor force by excluding those lower skilled workers. As higher skilled workers take over the jobs of the lower skilled it increases the market for higher skilled workers while supply stays the same, so it will tend to raise all wages, which is called inflation. This is why unions favor minimum wage laws, it puts higher skill workers in a better bargaining position at the expense of the lower skilled workers losing jobs.

    Parent

    So your answer to the working poor is... (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:06:50 AM EST
    be glad you have jobs at all, because if you are a working stiff the rich can exploit you. If not, you poor slob, you are just poor and no one can help you or hurt you.

    Parent
    There are some minimum wage (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:07:21 AM EST
    jobs that require such a skill set that "lower skill workers" can't do them?

    This is the part where you have quit trying to channel St Milton Friedman and provide some concrete examples. Don't be bashful.

    Parent

    crickets, grasshoppers, katydids.. (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:13:41 PM EST
    the lonely, mournful howl of a cayote in the distance..

    C'mon Mikado, please provide some examples of minimum wage jobs that "low skill workers" have trouble performing.

    Parent

    Have you ever had your order really mixed up (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:19:51 PM EST
    by a fast food employee?  

    Parent
    Yes... (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:39:13 PM EST
    but I assume it's because they're overworked and underpaid....not a lack of skill.

    Few jobs at any pay-grade are as stressful as a fast food worker during the lunch rush at a busy location.  

    Parent

    Try being the only (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 02:00:42 PM EST
    short-order cook on duty during a bad bar rush. It's like manning a machine gun nest with your lines overrun. ;-)

    Parent
    I don't doubt it... (none / 0) (#156)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 02:46:03 PM EST
    forget 15 bucks an hour...I think I'd need 6 figures annually to take that abuse.

    Parent
    Maybe. One employee (none / 0) (#142)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:54:38 PM EST
    working the drive through window (early am, no line) gave us change for a $100 bill though we had given her a $20.

    Anecdotal, I know.

    Parent

    Ouch... (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 02:32:46 PM EST
    I hope you gave it back or that poor slob probably had to cough up the 80 out of their own pocket.

    Working slobs gotta pay for their mistakes, unlike the masters of the universe who socialize the losses caused by their f*ck-ups.

    Parent

    Yes. The $20 was from one 99% (none / 0) (#162)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:03:25 PM EST
    daughter and the driver (the other 99% daughter) said, "Did you give her a hundred dollar bill?

    Parent
    Well done Oculus & Daughters... (none / 0) (#163)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:08:41 PM EST
    none of you will ever make it as bankers though! ;)

    Parent
    Yes, but I've also had my retirement savings (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:40:52 PM EST
    really screwed by the decisions made by executives taking home millions of dollars per year not including the multi-million dollar bonus they got for screwing up the economy.

    Lets see, given the choice between having a fast food order screwed up once or twice every few years or having my retirement saving impacted by decisions made by millionaires and billionaires, I think I will vote that the skills of fast food workers provided me with much better service.

    Parent

    This is not an issue for an all day (none / 0) (#145)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 02:10:04 PM EST
    scrimmage. Just a random observation.

    Parent
    My response would only lead to an (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 02:39:41 PM EST
    all day scrimmage if you chose to go in that direction.

    Your random observation has generated numerous responses. I made one comment in response, others responded 2 or 3 times. Seems to me that your definition of an all day scrimmage needs a little work.

    Parent

    Hard to make this not sound personal (none / 0) (#158)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 02:49:23 PM EST
    but since most folks retirement accounts are doing extremely well, perhaps you should take a close look at your investment choices.

    Parent
    My retirement account is improving (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:20:04 PM EST
    but I have not come close to recouping what I lost.

    For several months before the crash, I was being treated for cancer and the treatment was going very poorly. Contrary to how my type of cancer normally responds to chemo, my tumor just ignored it after a couple of treatments even trying different cocktails and continued to grow while the rest of my body didn't like it at all.

    To make a long story short, I just ignored what was going on in the market and did not make the right decisions then or for a year or so after when my body proved that Murphy was an optimist and had just about every strange thing went wrong that could go wrong. Lost quite a bit, at least by my standards, during that period.

    You are right that I could have made better investment decisions then and IMO missed the sweet spot where I might have recouped a lot more. Probably could make less conservative decisions now but I really don't trust what I'm seeing in the market right now. Probably a wrong decision but I'm not willing to risk any more of my Wolf Away From the Door money. Been real poor twice in my life. Believe me I don't recommend it nor do I want to revisit that state.

    Parent

    Understood (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:34:49 PM EST
    and agree that no one should take on more risk than they are comfortable with. Loss of sleep is far more destructive to wellness than a bank account.

    Parent
    Problem is that they do well (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 04:48:17 PM EST
    right up until the time they crash. Then they don't do so well. Since the Masters of the Universe control when that is going to happen, it is just luck if it does not happen on the eve of your retirement.

    Parent
    Ruffian that's just silly (none / 0) (#180)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 05:01:03 PM EST
    and you're smarter than that.

    Parent
    I just want to say (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by sj on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 05:29:34 PM EST
    Ruffian that's just silly (none / 0) (#180)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 04:01:03 PM MDT

    and you're smarter than that.

    while her comment may have been "nutshelled" she's not wrong. My uncle, who is the only really good money manager in my entire family, started working at the local bowling alley when he was 12. He has had a job ever since, and has put money from every. single. paycheck. into savings. He paid attention to retirement options since he was 16. When he retired in the late 80's (early 90's? I can't remember exactly) his retirement nest egg was cut to nearly half due to that economic downturn.

    He ended up taking a part-time job as facilities guy in a for several years as the nest egg slowly grew again.

    After listening to his experience I fall on the side of ruffian on this issue.

    Parent

    Probably Black Monday in 1987 (none / 0) (#183)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 05:42:41 PM EST
    Black Monday (1987) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Haven't reviewed all the content in wikipedia for accuracy but it should give summary of what occurred and give people a basis for further research if anyone wants to explore the subject further.  

    Parent

    People in every strata (none / 0) (#141)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:51:22 PM EST
    screw up: hence all the ongoing legal and medical malpractice lawsuits.

    Parent
    We just had it happen at Taco Bell (none / 0) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 02:05:42 PM EST
    It appeared to me that the person at the drive thru was very new.  Nobody at her side training  her or assisting her.  She did not even know what was on the menu, so had a hard time understanding me but did her best.

    And we all stayed in line and waited it out because...well...Taco Bell.  Who else uses the same three ingredients for every menu item and gets that much love?  But I don't get a Chipotle here.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 02:21:05 PM EST
    the drill is, they'll give her a few weeks and then if she doesn't work out, they'll can her and hire some other kid who doesn't know what they're doing..

    I guarantee you Taco Bell decidedly doesn't do what Mikado claims, i.e. start accepting resumes only from "higher skill set" fast food workers.

    Parent

    Agree (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 02:36:57 PM EST
    Most of the big chains abuse human beings, because they can.


    Parent
    To be clear I don't hate the rich as a group (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:39:07 AM EST
    and I don't know anyone that does. I just want them to play fair, and not keep anyone else down for the sake of feathering their own already comfortable nests.

    And as MT says, not have outsized say in the government.

    Parent

    Fair share (2.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:33:22 AM EST
    There is no ethical fair element to progressive taxes. Certainly politicians should not be allowed to use the tax from the rich to pay the poor to vote for them.

    Taxing the rich does not work. By placing a uniform burden on the entirety of the groups best able to demand a high market wage all a high tax does is increase the costs to everybody else that needs the goods or services they provide. The wage earning working class ends up bearing the cost.

    Has any "lets soak the rich" scheme ever worked?

    Parent

    Lets look at historical tax rates (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:16:05 AM EST
    50 percent: Top tax rate in 1986
    70 percent: Top tax rate in 1980
    91 percent: Top tax rate in 1963
    84.4 percent: Top tax rate in 1950
    94 percent: Top tax rate in 1945
    79 percent: Top tax rate in 1939
    63 percent: Top tax rate in 1935

    Keep in mind that these rates occurred prior to 2011 when capital gains and dividends were given a hugh tax break.

    GDP in the U.S. did not collapse during periods of high taxationlink

    Parent

    Marginal tax rates (none / 0) (#140)
    by ragebot on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:43:46 PM EST
    do not seem to have as strong a relationship to tax revenue as other factors.

    During most of the time span you listed tax revenue was between 19-20% of GDP.  There was a little bump under Clinton but many economists view that as more a function of a generally good economy than tax policy.  Same for Obama who basically had the same tax policy as Bush, with the exception of a with holding tax holiday.  Still the bump of a little more than 20% of GDP is explained by some economists as the GDP slowing faster than tax revenue.

    When marginal tax rates vary from around 30% to over 90% and tax revenue is basically 20% of GDP there is some reason to think raising tax rates will not always raise tax revenue.

    Parent

    O.K. I like those qualifiers (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 02:19:35 PM EST
    there is some reason to think raising tax rates will not always raise tax revenue.

    Lets experiment shall we. Let's raise the top rate back to about 70% and get rid of all the loopholes* that allow those in the top brackets to avoid paying taxes and see what happens.

    *Main reason that the marginal top tax rates do not produce more revenue.

    The 400 richest Americans used to pay  30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam. Today, they pay 18% on the average, according to Steve Rattner, a Wall Street financier, who just presented these figures on Mornings With Joe,MSNBC.

    The main reason for the drop in their tax rate of some 40% is the tax cuts by George Bush in 2003, taking the rate paid on dividends and capital gains down to 15%. This reduction in the investment class's taxes powered the bull market in stocks from the fall of 2003 until the fall of 2007.


     

    Parent
    Have to disagree (none / 0) (#185)
    by ragebot on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:13:05 PM EST
    As MO Blue pointed out there are tons of loop holes that make marginal tax rates a joke.  This is why the post below indicates little relation between marginal tax rates and tax revenue.

    I am all for tax reform but not convinced raising marginal tax rates is such a good idea.  It has been obvious for some time many folks are voting with their feet when the view tax rates are too high.  When Maryland passed a millionaire tax the next year the number of millionaires decreased by 2/3.  Both CA and NY have lost population because some folks think taxes are too high in those states.

    Simplistic solutions to tax policy seldom work and often have unintended consequences.  

    Parent

    50 percent: Top tax rate in 1986; % of GDP: 17.5
    70 percent: Top tax rate in 1980; % of GDP: 19.0
    91 percent: Top tax rate in 1963; % of GDP: 17.8
    84.4 percent: Top tax rate in 1950; % of GDP: 14.4
    94 percent: Top tax rate in 1945; % of GDP: 20.4
    79 percent: Top tax rate in 1939; % of GDP: 7.1
    63 percent: Top tax rate in 1935; % of GDP: 5.2

    Revenues as a % of GDP do not mirror top tax rate.

    Parent

    Too many numbers (none / 0) (#186)
    by ragebot on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:18:27 PM EST
    Most tax experts think analysis of modern tax policy should start with Ike being president.  There was really no income tax in a realistic sense until WWII required lots of money to fight the war.  Truman was faced with huge debts and recovering from a war time economy.

    Ike was the first modern peace time president with a modern tax policy.

    Parent

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 293 (none / 0) (#95)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:52:01 AM EST
    At least he's still got his pipe to suck on. (link)

    v. 292
    v. 291

    Happy middle of the week day, my friends. Phuck the roof, raise the floor.

    Legend of Shorty (none / 0) (#112)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:19:58 AM EST
    Holy sh*t, do you actually believe you can capture the utterly phucked up psychology of a guy like Guzman, and the utterly phucked up psychology of that macho Mexicano cultural horsesh*t (and I lived with two dudes from TJ for a good while, I know this stuff pretty well) from some halfwit Mexican soap opera? Jaysus, that's like thinking you learn about the real crystal meth truth watching BREAKING BAD, which is so hilarious I cannot even stand it. Come on, J, you are smarter than that. Guzman was fine letting his people butcher human beings like steak for nothing more than weed and coke profits. Just like Clinton and Bush and Obama and all the rest are shit for their murderous wars and invasions and comprehensive lack of imagination, these Mexican drug lords have ZERO excuse for their behavior aside from they are psychopaths. Just like the government has no excuse. Do you not get it? Good people are phucked by all sides, and the bad guys, no matter how hard we try to rationalize it, are no better than the government thugs who go after them. And good people suffer. Listen, J, let's get bone real here: I got molested in an abandoned drug house when I was five. I didn't need to kill anyone after that, I only destroyed myself. Phuck Guzman, phuck that culture, phuck the Mexican government, stop trying to look for silver linings when there ARE none.

    Phuck. Them. All.

    Drug cartel psychopaths and government psychopaths alike. Both are useless phucks. And we shouldn't spend a minute of time trying to justify either. You should be offering bold ideas, as we all should, not simply reacting after the fact.

    Sorry that I sound so antagonistic, but the "pin the tail on the donkey" crap that goes around sometimes drives me crazy. If you haven't been abused terribly as a human, don't pretend to understand, use your imagination and PROVE it.

    A rating seems inappropriate, given (none / 0) (#133)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 12:54:54 PM EST
    the personal portions of your comment.  But, as to your opinion Guzman is no hero and the people of Mexico have suffered greatly from the actions of the cartels and the federales actions trying to curtail the cartels, kudos.

    Parent
    Oh, my dear D. (none / 0) (#181)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 05:12:37 PM EST
    I just wish that I could give you huge hugs, or enfold you in the wings of angels (if they exist).
    You have been through so much in your life, but yet you seem to have come out ahead.
    Stay strong, my brother.
    Namaste.

    Parent
    My sick talented bro-in-law is gigging... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:57:33 AM EST
    ...with the legendary Sergio Mendes in Seattle all weeekend (link), starting Thursday night. Even my 80 year-old mother-in-law, who lives in Everett, is catching a show. Get your samba on all Pac Northwest TL'ers.

    Peace.

    Okay, so who's been watching (none / 0) (#120)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:02:32 AM EST
    True Detective?  Final episode is this coming Sunday, and there are theories galore about who the "Yellow King" is, and how the mystery is going to be resolved.

    Have to say that it's one of the darkest shows I've seen, and complex to the point that I DVR'd all the episodes and have re-watched parts while they were airing, and will be going back to watch them again - there's just so much you can miss as the show zig-zags through time.  I may even watch all 8 episodes after the finale to see if I can spot the clues.

    If you haven't seen it, and can get it on demand, I'd highly recommend it.  Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson have done an extraordinary job in their portrayals of the two lead detectives.  If the show doesn't win awards next time around, I will be shocked.

    I have been watching it too (none / 0) (#123)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:09:18 AM EST
    I guess enjoying it is the wrong word, but it is riveting, with great performances by both leads. On the edge of too dark and brutal for me, but I am hanging in there. I have all of them stored up too - have to watch a lot of them twice because I must confess I fall asleep if I start watching too late. I don't think that is the show's fault though.

    Parent
    Best show ever. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:28:24 AM EST
    We are glued to the television when it's on and talk about it afterwards, unusual for us.  Hoping Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson, as well as Nic Pizzolatto and T-Bone Burnett are nominated for Emmy awards. I want this show to go on forever.

    Parent
    Paging Ruffian... (none / 0) (#125)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:17:31 AM EST
    your boy Alan Grayson is in hot water, accused of domestic abuse.

    Does his famous temper have a violent side, or is this use of law as revenge-weapon, or perhaps even something more sinister (GOP black ops)?  Time will tell, or it won't.

    How you can tell BTD (none / 0) (#161)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:02:10 PM EST
    is on extended/permanent vacation from TL. There are currently 5 Florida Gator teams ranked #1 in the nation and not a peep from him.

    Women's Softball #1
    Men's Basketball #1
    Men's Indoor Track #1
    Women's Indoor Track #1
    Men's Swimming #1

    and the poor stepchild at Florida:
    Women's Gymnastics #2

    Hillary (none / 0) (#165)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:18:39 PM EST
    She (none / 0) (#195)
    by lentinel on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:24:07 PM EST
    kinda compared Putin to Hitler in a speech at a "private fundraiser" in Long Beach. She said that Putin's actions were "reminiscent" of what Hitler did "back in the 30s".

    The next day, she said she didn't compare Putin to Hitler.

    In any case, she's clearly running.

    Parent

    I have been (none / 0) (#194)
    by lentinel on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:10:16 PM EST
    watching some tv lately and have noticed that in three of the shows I watched, "Veep", "House of Cards" and "Scandal", the president of the US of A is depicted as either a confused nothing or a fool.

    As your cultural attache, I am peased to report (none / 0) (#196)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:52:36 PM EST
    Mattias Goerne (Baritone) and Christopher Eschenbach (Piano) gave a sterling performance of Franz Schubert's Die schoene Muellerin tonight, exceeding my very high expectations.

    "Peased": (none / 0) (#198)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:56:35 PM EST
    I see (none / 0) (#197)
    by lentinel on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:54:44 PM EST
    that the government has approved a billion dollars in aid to the Ukraine.

    Maybe that's a good thing.

    But, my mind spontaneously jumped to the thousands of people who have had their heating subsidies cut by this same government.

    It is a naive question, I know - but why can't they manage to throw a billion toward helping people heat their homes?

    There must be a bunch of billions sitting around that these pols can direct wherever or whenever they want. But they draw the line at sending it to us.

    They already throw in excess of $3 billion (none / 0) (#199)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:14:57 PM EST
    through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

    You may think it should be more but your question insinuates that the number is currently zero.

    Parent

    Seems Obama is proposing more cuts (5.00 / 6) (#200)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:07:30 PM EST
    Today the Obama Administration requested $2.8 billion for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program - a dramatic reduction from last year's Appropriation of $3.4 billion. In the midst of a brutal winter and surging energy prices, the idea of cutting LIHEAP by nearly 20% is unthinkable. Just last week, the Mayors of 19 major cities called on the White House to meet the community's need by increasing investment to $4.7 billion. It is our deepest hope that Congressional leaders will reject these proposed cuts and restore assistance to hundreds of thousands of households. link


    Parent
    No. (5.00 / 5) (#201)
    by lentinel on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:12:39 PM EST
    My question insinuates that they cut funding.
    Which, in fact, they did.

    Parent