jump to navigation

Stand off 28 January 2010

Posted by marisacat in Divertissements.
trackback

A red cardinal chases a sparrow away from a feeder near Maysville, Kentucky, US [Terry Prather/AP]

Looks like the cardinal is operating with the energy of divine light… sparrow beware!

About these ads

Comments»

1. ts - 28 January 2010

Heckuva job Hillary:

Karzai to negotiate with Taliban

Karzai wants to bring the Taliban into the Afghan government as a group. Washington, of course, prefers to bribe individual Taliban leaders. Because nothing ends a civil war faster than bribing a general or two to temporarily switch sides. Also, since all the Taliban are “linked to Al Qaeda” (is anyone who shoots at us or our stooges NOT linked to Al Qaeda somehow) and this fact “brings back painful memories of 9/11″, we couldn’t possibly support Karzai on this one.

marisacat - 28 January 2010

the UK papers are reporting that a 5 year time line is under consideration/negotiation…. and all the ministerial cuties for war mongering are there in London for the Big Afghan Conf. Few Aghans at it I would imagine. The odd old boy ambassador, I would think.

ts - 28 January 2010

Another example…

Speaking of tenuous links to the Taliban, I read the whole article, as the lede is that he’s Al Qaeda…

1) His sole link is that he watched a video by Osama bin Laden and stated in an interview that he agrees with Al Qaeda and OBL. He did not train with them, nor does he appear to have any direct contact with any of them.
2) He’s in Somalia, fighting with a Salafi group, one of the many protesting our installation of a puppet government in the country.
3) He went there because he viewed the US as indiscriminately attacking muslims and went to Somalia because his wife is Somali.
4) He’s been fighting since before the latest Ethiopian/US invation on the side of the Islamic Civil Union. He was only declared an enemy when he continued to fight back after the Ethiopian intervention.
5) While there’s no evidence that he’s committed any atrocities, he’s a member of a group that the US military alleges has cut peoples hands and heads off for breaking Sharia, and thus he’s guilty of all their crimes by association.

marisacat - 28 January 2010

aq/terra-ist is anybody we don’t like………………

2. marisacat - 28 January 2010

I just heard on the news that Roeder who killed Dr Tiller in Wichita… the judge restricted the deliberations to First Deg Murder. No consideraton of voluntary manslaughter.

Sounds like it goes to the jury Friday…………..

3. Madman in the Marketplace - 28 January 2010

Obamas’ carefully crafted image of ordinariness may be working

good thing, I guess, because nothing else is.

catnip - 28 January 2010

The problem with ‘perfect’ is that, eventually, the cracks start to show.

marisacat - 28 January 2010

omigod.. that was a terrible article. I felt like a loaf of Wonder Bread was shoved down my throat.

And frankly time for some destruction.

Wht tired fiction.

Madman in the Marketplace - 28 January 2010

what I found interesting is that it took what is a fundamentally dishonest and arguably dangerous thing and spun it as though it was good and admirable.

marisacat - 28 January 2010

I agree… and it was spiritless I wondered if it was an assignement.

4. catnip - 28 January 2010

hey, John Edwards, I want my money back
by vard

149 comments (149 new)

lol…Send Money Now!!

catnip - 28 January 2010

Here’s the thing: I didn’t just support John Edwards for President the last time around. I basically loved John Edwards.

Not as much as I loved his smart, feisty wife Elizabeth, but I loved him nonetheless, and I loved him even more for being married to her.

marisacat - 28 January 2010

Why do they fall in love. Such a big fuckign mistake.

5. Madman in the Marketplace - 28 January 2010

Taibbi:

What’s so ironic about this is that Brooks, in arguing against class warfare, and trying to present himself as someone who is above making class distinctions, is making an argument based entirely on the notion that there is an lower class and an upper class and that the one should go easy on the other because the best hope for collective prosperity is the rich creating wealth for all. This is the same Randian bullshit that we’ve been hearing from people like Brooks for ages and its entire premise is really revolting and insulting — this idea that the way society works is that the productive ” rich” feed the needy “poor,” and that any attempt by the latter to punish the former for “excesses” might inspire Atlas to Shrug his way out of town and leave the helpless poor on their own to starve.

That’s basically Brooks’s entire argument here. Yes, the rich and powerful do rig the game in their own favor, and yes, they are guilty of “excesses” — but fucking deal with it, if you want to eat.

And the really funny thing about Brooks’s take on populists… I mean, I’m a member of the same Yuppie upper class that Brooks belongs to. I can’t speak for the other “populists” that Brooks might be referring to, but in my case for sure, my attitude toward the likes of Lloyd Blankfein and Hank Paulson has nothing to do with class anger.

I don’t hate these guys because they’re rich and went to fancy private schools. Hell, I’m rich and went to a fancy private school. I look at these people as my cultural peers and what angers me about them is that, with many coming from backgrounds similar to mine, these guys chose to go into a life of crime and did so in a way that is going to fuck things up for everyone, rich and poor, for a generation.

Their decision to rig the markets for their own benefit is going to cause other countries to completely lose confidence in the American economy, it will impact the dollar, and ultimately will make all of us involuntary debtors to whichever state we end up having to borrow from to bail these crimes out.

And from my perspective, what makes these guys more compelling as a journalistic subject than, say, the individual homeowner who took on too much debt is a thing that has nothing to do with class, not directly, anyway. It’s that their “excesses” exist in a nexus of political and economic connections that makes them very difficult to police.

marisacat - 28 January 2010

Taibbi seems to miss that greedy bastrds and thieving mongrels exist at all levels. The awful thing is that the rich and richly resourced use those protections, which most of society abets, to escape detection and accusation.

And it’s all legal thanks to the law makers. And constitutional law profs.

marisacat - 28 January 2010

well I see he gets there:

It’s that their “excesses” exist in a nexus of political and economic connections that makes them very difficult to police.

BooHooHooMan - 28 January 2010

unfortunately , :roll:
as are the too readily accepted cultural prohibitions for not just shooting them……that and the body disposal…Ever try and set a banker out, the way garbage haulers are these days? Everything in a special can or a special day…I mean Jersey is going totally down the shitter, now.

Regular Household items on Monday. recyclables on Wednesday..Larger Items like Bankers, Lawyers and Crooked Pols in the Refrigerator, only twice a year, and then it’s doors removed and all….

marisacat - 28 January 2010

lordy. I struggle just to get rid fo the boxes things come in. I have TWO cardboard boxes that computers came in, this one and the last one too. AND the box the TV came in. And the boxes the little stuff comes in. It HAS to be cut up and stacked.

gah.

Forget throwing a banker out on the trash.

ts - 28 January 2010

Gotta bring back the old Mojo Nixon standard:

I hate banks, just can’t stand em
Gimme a shovel and man I’ll plant em
Six feet under is where they belong
I hate banks is the name of this song
Think I’ll rob myself one or two
I hate banks man how bout you?

BooHooHooMan - 28 January 2010

The Basement. Good Choice. I like how you think. :lol:

BooHooHooMan - 28 January 2010

Speaking of the Class Divide…

Extrapolate this out,
and their will be no sport.

Just rich assholes suing each other on television in the not so distant future SPONSORED BY other rich assholes selling advertising to other rich assholes selling something so the poor assholes like you and me might watch it on T.V. distracting us from thoughts of running down to the courthouse studios and ball peen hammering the Rich Asshole Occupants to death.. Over rich asshole objections and exceptions taken – splat – I’m sure.

6. catnip - 28 January 2010

Blair set to mount spirited defence at Iraq inquiry

Go for it, Tony. This should be interesting.

catnip - 28 January 2010

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said the ex-PM was expected to say Saddam Hussein had the “capacity and intent” to build weapons of mass destruction.

Pathetic.

marisacat - 28 January 2010

geesh that basically melts down to SH reeeely reely wanted a bomb… a big ol’ bomb. Intell told us so. US manufactured intell told me so.

And we reeeely reely wanted to invade. Bush reeeely needed me to sign on.

And I did.

7. marisacat - 28 January 2010

gah. So did the WH not bother to tie down the NY delegation and the mayor of the god damned city OR did they bother and Bloomie faked them out. I read earlier that Gillibrand and Velasquez were joining Bloomberg in the opposition.

Via Politico “44”

BREAKING — The White House has asked the Justice Department to consider alternate locations for the planned Manhattan trials of self-professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged terrorists, according to reports.

The shift came after Mayor Bloomberg, who had supported the decision to hold the trails there, asked the Justice Department to reconsider on Wednesday, and a host of New York politicians then joined him in calling on the trials to be moved out of the city. (12:06 a.m.)

marisacat - 28 January 2010

hmm this was 8 hours ago… also in Politico

Deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton told reporters on Air Force One that the Obama administration is not backing off its plans to try accused Sept. 11 conspirator Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a New York City courtroom. …

BooHooHooMan - 28 January 2010

Bloomie so wants to run in 2012..He’d definitely be too old and out of the limelite after that, money or no money. Albeit from the cheap seats here, I agree with observers who think he secured his 3rd term as Mayor as the platform to maintain national visibility to the next go round in his metamorphosis.. But Without some type of positively regular shlub tissue issue differentiation that he could claim as his own of New York…, a closer look at his dealings from the stratosphere will be a problem for him…So he goes for the USA USA thing of all whipped up USA things : 9/11. No news, I know, Ob specifically and shamelessly whored the ole USA! USA! line last night in some utterly contrived vignettes about the cry that went up ( sure) when Our American Heroes™ performed “rescues” in Haiti…( link, please? with video? Anyone?) Like that would be the first thing people would be yelling instead of calling for stretchers as some solitary pulverized souls emerge from concrete rubble. GMAFB.
But I digress.

I can’t imagine Bloomberg’s reversal on the KSM trial in NY is to provide Ob cover for WH backpedalling.. could be part of it, but he has to be the guy best positioned to run the now in vogue Independent con on the voters in 012. If Ob’s DOJ, political fingers licked and held to the wind, reverses course and either seeks or agrees to a change of venue now, it still wouldn’t let Bloomie off for his initial positions… Now he can position it as “NY would have done it’s duty….Buuut…911 911 911 etc…”

I think he’ll run in 012 , some sweatery Grandpa Reagan redux thing combined with NY righteous slobber over 911, combined with the Smart Bidneffssman shtick…..that and 15 Billion dollars at his disposal from insider trading machines.

marisacat - 28 January 2010

It sounds like Ob and Holder are going to reverse. Paterson was against ti months (or weeks, time is congealing) ago, when it was first announced… and iirc he let loose with some commetnary about not being advised much less consulted.

And the NY delegation is lining up against it.

Again, this all just seems STUPID (making a decision that gets bulldozed and in public)… and lacking in political finesse.

marisacat - 28 January 2010

I went to NYDN to see what is up…………. and was stunned to see this. Really, does this group think out anything? At all?

WASHINGTON – The White House revealed Thursday night it boosted funding for ailing 9/11 responders – pumping more money into the treatment program than ever before.

Team Obama disclosed the cash only after outraging New York lawmakers with the news that the administration won’t back a permanent plan to help the dying Ground Zero responders.

The White House confirmed it will more than double the budget for treating ill responders to $150 million in 2011.

The abrupt revelation came after the Daily News reported New York lawmakers were shocked Wednesday when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the administration does not support mandatory funding for the $11 billion permanent treatment plan.

“I was stunned – and very disappointed,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. ….

Read more: LINK

BooHooHooMan - 29 January 2010

LOL You are right…

Jeezis it didn’t take long.
Up on Politico now…

W.H. may move terror trials out of NY

After Bloomberg voiced objections Wednesday, other New York Dems lined up to join him.

So much for fool’s errand boy Bill Burton.
Their communications flacks are really a fuckin mess.
As the saying goes, lol,
The fish rots….all over. That’s it.
The whole fish just rots.

marisacat - 29 January 2010

I thought Bill Burton should have been quietly dumped back in the election. IMO he mishandled the first Ob camp comments on the entrance of Palin into the race. IIRC it was pretty misogynistic… and then quick as a wink, Clyburn reinforced it.

But why stop the boys from being boys.

marisacat - 29 January 2010

From the Mike Allen Playbook…

PLAYBOOK FACTS OF LIFE: This was driven by Mayor Bloomberg’s opposition, and more by cost than by risk — NYPD costs had gotten out of hand. KSM will not be tried in NYC. Maybe on a military base, or overseas. Sen. Schumer was also against it.

It’s unanimous!

I am also remembering the interview that Holder sat for right after the announce of this decision, to do it in NYC. He came off as a massive example of Peter Principle… as I recall. One of the very few people he consulted was his brother, or brother-in-law who is (again iirc) a retired West Side Terminal security cop. Also claimed this was his decision alone, Ob was not a part of it.

Yeah really!

This was designed to fail.

8. BooHooHooMan - 28 January 2010

Oh FFS. It’s a Dork Off.

To Nate Silver: Look Harder At Your Own Data
by Progressive American Patriot
Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 08:07:58 PM PST

Nate Sivler has a post arguing based on correlation of word frequency with past State of the Unions that Obama re-branded himself in the State of the Union to be more Clintonian. Only including rhetorical aspects, while excluding policy aspects that vary greatly based on the particular problems that a president faces, Nate finds that the correlation between Obama’s 2010 speech and past Clinton speeches is even greater than when he includes policy aspects. He also says that “What’s just as striking, however, is how dissimilar Obama’s State of the Union was to any predecessor apart from Clinton.” Nate is correct about….

Armchair quants on Fridays with the paper and plastics?

marisacat - 28 January 2010

I get an image of a version of ”If it’s Tuesday it must be Belgium!”

If it’s Monday I must be JFK, if it is Tuesday I must be FDR, if it is Wednesday …. why then I am Clinton.

Or not.

catnip - 28 January 2010

You forgot Hoover! (But that’s reserved for Saturday between 1-3 am ET.)

BooHooHooMan - 28 January 2010

And Lincoln! And Martin Mendella- Bobby- TuTu!
Holy Jeeeesus Ghandi! We’re going to a 10 day week!
Besides! Think of what it will do for average weekly earnings!

marisacat - 28 January 2010

On Sundays he is JESUS. And don’t forget it.

Jesus with teleprompters.

9. Madman in the Marketplace - 28 January 2010

gawd people are stupid:

Australian censor board demands large-breasted porn-stars

A reader writes, “Australian Classification Board (ACB) is now banning depictions of small-breasted women in adult publications and films. They banned mainstream pornography from showing women with A-cup breasts, apparently on the grounds that they encourage paedophilia, and in spite of the fact this is a normal breast size for many adult women. Presumably small breasted women taking photographs of themselves will now be guilty of creating simulated child pornography, to say nothing of the message this sends to women with modestly sized chests or those who favour them. Australia has also banned pornographic depictions of female ejaculation, a normal orgasmic sexual response in many women, with censors branding it as ‘abhorrent.'”

marisacat - 28 January 2010

Doesn’t it sound like someone has a preference or perhaps even fetish for large breasts and wants to make sure that is what is on the screen???

Really, there is no hope………………

Madman in the Marketplace - 28 January 2010

that was my thought, coupled with a deeply pathological fear of female sexuality.

marisacat - 28 January 2010

and my limited experience with specialty marketing, I am sure pron carefully categorises their merch. Just ask for the big breast movies.

And specify movies that don’t indulge in female effluvia.

BooHooHooMan - 28 January 2010

{Crickets, here from the Mayor of Manboob, New Jersey.} :shock:

marisacat - 29 January 2010

it’s just nutty to have a whole censorship board to rule over this……….. reminds me of how into porn Ken Starr had to be to drag out the hunting down of Clinton and Monica… Transcripts up the wazooooooo

it was nothing but odd, aside from the political warfare of it all, of course.

BooHooHooMan - 29 January 2010

It all was thought to be an easy hook, the invite for a voyeuristic public who would then oblige with feigned outrage. Unfortunately for Starr, and fortunately for Clinton, more than half the country was busy shopping, lol , plenty in those plentiful times making the trip to the healthy vegetable aisle for award winning cucumbers before stopping at the video store on the way home…So I’m told….Not that I know about such things. LOL.

Anyways, The OOJ was lost in the jerkey.
Clinton flat out obstructed justice.
While the WH staff – with no small emphasis from the Admin women – went out of their way to trample Jones as a “slut”…

Nasty people. They’re still around, too.

marisacat - 29 January 2010

oh I agree with all of that. I never defended Clinton… LOL Not my job – he stupidly gave the right just what they needed when he knew they were wild for what he delivered…… Not that I ever cared where he put the plumbing – some women pundits (Totenburg and Cokie in particular) acted as tho he stepped out on THEM…

if you remember when he broke a bone in his foot? It happened late in the evening when he was visiting Greg Norman… who had a great set up, out at the end of a promontory, down in FL. Heavy tree coverage, big tall mature trees, a main house and several guest cottages. Large property… Old Bill broke his foot walking late at night on the property.

I laughed pretty hard at the first news report… and hoped for his sake it happened leaving her cottage.

BUT Starr definitely was imo a bizarre sick little whatever. shades of Salem.

Think I have mentioned ti before but the whole thing was just a mess… Bill C’s actual GF, the sort of official one, at the time was whatshername… she was head of his Board of Economic Advisors… d’Andrea Tyson… older, married … it would have been very hard to crack that, for public consumption, the way Starr and his minions served up Monica… there would be no Linda Tripp right at Tyson’s shoulder, etc. No blue dress… . She was hardly as vulnerable as Monica… no delivering pizza to the Oval for d’AT. Poor Monica was pathetically glad to do that sort of thing.

I think Bill wanted to get “caught”… I heard it from his own lips at some point, forget in what setting, that as Monica was young he “knew she would talk about the affair”.

Madman in the Marketplace - 29 January 2010

very weird.

marisacat - 29 January 2010

I esp remember the morning driveway mini conflabs that Starr would have, as he left his house, coffee mug in hand. That strange sick smooth boy scout’s face. Irrepressible joy at his daily work of pouring over the details.

10. marisacat - 28 January 2010

hmm doesn’t seem like Paul K had a come to Jesus The Obama moment last night.

catnip - 29 January 2010

Obama’s a peacock?

That’s racist…or something!

But, of course, he won’t go all the way…

So we’re paralyzed in the face of mass unemployment and out-of-control health care costs. Don’t blame Mr. Obama. There’s only so much one man can do, even if he sits in the White House. Blame our political culture instead, a culture that rewards hypocrisy and irresponsibility rather than serious efforts to solve America’s problems.

Such BS. This is ALL on Obama. Even he said that the buck stops with him and, in this case, that’s literal.

11. marisacat - 29 January 2010

hmm This very public spat, fight, lovers’ quarrel, sibling rivalry…what ever it is … that the Dems and the Potus have picked with the Scotus… well it tells me the Dems and Ob have some frightening numbers in polling the base.

Big base rally.

Because the Dems are keepign it going. Clearly. Lots of fresh quotes in the article from senior and Leadership Dems.

But Democrats see it otherwise — insisting that the decision represents exactly the sort of precedent-bucking judicial activism that Roberts and Alito rejected in sworn testimony during their confirmation hearings.

Referring to the memorable analogy in which Roberts compared himself to a baseball umpire, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told POLITICO this week, “He’s not somebody who just measures balls and strikes. It’s been the most activist court that I’ve seen in my 17 years in the committee.”

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Roberts in particular “totally misrepresented himself” in testifying about upholding precedent.

In a speech on the Senate floor Thursday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) singled out Alito, saying he had testified that the court has a “limited role” and should not be overstepping its bounds and “invading the authority of Congress.” In the Citizens United case, Leahy said that Alito and the other justices substituted their preferences for the will of Congress, calling the ruling the most partisan decision since the court stepped in to stop the Florida presidential recount in 2000. …

May they all bite each other to death.

12. marisacat - 29 January 2010

hmmm Good news… esp as the market looks shakey in Jan.
:lol: Of course the “4th q” is the PAST

Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:

The Economy Grew 5.7 Percent in the 4th Quarter, Fastest Pace Since 2003 [8:58 a.m. ET]

For more on this and other breaking news go to ABCNews.com: http://abcnews.go.com?nwltr=bn

ts - 29 January 2010

Increased inventories were responsible for about 3.6% and the rest of the economy grew 2.1%.

Household consumption growth is extremely weak, considering that the final bit of cash-for-clunkers goosed the data and we’ve had a huge fiscal and monetary stimulus. Investment outside of inventories was barely in positive territory.

As long as unemployment remains high and consumer credit is shrinking, we’re not going to see consumer spending. Without that, we’re not going to have a need for new investment. Without both, we can’t have a strong recovery.

marisacat - 29 January 2010

I read a good piece today, forget where, about how very dependent this particular recovery is on NEW jobs. Not just an upswing or whatever is the usual waning of a recession…

ain’t gonna happen.

I think no matter what some very very bleak years coming. Here already… actually.

considering that the final bit of cash-for-clunkers goosed the data and we’ve had a huge fiscal and monetary stimulus.

Europen news reports I caught today, DW, Euronews, RT … and France 24 (I just did nto catch BBC) all mentioned the stumble bill money as gooising the numbers.. absolutely.

One thing that is relentlessly sold out here is the modest bit of money available for things liek weatherizing and new windows.. 1500.00 but I am sure anything “off” helps people decide to do something like that.

What is not getting mentioned, much, is that there is no interest with the banks out here in loaning money on houses (gee no shock) for green modifications that are costly…

nd so on

13. marisacat - 29 January 2010

OK !! Scraping bottom.. Ivanka Trump on ABC giving political commentary.

She and Mort Zukerman are covering the waterfront on “come backs” from Ob to Leno to Ford… (so far, stay tuned!)

14. catnip - 29 January 2010

Bin Laden goes green.

“Speaking about climate change is not a matter of intellectual luxury — the phenomenon is an actual fact,” bin Laden said, according to the Al-Jazeera website.

catnip - 29 January 2010

From the comments:

Can we get his thoughts on Bank Reform?

lol

marisacat - 29 January 2010

Isn’t this a hoot! A green eco smart hoot of course.

15. catnip - 29 January 2010

We canucks are such undisciplined barbarians

VANCOUVER (CBC) – Staff at Vancouver City Hall are being told to make sure their socks match their pants, avoid gossiping about their personal lives and to remember to smile, but not too much, as part of their protocol training for handling Olympic dignitaries.
[...]
City employees are urged to keep hair tidy, yet stylish, cautioned not to wear socks that are too short for fear of showing off bare leg, and advised to carry extra clothes because dress shirts stain easily. They are also advised that tight clothes make slim people look gaunt and a large person look heavier.
[...]
Under a section titled “Humility” in the introduction, the guide says, “You never say, ‘That’s not my job.’ There is nothing too demeaning, too demanding, or just plain beneath you. If you are not comfortable opening car doors, holding umbrellas or pitching baggage, then you need to find another job.”

A section on facial expressions urges employees to smile gently and with sincerity, but notes that false smiles can look artificial and never-ending smiles can invite suspicion.

“And remember that ‘Protocol Smile.’ It ought to get larger the worse things get from your perspective. Let them think you are in complete control,” says the guide.

There’s also this tip that nodding usually means you agree, and it can also you mean you understand, but to be careful because too much nodding can be seen as insincere.

And for those assigned to dignitaries, the manual advises protocol officers to stay hydrated, take bathroom breaks whenever there is time, avoid jangling the change in their pockets, and avoid talking about politics, religion or personal marital problems.

And try not to throw up on anybody’s shoes.

16. catnip - 29 January 2010

Brrreaking: Tiller’s killer guilty of first degree murder.

catnip - 29 January 2010

The jury was out for 37 minutes.

marisacat - 29 January 2010

oh good news! I worried that somehow something might go wrong…

17. catnip - 29 January 2010

Obamalama’s in Baltimore speaking to his base – the Repubs.

marisacat - 29 January 2010

I just heard on TV that when the meeting was ready to move to a closed session, Ob said, NO, let’s keep the doors open!!

His numbers must have REALLY tanked.

18. marisacat - 29 January 2010

gnu…

LINK
:roll:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 169 other followers

%d bloggers like this: