home

Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:26:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

BTD is in court today and I've got to make my powerpoint presentation for this weekend's NORML Aspen Legal Seminar. My topic: "High Hopes and Modest Expectations: Drug Law Reform under President Obama and a Democratic Congress." The rest of the agenda is here.

For lighter fare, here's Joe Biden at the beach. Yes, Obama looks better shirtless.

Update: Thanks to TChris, there will be some updates today, so do check back.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< A "Drink Tax" for Health Care? | Following the Law >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Joe looks great! (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by KoolJeffrey on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 01:13:28 PM EST
    I'm 47, walk three miles a day, count calories obsessively, and I got bigger "moobs" and love handles than he does.

    Rock on veep-dude!

    I purposely waited till well after lunch (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 04:25:12 PM EST
    to look at those photos. Not as bad as I feared. I'm afraid I will be not be caught dead in a bathing suit at 67, so good for him!

    Parent
    great? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:22:20 PM EST
    good maybe?

    Parent
    how about (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:43:39 PM EST
    "better than me?"

    Parent
    ah (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 04:00:05 PM EST
    I dont think better than me.  I will check when I get home.


    Parent
    you made me laugh, there! (none / 0) (#26)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 04:14:41 PM EST
    thanks for the chuckle, captain howdy!

    Parent
    You think funny, Cap (none / 0) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 05:52:18 PM EST
    That's what my late mother would say.  (That's a high compliment.)

    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#64)
    by KoolJeffrey on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 01:08:35 PM EST
    He's not The Terminator or The "Hoff, but still, not bad.

    Parent
    Marriage equality victory! (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:30:24 PM EST
    New Hampshire just became the 6th state to allow same-sex couples to marry.

    Step by step by step...

    And (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:33:52 PM EST
    The House vote was 198-176

    Next stop: New York Senate.

    Parent

    excellent (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:35:25 PM EST
    in your face california

    Parent
    And the second to do it (none / 0) (#33)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 05:55:30 PM EST
    without a court order.

    Six down, 44 to go!

    Parent

    lets shape some attitudes (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:38:51 PM EST
    A majority of Americans, 54%, say they would like to see the Senate confirm Sotomayor to the Court

    its even gallup.

    Obama pushes for Public option?! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:41:55 PM EST

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama urged Congress on Wednesday to create a public health insurance program that would compete with private insurers as part of efforts to pass massive health care reform.

    "I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans," Obama said in a letter to Senators Edward Kennedy and Max Baucus that set an October deadline for passing a bill.

    Link

    And watch out for the "trigger option" (none / 0) (#23)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:51:39 PM EST
    From a MoveOn msg trying to engage members to call their senators:

    They're trying to convince other senators to support a proposal called the "trigger," which is designed to kill the public health insurance option.1 Their plan would delay any decision on whether Americans should get the choice of a public health insurance plan, and even then only implement a much weaker version.


    Parent
    Who are "they"? n/t (none / 0) (#40)
    by sallywally on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 06:32:01 PM EST


    Parent
    They (none / 0) (#62)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 03:09:50 PM EST
    The fact remains that this law exists because the military brass pushed for it when Bill Clinton tried to make good on a campaign promise and the elected Democrats caved to homophobic moderates and wingers, not because there is a valid reason for preventing gays from serving.

    are the people who benefit from the health care industry remaining private and gouging Americans, such as the Pharmaceutical giants. "They" have bought and sold our congress critters and receive nice rewards like laws that prevent American citizens from benefiting from lower priced drugs sold by Canadian companies.

    "They"  are also our elected representatives who get to make decisions about the monetary impact of health care on Americans and American businesses, and who are not at risk themselves because they have a cushy health care plan that we, the public, pays for.


    Parent

    oops (none / 0) (#63)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 03:24:24 PM EST
    Skip the first paragraph. Copied from another post.

    Parent
    In the non-political world (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 04:48:52 PM EST
    The 2009 version of baby red-bellied woodpeckers made an appearance this morning and discovered there is a whole new world outside the black hole where they have been living.

    Two Baby Boys

    Lovely photo! (none / 0) (#29)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 05:02:42 PM EST


    Parent
    how do you know (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 05:25:53 PM EST
    they are boys?

    Parent
    Red hats, Capt (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 06:01:01 PM EST
    The boys have faint red hats, the girls don't.

    Parent
    I knew I took too long (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 06:02:19 PM EST
    Well done.

    Parent
    duh (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 06:41:18 PM EST
    I knew that.
    at some point in my life.

    Parent
    True of most (none / 0) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 12:09:37 AM EST
    though not all woodpeckers.  Don't know for sure that all nestling males show the red hat, either.  But if you see it on an infant woodpecker (or an adult!) it's what we call "diagnotistic."

    Parent
    The girls (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 06:01:34 PM EST
    have no red at all on the top of their heads when young.

    I have spotted at least three in the nest. Not sure yet if the other is a female as that one is staying back in the shadows and yet to make an appearance.

    Last year there were two males and one female. The last one to make an appearance last year was a female.

    Parent

    Oh, gorgeous! (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 06:00:16 PM EST
    I wish I could figure out where mine are keeping house.  Such beautiful birds.

    Parent
    In Brian Williams' (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 09:00:49 PM EST
    interview, Obama is commenting on Dr. Tiller's murder now.  Nothing new there.  Praises acknowledgment of some pro-life groups for recognizing how wrong the murder was.  [Um okay - yes, go pro lifers.  You are all so awesome and stainless!]  And gay marriage - it is not traditionally federal government's role to get involved in marriage, he says.  [Does not acknowledge how little his government has actually done...does not acknowledge DOMA....DADT...etc etc]  On these subjects, maybe Obama goes home at night and puts his fingers in his ears.

    So, I'm guessing Obama did not (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 09:16:02 PM EST
    happen to actually stand up for the right to choose, did he?  Or talk about how the assassination (I'm sure he didn't use that term, either, did he?) was also an assault on women's rights.

    What is wrong with this man that he always has to stick up for, or praise or acknowledge the goodness in groups or positions that are, if not just plain wrong, at least way far over on the other side from where Democrats have a right to expect him to be???

    I don't want to be community-organized to death, or herded into some mushy middle ground and forced to sing Kumbayah around the campfire - I want a president to take a freakin' stand.  Obama is beginning to define for me the word "coward."  And his inability, his failure to LEAD on anything is going to be terribly damaging to this country.

    Parent

    Joe, we need to get on a stationary (none / 0) (#1)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:39:06 PM EST
    bike and do some sit-ups! I said 'we' joe, not just you, lol

    obfuscation (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 01:09:34 PM EST
    lets not let them get away with it.

    Mapping the "climate of hate"
    By Michelle Malkin  *  June 3, 2009 09:45 AM

    My column today contrasts the White House and media responses to the Tiller murder with their silence on the deadly military recruiter attack. In the latest developments on the recruiter case

    --

    lets never let them forget they enabled them BOTH

    they have done their job well (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 01:44:00 PM EST
    depressing

    WASHINGTON - Just over half of Americans say torture is at least sometimes justified to thwart terrorist attacks

    Where did that number come from? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:08:42 PM EST
    Just over half of Americans say torture is at least sometimes justified to thwart terrorist attacks

    Truth is that just over half the people they actually asked may feel that way, but I am seriously tired of polls shaping the attitudes. What questions did they ask?


    Parent

    Probably wouldn't be a good idea to (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:32:44 PM EST
    ask how many people would jump off a bridge, either...just because some people would do something (but, Mooom, all my friends are going to co-ed slumber parties!), doesn't make it a good idea, ya know?

    Parent
    shaping attitudes? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 02:55:39 PM EST
    bridges?

    um, yeah. anyway

    the poll is Associated Press-GfK.

    damn.  it was fully my intention to "shape attitudes" to allow torture and jump off bridges co-ed.

    did it work?

    Parent

    Get a grip, Capt (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:00:42 PM EST
    the criticism is against polls. Unless one knows the questions and where they went to get the opinions, they aren't worth much.

    Parent
    Yes, polls shape attitudes. (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:23:33 PM EST
    How?  Well, think about it for a moment.  How many people get polled, on average?  500?  1,500?  1,000?  Okay, there's some science to all of this, and math, that mixes race and gender and age and all that other good stuff, and we are then supposed to accept that the results accurately reflect the attitudes, beliefs and positions of the entire population.

    People are influenced by poll results.  Tell them Candidate A is ahead, and maybe they will throw their lot in with that person; ooh, Candidate B is slipping...better rally 'round.

    People are way too much like sheep - a lot of people think polls tell what "everyone" is thinking, and some are just lazy enough to think, "hey, I guess if everyone's thinking this, maybe I should, too."

    Maybe if they asked a question like this:

    If the US government mistakenly interpreted some intelligence that resulted in your arrest and detention for being suspected of being part of a planned terrorist attack, do you think the US government would be justified in using torture on you?

    I'm guessing the answer would be a resounding "Hell, no!"

    When the person on whom the torture might be used is assumed to be a nameless, faceless, scary Muslim extremist killer, there are some people who would go for torture; if people were made to realize that the government is not infallible, and could end up using torture on them, or their neighbor, it changes how people think about the answer.

    Yes, polls most definitely shape attitudes.

    Parent

    only until they hear something else (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:30:23 PM EST
    anyone lame enough to have their attitude shaped by a poll will believe the last thing they heard.

    I think the actual point of polls is that attitudes shape them.  for most people.

    Parent

    I think that's naive (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:46:24 PM EST
    You proved in your first post declaring that most Americans approved of torture. You called it depressing. You often cite polls as your defense on an argument.

    Think about it. You have no idea how the questions were framed. Polls are numbers and numbers are manipulated to reach the expected or desired outcome. All they have to do is end the question with ", right?" and they can easily influence/manipulate many people into a yes answer.

    I see polls as absolutely questionable, just like misleading headlines. Jeralyn has a post up today on Bin Laden ... she says he "criticizes Obama", yet MSN's website says "Bin Laden threatens US". Both stories are talking about the tape released today - not different tapes, just different takes.


    Parent

    I guess your opinion is noted (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:57:51 PM EST
    as far as me "citing polls in defense of my argument"? if I thought you knew what the hell you were talking about I would ask.

    Parent
    About the same number (none / 0) (#10)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:07:16 PM EST
    that would repeal The Bill of Rights, if put to a referendum.

    But Hey, Rush Limbaugh runs the Republican party, and Michael Savage has Great Britain cowering on it's knees.

    Clockworld Orange time?

    Parent

    Clockworld Orange time? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:21:28 PM EST
    I think that was last year.  the wingers are very excited about this:

    In the wake of scandal over personal use of taxpayer funds and her controversial ban of talk-radio host Michael Savage, British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith will resign, according to the London Telegraph.

    that is the person who banned Savage.

    about the bill of rights, probably true but I dont think most of them would admit it to a pollster.
    I think the scary thing about that number is that many people actually feel comfortable saying that to a stranger.
    which means the number is probably much higher.


    Parent

    Watching live the GM/Chrysler Hearing (none / 0) (#22)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:50:44 PM EST
    today. They are being asked really harsh questions and the reality of who these companies are trying to take care of is pretty obvious.

    The dealers who have had their licenses yanked are being defended with gusto by the committee members, and dealers who have been cut are there being given a voice in this.

    Very, very informative and easy to see what these guys are doing...still protecting the executive bonuses and shareholder profits over realizing the number of people and businesses that are being hit really hard through their actions.

    The real world (none / 0) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 05:59:04 PM EST
    If they canceled all executive pay entirely, it wouldn't make a dent in their financial problems.

    Shareholder profits?  You have GOT to be kidding.  GM was down from $43 to something like 75 cents before it got kicked off the Dow.

    Shareholder profits?  Oy.

    Parent

    Congress had their eye on the people (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 06:58:04 PM EST
    who have been hurt...the dealers shut down, the people losing their jobs.

    The executives had their eye on fixing the shareholders and getting their stock values back up...they didn't have much to say about the impact they've had on communities that will be losing the revenues from the dealer properties, employment, other businesses that benefit from those people having jobs and the dealership being there.

    In other words, the plans they have for staying in business hadn't changed from the greedy ways that put them in this mess. Does that clear up your misunderstanding?

    Parent

    See GM full page ad in section 1 (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 09:24:40 PM EST
    of today's NYT.

    Parent
    Oh, please (none / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 12:19:00 AM EST


    Parent
    Well, they aren't trying to FIX the employment (none / 0) (#42)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 06:50:40 PM EST
    situation.

    Parent
    Capitalism (none / 0) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 12:17:24 AM EST
    We live in a hyper-capitalist society, in which a business has no obligation whatsoever to worry about the greater good.  In any case, neither Chrysler nor GM has the luxury of taking anything into consideration other than their own survival.

    I don't like it much, but given the system we live under, them's the breaks and raging against the companies that also live under it strikes me as pretty silly.  Rage against capitalism itself all you like and I'll join you.

    But there's nothing even remotely disgraceful about Chrysler and GM doing what they have to do to survive as companies-- which is no certain thing.

    And please, kindly, consider that if they totally ignore shareholder interests, they won't survive either because they will be unable to raise the money they need to keep going.

    They haven't done anything remotely dastardly here.  They've been forced by the U.S. government to take it easier on the workers than they would otherwise do, but that unavoidably means others, like the dealers AND the shareholders (to say nothing of the bondholders) only get the crumbs that are left.

    You would like it the other way around?  Not, I would guess.

    Parent

    You are too kind Don... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 05:21:51 PM EST
    Fleeced?  More like greased:)

    We may have the capacity and the resources...what we don't have is a leader in a position of power with the stones to push it at the federal level. Arnold out in Cali can't do d*ck even if he wanted to with the interstate commerce racket in place.  

    I think we're gonna have to go for real broke before this record changes.  As sure as a crony rakin' it in on the shady side.  

    Might Liz Cheney be the first female (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 06:01:19 PM EST
    President of the U.S.?  

    And acorns, as we all know, (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 07:28:50 PM EST
    are nuts.

    Parent
    My comment stemmed from my just (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 07:37:35 PM EST
    having read her Wiki entry.  Pretty impressive bio.  

    Parent
    I agree that she's (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 12:22:39 AM EST
    a potential threat who should be taken seriously.

    It seems very clear from her joint interview with Daddy on Fox just this week that she is interested in running for office.

    I would suggest that pouring money into whoever the hell her opponent might be when she decides to take the plunge would be an important investment.

    She says the same crap as her father, but without the sneer and the hard edge.  She definitely bears careful watching.

    Parent

    And the Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:18:26 AM EST
    won't stand for the same sexist crap that Democrats did if she did get the nomination.

    Parent
    Olympia Snowe: (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 09:17:58 PM EST
    sez:

    that they discussed the importance of precedence and that Sotomayor had expressed that Roe v. Wade is established law.
    Wyden (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 09:18:51 PM EST
    gets the same story.

    Parent
    Not good enough for moi. (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 09:26:21 PM EST


    Parent
    It's a start (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 10:14:50 PM EST
    I'd probably vote for her.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#60)
    by Bemused on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 07:35:09 AM EST
     Plessy v. Ferguson was longer established law in 1954.

    Parent
    Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment