Open forum, Nov. 28 - Dec. 4

Published:

 

The forums are moderated by Columbian staff and our community guidelines and terms of service still apply. To participate, login with your Columbian.com ID or register for an account at Columbian.com.

Columbian staff members create new forum threads. Don't see a forum topic here that fits your comments? Email Web Editor Libby Tucker, libby.tucker@columbian.com, or Social Media Coordinator Matt Wastradowski, matt.wastradowski@columbian.com.


179 comments

Comments

********************* BREAKING NEWS *********************
The Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be a Nativity Scene in the United States' Capital this Christmas season. This isn't for any religious reason. They simply have not been able to find Three Wise Men in the Nation's Capitol. A search for a Virgin continues. There was NO problem, however, finding enough asses to fill the stable !!!

commonguy — November 28, 2011 at 6:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal


TO ALL MY LIBERAL FRIENDS:

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2012, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wish.

TO ALL MY CONSERVATIVE FRIENDS:

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ 2012

commonguy — November 28, 2011 at 7:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**The Obama Spending Non-Surge**
Blogging is a lot like teaching the same class year after year; you’re always encountering the same arguments you’ve refuted in the past, and you want to demand why they weren’t listening the last time.

Anyway, what I’m seeing in comments and reactions, once again, is the claim that Obama has presided over a vast expansion of government — a claim backed not by describing any specific programs, but by pointing to the share of federal spending in GDP. Indeed, federal spending rose from 19.6% of GDP in 2007 to 23.8% in 2010 (it was briefly 25 in 2009, but that was a number distorted by the financial bailouts). So there has been a roughly 4 points of GDP rise in the spending share. What’s that about?

Well, part of the answer is that the ratio is up because the denominator is down. According to CBO estimates, in fiscal 2010 the economy operated about 7 percent below potential. This means that even if what the government was doing hadn’t changed, the federal spending share of GDP would have risen by 1.4 percentage points.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/the-obama-spending-non-surge/

mr_basil_seal — November 28, 2011 at 7:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**The Age of the Superfluous Worker**
By Herbert J. Gans

AMERICA, like other modern countries, has always had some surplus workers — people ready to work but jobless for extended periods because the “job creators,” private and public, have been unable or unwilling to create sufficient jobs. When the number of surplus workers rose sharply, the country also had ways of reducing it.

However, the current jobless recovery, and the concurrent failure to create enough new jobs, is breeding a new and growing surplus pool. And some in this pool are in danger of becoming superfluous, likely never to work again.

The currently jobless and the so-called discouraged workers, who have given up looking for work, total about 15 percent of the work force, not including the invisible discouraged workers the government cannot even find to count.

In the old days — before Social Security, welfare and Medicaid — poverty-caused illnesses killed off or incapacitated some of the people who could not find jobs. Even earlier, some nations sold their surplus workers as slaves, while the European countries could send them to the colonies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/opinion/the-age-of-the-superfluous-worker.html

mr_basil_seal — November 28, 2011 at 7:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Things to Tax**
By Paul Krugman
For example, a recent report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center points out that before 1980 very-high-income individuals fell into tax brackets well above the 35 percent top rate that applies today. According to the center’s analysis, restoring those high-income brackets would have raised $78 billion in 2007, or more than half a percent of G.D.P. I’ve extrapolated that number using Congressional Budget Office projections, and what I get for the next decade is that high-income taxation could shave more than $1 trillion off the deficit.

It’s instructive to compare that estimate with the savings from the kinds of proposals that are actually circulating in Washington these days. Consider, for example, proposals to raise the age of Medicare eligibility to 67, dealing a major blow to millions of Americans. How much money would that save?

Well, none from the point of view of the nation as a whole, since we would be pushing seniors out of Medicare and into private insurance, which has substantially higher costs. True, it would reduce federal spending — but not by much. The budget office estimates that outlays would fall by only $125 billion over the next decade, as the age increase phased in. And even when fully phased in, this partial dismantling of Medicare would reduce the deficit only about a third as much as could be achieved with higher taxes on the very rich.

So raising taxes on the very rich could make a serious contribution to deficit reduction. Don’t believe anyone who claims otherwise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/opinion/krugman-things-to-tax.html

mr_basil_seal — November 28, 2011 at 7:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Maybe that's why the R's want to gut the social safety nets. Gut those progarams and more unneeded workers can die off, thereby reducing the pool.

mrd — November 28, 2011 at 7:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal


If you have the time, a pretty amazing write. This story has legs that haven't grown yet. Let the Marathon begin!

This is a tough read for Libertarians. I know it's shocking when the free market fails. This is why we need transparency & regulation.

**Secret Fed Loans Gave Banks Undisclosed $13B**

The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue.

“I believe that the Fed should have independence in conducting highly technical monetary policy, but when they are putting taxpayer resources at risk, we need transparency and accountability,” says **Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee.**

Saved by the bailout, bankers lobbied against government regulations, a job made easier by the Fed, which never disclosed the details of the rescue to lawmakers even as Congress doled out more money and debated new rules aimed at preventing the next collapse.They had no clue that one bank, New York-based Morgan Stanley (MS), took $107 billion in Fed loans in September 2008, enough to pay off one-tenth of the country’s delinquent mortgages. The firm’s peak borrowing occurred the same day Congress rejected the proposed TARP bill, triggering the biggest point drop ever in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. (INDU) The bill later passed, and Morgan Stanley got $10 billion of TARP funds, though Paulson said only “healthy institutions” were eligible.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html

nailingit — November 28, 2011 at 8:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


It is amazing to read some of the financial dealings and corruption which happened pre-inauguration day of January 20 2009. What a corrupt mess. And people wonder why Obama hasn't waved a wand and fixed everything.

nailingit — November 28, 2011 at 8:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal


welcome basement to a new, wet, dark, cold day. hope my just-planted tulips don't drown.

DeeLittle — November 28, 2011 at 8:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Politicians/Bankers/lobbyists/those that are blatantly responsible for acts of fraud and deception need to be investigated and charged with crimes if need be. Till that happens, OWS is here to stay, and absolute distrust of Government will continue.

A third party candidate that will garner a considerable voting block? Here's your platform.

nailingit — November 28, 2011 at 8:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I might add this story broke the same time Barney Frank announced he's not seeking future office. I'm not implying anything whatsoever. Just a side thought to consider.

nailingit — November 28, 2011 at 8:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal



mr_basil_seal — November 28, 2011 at 9:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal


HaHaHa, I love it. It's about time!!!

Federal Judge Blocks Citigroup’s Mortgage Settlement With S.E.C.

A federal judge in New York on Monday threw out a settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Citigroup over a 2007 mortgage derivatives deal, saying that the S.E.C.’s policy of settling cases by allowing a company to neither admit nor deny the agency’s allegations did not satisfy the law.

The judge, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Federal District Court in Manhattan, ruled that the S.E.C.’s $28 million settlement, announced last month, is “neither fair, nor adequate, nor in the public interest” because it does not provide the court with evidence on which to judge the settlement.

The ruling could throw the S.E.C.’s enforcement efforts into chaos, because a majority of the fraud and other cases that the agency brings against Wall Street firms are settled out of court, most often with a condition that the defendant does not admit that it violated the law while also promising not to deny it.

hawkeye — November 28, 2011 at 10:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Correction: An earlier alert misstated the size of the settlement. It was for $285 million, not $28 million.

hawkeye — November 28, 2011 at 10:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window**

But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

There you have it — indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial. And the Senate is likely to vote on it Monday or Tuesday.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being/

mr_basil_seal — November 28, 2011 at 3:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal- One really has to page through the right wing sites to get info on this. Icky. Better to target a site than search. Gross...(how do these right wingers do it? These people would use house paint on a new car!)

This looks to be a problem without the Udall Amendment. From what I understand Obama is threatening a veto if it's watered down? Not sure of specifics. Any credible site that goes into detail? This seems to provide quite a bit, but still wondering about motivation for the veto threat. Most or all Republicans on board with enough Dems to get it passed? Someone needs to be held accountable with regards to the nature/transparency of doing business this way. imho. :))

###?!: US Senate To Vote On Bill That Will Allow The Military To Arrest Americans On American Soil And Hold Them Indefinitely

By Stephen D. Foster Jr.
Addicting Info.org
Since Occupy Wall Street began, American police officers have arrested thousands of people for exercising their constitutionally protected right to protest. On Monday or Tuesday, the US Senate will vote on a bill that would give the President the ability to order the military to arrest and imprison American citizens anywhere in the world for an indefinite period of time.
A provision of S. 1867, or the National Defense Authorization Act bill, written by Senators John McCain and Carl Levin, declares American soil a battlefield and allows the President and all future Chief Executives to order the military to arrest and detain American citizens, innocent or not, without charge or trial. In other words, if this bill passes and the President signs it, OWS protesters or any American could end up arrested and indefinitely locked up by the military without the guaranteed right to due process or a speedy trial.
This bill was written in secret and approved by committee without a single hearing. Senate Republicans support the bill and enough Democrats support it to give it a great chance of passing. This provision does have opponents. President Obama has threatened to veto the bill and even Ron Paul is concerned enough to bring it up during one of the GOP debates. An amendment called the Udall Amendment has been offered by Democratic Senator Mark Udall that would delete the dangerous provision. (MORE)

http://www.progressivenewsdaily.com/

nailingit — November 28, 2011 at 3:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal


BTW crazy, thanks for bringing something to the forum that wasn't insult/idiocy.

nailingit — November 28, 2011 at 3:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"Friends are forever! Everything else is a bonus."

So much for taking advantage of Godfather pizza deals. Oh, and by the way...

...hold the sausage and easy on the sauce!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/28/ginger-white-herman-cain_n_1117364.html?ref=politics

nailingit — November 28, 2011 at 3:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Anyone else notice the geriatric-themed articles sprouting up on The Columbian of late? Could the journalist suits be waking up to what the true demographic of their Clark County reader base is? Even more of the FB crowd is blue-haired and long in the tooth, if the photos are an honest reflection of their owners.

nailingit at 3:33 PM: Herman Cain is a piece of work. This latest woman would probably have not come forward with a personal, mutually consensual relationship (who cares?) had he not been so full of bravado and BS about the others.

I truly do not know if there is an honest politician left. I keep waiting for a hero(ine) that has a spotless record and is altruistic.

Bernie Sanders, anyone?

manthou — November 28, 2011 at 7:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal


This from our Occupy Wall Street friends in NYC: They are livestreaming the occupation of the state building in Olympia as I type:

http://occupywallst.org/

Where are the local media?

manthou — November 28, 2011 at 7:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Politicians don't have to be honest. Naive voters put them into office anyway. Look at the last three presidents. It's sad to say that Bush was probably the most honest of the bunch. obama proved how easily people can be swayed to believe anything you tell them if you are a good enough talker. Example, he conned the brainwashed youth and the ignorant ghetto residents. All he had to do to get their vote was promise them a rose garden. Since he has probably lost that vote, now he is after the Mexican and homosexual voters. Throw in the older ones, who are afraid of losing their medical and retirement because of his lies and he is a shoo-in. Without Christie in the running, there isn't anyone worth voting for.

cranky — November 28, 2011 at 8:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal


cranky-by and large, every politician is dishonest. The more powerful, the greater the degree of dishonesty. Tell voters what they want to hear, do what the money wants. Watch the polls, and adjust your rhetoric to match. "Float" or "leak" items to see which way the wind is blowing. And always CYA. Have excuses ahead of time in case of failure.

mrd — November 29, 2011 at 7:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd — November 29, 2011 at 7:36 a.m

OK, just one question for you my friend, just what does "by and large" mean? I've heard it for years and asked the question several time, even tried to look it up but to no avail. Can you help me out?

hawkeye — November 29, 2011 at 8:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye-

it means a whole bunch.

this article is a good take on the scams being run by the powers to be. I would find it very difficult to argue with this guy.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011112995048821377.html

mrd — November 29, 2011 at 8:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Did this get reported in the C?

**Constituents Rebuke GOP Congresswoman For Her Allegiance To ‘No Tax’ Pledge Instead Of The Constitution**
By Marie Diamond on Nov 28, 2011 at 1:35 pm

Last week, Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA) continued the trend of Republicans avoiding angry constituents by holding an invitation-only “community coffee.” But even the small number of constituents at the exclusive event did not let Herrera Beutler off the hook, asking her tough questions about her allegiance to a “no tax” pledge:
U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler said Tuesday she’s happy with the smaller settings of her invitation-only “community coffees” and isn’t planning to hold another large-scale town hall. About 60 people attended her latest gathering at Judy’s Restaurant in Longview on Tuesday morning, a fraction of the attendance at earlier town halls in her Southwest Washington district. [...]
At Tuesday’s meeting, the more intimate setting didn’t cause people to shy away from criticizing the congresswoman. Kathy Thompson, a Longview real-estate broker, blasted Herrera Beutler for signing conservative activist Grover Norquist’s pledge not to support any tax increase of any kind.
“I think this is totally un-American. I think your only pledge should be to uphold the Constitution of the United States,” Thompson said.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/28/376726/constituents-beutler-no-tax-pledge/

mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 9:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 9:03 a.m.

Is that what you consider quality journalism?

frobert — November 29, 2011 at 10:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Good read and a great find mr_basil_seal. I wonder if the C is operating with the "hard to prove a negative" train of thought in hopes that this paper is a primary source of news for most. Omission can be a powerful political tool, when obfuscation becomes the rule. Hopefully the C is only inept and not pushing a political agenda.

'See no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil.'

Not reporting negative details with regards to Herrera's meetings might hold the bloodthirsty baggers at bay to some degree. Whatever the reason, agenda driven or incompetency, it doesn't wash.

nailingit — November 29, 2011 at 10:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*Nailing it: "might hold the bloodthirsty baggers at bay to some degree"*

Yeah, I love reading about our local news on an international website rather than the local PAPER OF RECORD!

mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 11:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Forgot to say thanks....

I wonder what the Lews and Dave Madores on the FB side would say if it were there....

mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 11:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I seem not to be gray barred....

frobert — November 29, 2011 at 10:01 a.m.

If you have a specific issue with the article, state it. Where is it inaccurate?

BTW, we are still waiting for some citations:

Asking the same answered question over and over does not make your failed argument any stronger. frobert — November 22, 2011 at 2:53 a.m.

I wouldn't have to ask "over and over" of you had "answered question"?

Btw - my repeated questioning isn't an effort to prove my point.

It is to note that you haven't answered the questions;

So, here we go again: ( and yes, the list gets longer. Has something to do with you trying to change subjects rather than respond.)

Specifically, the ones that discuss why that one company - with umpteen years to reformulate their product - made a choice not to.

Oh, don't forget:

"My reasoning is no law is better then one clarifying which is already clear."

????????

Really.

??????????

What is "already clear"?

AND

WHAT exactly are your examples of "expansion of government past it's [sic] constitutional constraints" ( http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/nov/14/open-forum-nov-14-20/#c202010)

AND your failure to bring anything to support:

The OWS movement was over before it began, because they had no cohesive message. frobert — November 18, 2011 at 1:37 p.m.

and

frobert — November 22, 2011 at 9 p.m.

Doesn't strike you as not the least bit odd that only you know that?

Oh,wait; there was a court case...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6367/is_11_75/ai_n28879853/

Know of any that overturned that?

mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 11:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 11:11 a.m.

For the last time I will answer

"with umpteen years to reformulate their product - made a choice not to."

The product IS reformulated, however it takes years to get FDA approval. The product should remain on the market and approval should be expedited.

"????????"

What is clear is the states already have the authority to not recognize marriages from other states because of age or family relations, so it is clear that a state currently does not have to recognize other marriages it sees fit.

"WHAT exactly are your examples of "expansion of government past it's [sic] constitutional constraints" ( http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/nov/14/open-forum-nov-14-20/#c202010)"

I said "advocate" and my examples include the patriot act, using "under god" in the pledge and federal regulation on abortion.

"AND your failure to bring anything to support:

The OWS movement was over before it began, because they had no cohesive message."

As I said at the time this is my opinion, and was used as to convey the fact that support of the movement was inconsequential to the support of their right to protest. You should read the whole post before you condemn it, it was obvious that the small part of my post that you took out of context was meant as personal opinion.

"Doesn't strike you as not the least bit odd that only you know that?

Oh,wait; there was a court case..."

You should have read your own link, the court actually sidestepped the issue.

frobert — November 29, 2011 at 12:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Ahhh, sourceless retorts...

"The product IS reformulated, however it takes years to get FDA approval. The product should remain on the market and approval should be expedited."

Ummm, they HAD YEARS to make the change AND get FDA testing...

Which pretty much sums up the similarity in weakness of the rest of your arguments.

But, it is nice to see that, when pressed, you will at least attempt to support a claim or two.

mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 12:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 -- 11:54 AM EST

Herman Cain Is Reassessing His Bid for Republican Presidential Nomination, an Aide Says

Herman Cain told members of his campaign staff on Tuesday that he was reassessing whether to proceed with his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, an aide confirmed, a day after an Atlanta woman disclosed details of what she said was a 13-year affair with him.

In a morning conference call with his advisers, Mr. Cain said that he would make a decision in the coming days about whether to stay in the presidential race after his campaign was rocked by another round of allegations about his sexual conduct.

***Hmmmmm, wonder how this will turn out***

hawkeye — November 29, 2011 at 1:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 12:44 p.m.

Are you saying that liberals are okay with killing people, as long as they can reasonably blame someone else? Drug companies exists to make a profit, government exists for the betterment of mankind. Our senators voted to let people die rather then support a bill proposed by a republican.

frobert — November 29, 2011 at 1:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*Our senators voted to let people die rather then support a bill proposed by a republican.*

You really need to walk through how you got there from

*"Are you saying that liberals are okay with killing people, as long as they can reasonably blame someone else?"*

mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 1:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


And it seems rather odd you made a choice to ignore supporting your claim, "The OWS movement was over before it began, because they had no cohesive message."

Even if it is only an opinion, you'd think one would want to base an opinion on something substantive....

mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 1:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 1:17 p.m.

Walk you through how both our senators voted against DeMint's bill to allow epinephrine inhalers on the market or how epinephrine saves lives?

frobert — November 29, 2011 at 1:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — November 29, 2011 at 1:27 p.m.

Oh, good grief.... It's starting again.

You are the one making the claims; your job to support them.

So, let's try it again:

*Our senators voted to let people die rather then support a bill proposed by a republican.*

You really need to walk through how you got there from

*"Are you saying that liberals are okay with killing people, as long as they can reasonably blame someone else?"*

mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 2:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — November 29, 2011 at 1:08 p.m.

A decision to spend more time with his family?....

mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 2:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*"DeMint's bill to allow epinephrine inhalers"*

Actually, amendment...

And actually, just prohibit use of fed dollars to enforce the ban. The ban Reagan signed in 1987..... The international ban.

*"both our senators voted against"*

And 52 others.....

Walk us through the timeline. I'll give you a start: Reagan signed.....

And how many years later is one company asking for an extension?

mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 3:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Glad to see Ed Owens was fired today for what he did to his daughter. No longer a Deputy. He doesn't deserve to ever carry a badge again.

Woosker — November 29, 2011 at 3:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hmmmmm, wonder how this will turn out

hawkeye — November 29, 2011 at 1:08 p.m.

LOL! I'm thinking not so great for Mr. Cain.

Woosker — November 29, 2011 at 3:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 3:32 p.m.

The treaty exempts essential use medical devices, it does not cover epinephrine inhalers. The banning of these life saving devices was made by the FDA.

frobert — November 29, 2011 at 4:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Senate Votes To Let Military Detain Americans Indefinitely, White House Threatens Veto**

WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted Tuesday to keep a controversial provision to let the military detain terrorism suspects on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without trial -- prompting White House officials to reissue a veto threat.

The measure, part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act, was also opposed by civil libertarians on the left and right. But 16 Democrats and an independent joined with Republicans to defeat an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have killed the provision, voting it down with 61 against, and 37 for it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/senate-votes-to-let-military-detain-americans-indefinitely_n_1119473.html

nailingit — November 29, 2011 at 4:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Save us Sarah! hahahahaha.....man ya gotta love politics!

**Sarah Palin Urged To Embark On 2012 Presidential Run In New**

"If this ad is able to build some momentum for the Governor, the best way to keep that momentum going may be to commission a national GOP primary poll that includes the Governor as one of the options," the group said in an announcement, according to The Hill. "We'll see if it's possible given our resources."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/sarah-palin-2012_n_1119057.html?ref=politics

nailingit — November 29, 2011 at 4:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*"banning of these life saving devices was made by the FDA."
frobert — November 29, 2011 at 4:22 p.m.*

That is a rather odd spin to the actual facts; perhaps your interpretation is colored by your politics.

FDA issued a final rule
entitled "Us e of Ozone-Depleting Substances; Removal of Essential-Use Designation
(Flunisolide, etc.)" (75 FR 19213) (final rule) in the Federal Register on April 14,2010,
In the final rule, FDA concluded that products containing albuterol and ipratropium
bromide in combination no longer meet the criteria to be essential uses of ODSs, and they
must be removed from the market by December 31, 2013.

http://www.elsevierbi.com/~/media/Images/Publications/Archive/The%20Pink%20Sheet%20Daily/2011/3/18/14110318005/fda_response_to_bi_petition.pdf

also see:

Although over-the-counter epinephrine inhalers have been on the market for decades and can relieve acute asthma symptoms, these medications are known to have serious side effects when used in higher doses. In addition, they are not recommended by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Expert Panel Report 3 asthma guidelines. As a result, last year the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) denied the request for “essential-use” designation for these chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-propelled devices. The ruling means that epinephrine inhalers will become unavailable in the United States after Dec. 31, 2011

http://www.yourlunghealth.org/healthy_living/aah/04.09/articles/inhalers/

mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 4:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 4:43 p.m.

Funny how in your link, not one of the people they quoted had MD after their name.

frobert — November 29, 2011 at 4:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal


good to see a sizeable demonstration in Olympia at the staehouse. But, as hard as I looked, I couldn't find anything on S.1867, the measure that would allow the US government to unleash the military to detain and arrest Americans here in Amerika. I thought the vote was to be yesterday or today. Udall's admendment to prevent the military from detaining Americans however long they wanted in this country was not acted on either, near as I can tell.

One would have to be rather naive to not see the connection between rising social discord and S.1867. Scary times.

Time magazine's choice of covers in it's latest issue is also kinda troublesome. Evidently the 1% that controls the majority of the media aren't real keen on showing civil disobedience against the system.

mrd — November 29, 2011 at 5:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*Funny how in your link, not one of the people they quoted had MD after their name.
frobert — November 29, 2011 at 4:51 p.m.*

Even funnier is that most of the people being quoted are arguing against, AGAINST, the ban.....

But, note who did support it:"they are not recommended by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Expert Panel Report 3 asthma guidelines"

So, tell us again, why do you support a single co. who had years to develop a product and made a choice not to; then at the virtual last minute, asked for a reprieve?

One co. International ban. 1987.

mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 5:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


And it seems rather odd you made a choice to ignore supporting your claim, "The OWS movement was over before it began, because they had no cohesive message."

Even if it is only an opinion, you'd think one would want to base an opinion on something substantive....

mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 5:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 5:44 p.m.

So, if you can blame a corporation, it is alright to vote for people to die?

frobert — November 29, 2011 at 6 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 5:46 p.m.

IF you read my original post you would realize that my original claim was, a constitutional conservative must support the protesters right to protest, regardless of their position on the issue.

frobert — November 29, 2011 at 6:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — November 29, 2011 at 5:44 p.m.

"So, tell us again, why do you support a single co. who had years to develop a product and made a choice not to; then at the virtual last minute, asked for a reprieve?"

In the 1980's I contracted a rare and often fatal(at the time) lung infection (Legionnaire's disease) I was unable to use albuterol, if epinephrine inhalers had been illegal I would not have survived. No, it is not my politics that drives me on this issue, it is the fact that this medication saves lives. The internet is inundated with stories of people with people with more chronic disease like asthma and COPD, that like myself cannot use albuterol. On this subject I am driven by compassion. Compassion that is apparently lacking in senate democrats as well as republicans Brown and Collins.

frobert — November 29, 2011 at 6:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd @ 5:34 PM: **Evidently the 1% that controls the majority of the media aren't real keen on showing civil disobedience against the system.**

I could no agree more. I did not see much in the local media about the occupation of the capitol building in Olympia. I suppose they don't want to rile up the masses any worse than they already are......Disappointing coverage on a local level.

manthou — November 29, 2011 at 6:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Washington State Capitol Building OCCUPIED
Posted 1 day ago on Nov. 28, 2011, 9:14 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

Today in Olympia, Washington, the Washington State Capitol was occupied. Several occupiers were arrested and forcibly removed by Washington State Troopers. In yet another display of excessive force, three people were reportedly tased by police. Last Updated, 12:28 EST

http://occupywallst.org/article/washington-state-capitol-building-occupied/

http://occupywallst.org/

nailingit — November 29, 2011 at 7:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


OWS Olympia on Countdown tonite...right now!

nailingit — November 29, 2011 at 8:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**-_-_-_-_-_-_-_COMMUNITY ALERT SYSTEM-_-_-_-_-_-_-_**

**Leahy: Detainee Provisions In National Defense Authorization Act Deserve Thorough Review**

So, contrary to what the bill sponsors claim, they have not incorporated the administration’s requests, and the current language does not remove the risk of impeding intelligence investigations or prosecutions of terrorist suspects.

As currently written, the language in this bill would authorize the military to indefinitely detain individuals – including U.S. citizens – without charge or trial. I am fundamentally opposed to indefinite detention, and certainly when the detainee is a U.S. citizen held without charge. It contradicts the most basic principles of law that I subscribed to when I was a prosecutor, and it severely weakens our credibility when we criticize other governments for engaging in similar conduct.

I fought against the Bush administration policies that left us in the situation we face now, with indefinite detention being the de facto administration policy. And I strongly opposed President Obama’s executive order on detention when it was announced last March because it contemplated, if not outright endorsed, indefinite detention.

I am also deeply troubled by the mandatory military detention requirements included in this bill, which I believe dangerously undermine our national security. In the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist threats, we should be giving our intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals all the tools they need – not limiting those tools. But limiting them is exactly what this bill does. Secretary Panetta has stated unequivocally that “[t]his provision restrains the Executive Branch’s options to utilize, in a swift and flexible fashion, all the counterterrorism tools that are now legally available.” Requiring terrorism suspects to be held only in military custody, and limiting the available options in the field, is unwise and unnecessary.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=e7d2b657-2903-480c-b64c-e1b97f34ac53

nailingit — November 29, 2011 at 8:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Not to be redundant, but the Senate passed this today. This cannot stand. Write your Senator's, Congressmen, God...whoever. :))

""A provision of S. 1867, or the National Defense Authorization Act bill, written by Senators John McCain and Carl Levin, declares American soil a battlefield and allows the President and all future Chief Executives to order the military to arrest and detain American citizens, innocent or not, without charge or trial. In other words, **if this bill passes and the President signs it, OWS protesters or any American could end up arrested and indefinitely locked up** by the military without the guaranteed right to due process or a speedy trial. This bill was written in secret and approved by...""

http://www.progressivenewsdaily.com/

nailingit — November 29, 2011 at 8:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nail-
I couldn't find where this was passed/approved/whatever it was today. If signed by Obama, I'll never, ever, support the guy. He would totally suck-owned by the flockers that are killing us. I will look to someone, if anyone, opposeses such measures, although there are few.
I do see the need for passage of such an act-the 1% need it. You might want to refer to the link in a previous post of mine, the deception of the ruling class.

The 1% is nervous, and they will do anything and everything to secure their positions. From censoring their media coverage (as this rag has demoed with the coverage of JHB) to Time swapping covers alleviating revolutionary uprisings, the procedure is apparent. All hell's gonna break loose, and the 1% is gonna secure their positions. Wanna bet who's gonna lose?

It's well past time to take it to the streets. If the ruling class doesn't like what it sees in the streets, perhaps they'd change their ruling ways. I doubt it, now they apparently have the military behind them. Ain't that a hoot!

mrd — November 29, 2011 at 9:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd- Should have said voted down the amendment that would have stayed the provision of concern. ref. post @ 4:27.

nailingit — November 30, 2011 at 12:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Gingrich Gave Push to Clients, Not Just Ideas**
By MIKE McINTIRE and JIM RUTENBERG
Published: November 29, 2011

""But in the eight years since he started his health care consultancy, he has made millions of dollars while helping companies promote their services and gain access to state and federal officials.""

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/us/politics/gingrich-gave-push-to-clients-not-just-ideas.html?_r=1

nailingit — November 30, 2011 at 12:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Tracy Lawrence, Notary Public Who Blew The Whistle On Massive Foreclosure Fraud, Found Dead**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/tracy-lawrence-whistleblower-dead_n_1120194.html

nailingit — November 30, 2011 at 7:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*So, if you can blame a corporation, it is alright to vote for people to die?
frobert — November 29, 2011 at 6 p.m.*

You really need to stop using whatever shorthand, logic-jumpimg thinking that is prompting you to write comments that don't parse.

Let's start over; International ban. 1987. Ruled non-essential for medical use (and that would have included your hearsay case)and thus not eligible for an extension past 2011.

mr_basil_seal — November 30, 2011 at 7:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*IF you read my original post...
frobert — November 29, 2011 at 6:16 p.m.*

You made the comment, "The OWS movement was over before it began, because they had no cohesive message." as part of that original post. That was, and continues to be, an unsupported by any facts.

And is just a regurgitation of the rw trope attempting to discredit the OWS movement.

Whether or not you claim to support lawful assembly or not isn't the issue.

mr_basil_seal — November 30, 2011 at 7:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Some really good points are being made in the "Politico Arena" with regards to the Payroll Tax issue. I would join in, but seemingly my creds as a current/former presidential candidate running on the Utopian platform/ticket doesn't cut it. Go figure. :)

I'm posting this quote for it's brevity and mindful observation!

James J. Zogby
President, Arab American Institute :
"Watching Republicans getting tied up in knots trying to make their twisted case on this issue has been as sad as watching a Rick Perry debate performance."

http://www.politico.com/arena/

nailingit — November 30, 2011 at 7:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal


There is so much garbage on Newt Gingrich, that we know about, and will find out/be refreshed in the weeks to come. I still believe he will look for a way out. Having said that, megalomaniac that he is, he might get swept up into believing his own viability. Just to refresh memories of a racist, ridiculous and outrageous article published by Forbes last year, with some memorable quotes from this [Gingrich]used car dealer.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem_print.html

---Gingrich says that D’Souza has made a “stunning insight” into Obama’s behavior — the “most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama.”

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

“This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president,” Gingrich tells us.

“I think he worked very hard at being a person who is normal, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating — none of which was true,” Gingrich continues. “In the Alinksy tradition, he was being the person he needed to be in order to achieve the position he needed to achieve . . . He was authentically dishonest.”---
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a write from David Frum, **former speech writer for George W Bush**, written the same week as the Forbes article:

*With the Forbes story and now the Gingrich endorsement, the argument that Obama is an infiltrating alien, a deceiving foreigner – and not just any kind of alien, but specifically a Third World alien – has been absorbed almost to the very core of the Republican platform for November 2010.*

http://www.frumforum.com/gingrich-obama-wants-whiteys-money

nailingit — November 30, 2011 at 8:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


My apologies for the excessively large print. Not intended, but works! :)

nailingit — November 30, 2011 at 8:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — November 30, 2011 at 7:14 a.m.

There is, at this time no cfc free replacement for epinephrine inhaler, therefore it is essential medical use under the Montreal protocol. Our government decided to remove it's designation, not the treaty. These inhalers save lives, not only in asthmatics but in cases of anaphylactic shock, they need to be available. The answer may be to put the replacement on an extreme fast track through the FDA, so they can be available on January first.

frobert — November 30, 2011 at 8:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"therefore it is essential medical use under the Montreal protocol"

Seems you'd better hie yourself down to the courthouse and file a suit then....

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/ucm080427.htm#q2

" replacement on an extreme fast track through the FDA"

Let's review: 1987. Reagan. International treaty. One company has refused to do basic product development. And now wants a special dispensation. 1987.

mr_basil_seal — November 30, 2011 at 8:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal



**The Power of Occupy Wall Street Is Not Just What They're Doing, But How They're Doing It** Sarah Jaffe

The way Occupy Wall Street and the Occupy movement worldwide are structured is drawn from another way of thinking. Marina Sitrin, an early participant in the Occupy movement in New York and the author of the book Horizontalism: Voices of Popular Power in Argentina, describes horizontalism thus:

“Horizontal, as it sounds, is a level space for decision making, a place where one can look directly at the other person across from you, and discuss things that matter most to all of us – we decide the agenda. Horizontalism is more than just being against hierarchy, or people having power over others – it is about creating something new together in our relationships. The means are a part of the ends. The forms of organizing manifest what we desire; it is not a question of demands, but rather a manifestation of an alternative way of being and relating.”
Horizontalism and consensus might seem complicated, especially after watching the houses of Congress descend into a battle of egos and wills. Trying to get a simple majority of the Senate, let alone the 60-vote supermajority that is essentially required for every vote now that the filibuster is routinely abused, to agree on anything is a near-impossible task, so how would 95 percent consensus ever work?

But the fact is that thousands of people can come to agreement on complicated issues. Witness the reported vote of 1720 to three (with six “unsure”) at the University of California-Davis over a student general strike this week in the wake of the pepper-spraying of unarmed students by a university cop.
http://www.alternet.org/story/153182/the_power_of_occupy_wall_street_is_not_just_what_they%27re_doing%2C_but_how_they%27re_doing_it_/

mr_basil_seal — November 30, 2011 at 8:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Really unclear on why frobert isn't all over this:

**Senate Votes To Let Military Detain Americans Indefinitely, White House Threatens Veto**

WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted Tuesday to keep a controversial provision to let the military detain terrorism suspects on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without trial -- prompting White House officials to reissue a veto threat.

The measure, part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act, was also opposed by civil libertarians on the left and right. But 16 Democrats and an independent joined with Republicans to defeat an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have killed the provision, voting it down with 61 against, and 37 for it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/senate-votes-to-let-military-detain-americans-indefinitely_n_1119473.html

http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/nov/28/open-forum-nov-28-dec-4/#c202370

http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/nov/28/open-forum-nov-28-dec-4/#c202370

http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/nov/28/open-forum-nov-28-dec-4/#c202369

but rather wants to argue for a discontinued medicine.....

mr_basil_seal — November 30, 2011 at 8:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal


if there is anyone not convinced the police are becoming more militaristic, check out the photo on the news item carousel. Says it all. Perhaps the Senate didn't need to include the military in S.1867 as it appears the police are ready for the task.

mrd — November 30, 2011 at 9:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd — November 30, 2011 at 9:02 a.m.

Sadly, true. But the section of the bill really changes the role of the military; in spite of L. Graham's dissembling efforts to deny that.

mr_basil_seal — November 30, 2011 at 9:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — November 30, 2011 at 8:58 a.m

"Really unclear on why frobert isn't all over this:"

From the posts I have seen so far on this subject, no one on here supports this expanding role of the military over citizens. I can however point out that it is another example of government expanding past it's constitutional authority.

frobert — November 30, 2011 at 9:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**My Man Newt**
By Maureen Dowd
At a Republican debate in New Hampshire last month before this lucrative deal became public, Gingrich suggested that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should be put in jail. “All I’m saying is, everybody in the media who wants to go after the business community ought to start by going after the politicians who were at the heart of the sickness that is weakening this country,” he said.

Another transcendent moment in Gingrich hypocrisy. He risibly rationalized his deal, saying he was giving the mortgage company advice as a prestigious historian rather than a hired gun.

Gingrich boasts that he’s full of fresh ideas, but it always seems to essentially be the same old one: Let’s turn the clock back to the ’50s. Just as Newt, who dodged service in Vietnam, once cast the Clintons as hippie “McGovernicks,” now he limns the Occupy Wall Street protesters as hippies who need to take a bath and get a job.

Maybe the ideal man to fix Washington’s dysfunction is the one who made it dysfunctional. He broke it so he should own it. And Newt has the best reason to long for the presidency: He’d never be banished to the back of Air Force One again. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/opinion/my-man-newt.html

mr_basil_seal — November 30, 2011 at 9:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — November 30, 2011 at 9:12 a.m.

So you'd rather only post something in your 'area of expertise' if it is to either start an argument or counter someone else's point?

At the very least, you could give some credence to Paul by showing his alignment with those many, but too few, who voted against that provision. Or even mention how Paul and Obama are on the same page.....

mr_basil_seal — November 30, 2011 at 9:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal


And he claims to be a historian....

GINGRICH: Well, I would oppose it. First of all, we don’t do things by referendum in this country. Because we are a republic, not a democracy.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/11/30/378345/gingrich-drug-referendum-hypocrisy/

mr_basil_seal — November 30, 2011 at 9:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Jessica Bowen-
*"What a drain on society these people are."*

*"When they are pooping and peeing on other people's property, and breaking store windows, that is making a better society for all of us?"*

*"...anti business democrat party..."*

I've watched Fox News coverage on OWS. It's totally being covered in the way Jessica is describing. It's time to stop pitying people with Jessica's mindset. These people swallow everything Fox shoves down their biased throats. But this is a good example of the political mindset for next years election. Can't wait.

Mike Tindall · Top Commenter · Conservative/Libertarian/RVN veteran AMERICAN! at School of Hard Knocks, University of Life **& Distributor of absurd comments on Face Book.**
The Obama drones (AKA occubaggers, bowel movement party) are just going to get worse over the next 11 months.

A like minded Tindall, who will vote against his and those around him best interests. Regardless of reality. Not realizing OWS are anything but Obama drones, feels that protests are on the rise. I hope he's right. :)

And on a last note, I'm totally convinced that Lynn Carman, is the face of goldenoldie's avatar. As well as a few others.

Allen Hoff-
*Jessica Bowen Hey, not arguing with you, but could state some of those idiotic regulations? It wouldn't be about clean air, clean water, good food products, or any thing like that, would it? So please give examples of those idiotic regulations, would you? Until you can, you kind of sound like some people on Faux Noise, if you know what I mean. And no offence meant, but please put up, or please be silent on the manure you are spouting.*

Glad to see you are posting Allen. Your point with Fox News was spot on. To include Limbaugh & Beck also.

nailingit — November 30, 2011 at 9:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — November 30, 2011 at 9:44 a.m

I am withholding my opinion on Obama's stand until he actually does veto it, he has been known to say one thing and then do another.

I have stated in the past that I am disgusted with today's neoconservative GOP.

frobert — November 30, 2011 at 10:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — November 30, 2011 at 9:58 a.m.

Note also Chris Cloke , Mark Owsley , and a couple of others basically handing the cons their head on a platter:

http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/nov/23/in-our-view-sales-tax-not-yet-in-our-view/#comments

mr_basil_seal — November 30, 2011 at 10:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal- To include this paper. The Baggers always talk about how "liberal" the C is. I don't see it. I would deem their "bipartisanship" to include confused/conflicting opinion without a moral center.

"Considering the results of last year’s balloting, we think Hewitt has a better read on the mood of voters than does Gregoire." *So...2010 results/satisfaction of voters reflect today? Somebody at the C needs to get a clue and quit pandering to the right.*

The governor’s sales-tax proposal calls for a temporary tax that would be scheduled to expire in three years. It would raise an estimated $494 million annually and would be used to prevent deeper cuts to higher education and public schools.

It’s a difficult situation created by extraordinary times. But a tax increase for all of us, in the form of a sales tax, **just doesn’t feel right**. *And what doesn't "feel right". I suppose cutting education, services to the disabled, and causing extreme hardship on the many residents of Vancouver whose medical services will be stifled "feels right". You like to believe your local paper is on the side of the disenfranchised. What a rag.*

nailingit — November 30, 2011 at 11:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal


My roots aren't as deep in this community as some. Has anyone ever tried to get another newspaper up and running? A community of this size deserves at least two heavily invested publications. I can't wait till they stick their finger in the air and decide what Pres candidate to support in 2012.

nailingit — November 30, 2011 at 11:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal


What does "doesn't feel right" mean anyway. Absurd. When facts get in the way, trust your feelings?

nailingit — November 30, 2011 at 11:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*" The Baggers always talk about how "liberal" the C is. I don't see it."*nailingit — November 30, 2011 at 11:17 a.m.

We see a large contingent that claims Obama is socialist, or anybody to the left of Eisenhower is a marxist - or the faction that looks at the world through beckian eyes - so from that from the perspective ....

But actually, sales tax is regressive and I think the C is responding to that issue without actually saying it in so many words.

But, the real quote that should be analyzed:"But our leaders still have insisted upon treating reductions in their benefits as an afterthought, as a measure of last resort, as a tackling of union backers that are too big and powerful to beat." is a page right out of the conservative's playbook.(http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/no...)

Jim Moeller follows that point.

Middle class and lower incomes in the private sector have been cut away for the past 40 years; that hasn't been effective for our economy beyond the pockets of the 1%. Why should public sector jobs rush to follow?

mr_basil_seal — November 30, 2011 at 11:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*Has anyone ever tried to get another newspaper up and running? A community of this size deserves at least two heavily invested publications*nailingit — November 30, 2011 at 11:23 a.m.

The investment needs paying back. I'd wager the C's business model is based on primarily the flyers / insert ads with the other ads bringing a fraction of that same income (esp after factoring the expense of working layouts, selling the space, etc).

Now, figure out how many reporter/writers there are on staff; figure out their output and get a cost per article (and don't forget the benefit package since the C's complaint about public unions).... And all the support staff costs......

Since we're not in the world of land lines, 5 channels if your antenna is adjusted right anymore, and where most of your DOV needs are met by online, I'd posit that a moderately funded website could well suit the more aggressive reporting that the C chooses not to do. JHB isn't doing much in the way of interviews with anyone with a press pass anyway.

mr_basil_seal — November 30, 2011 at 12:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The taxpayers can't afford another newspaper. Look how much the Columbian cost us. I doubt if the citizens of Vancouver would allow their crooked politicians to bail out another paper. Besides, the Oregonian is just as good as the Columbian and between it and the local papers, i.e. The Battle Ground Reflector, you can get all the news you need without reading the Columbian. If more people would subscribe to the Oregonian, they would probably have more coverage of southwest Washington. I've noticed over the last several years that a lot of what you read in the Columbian was in the Oregonian a day or two sooner. Nothing like being current.

cranky — November 30, 2011 at 1:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Senate Votes To Let Military Detain Americans Indefinitely, White House Threatens Veto**

Now, this is the type of crap that scares the hell out of me.

During GWB's administration the "grab" for power by the Administrative branch has been unrelenting. I just keep thinking about John Yoo and the interpretation of the US Constitution that Article 2, Section 2 (Commander-In-Chief) superseding the rest of the constitution to the point that the president can suspend parts or the whole constitution as deemed necessary. (including the 2nd Amendment) Right now we see new interpretations (being PC) of amendments 4 5 6 7 8 11 and 14. Congress has been gladly relinquishing powers given to it under Article 1.

**Of all the items that should have been on Obama's agenda when taking office this should have been the first.** He should have had Holder all over this. But it's hard to give up power once you have it.

Right now, many think that this only applies to "brown" or "yellow" people, or people of a different "faith" than us. But it will come down is what those in power will define as a terrorist at that time. (who's a threat)

Rational people of every political point of view should take a hard look at what this bill means and what the NeoCons are trying to do.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/30/MNQ11M5KPG.DTL

McCain is showing his true side now. A cranky, bitter, mean old man.

**There should be now question of a veto!** There is no bargaining or compromising on this one.

pdxtech91 — November 30, 2011 at 1:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


pdxtech91 — November 30, 2011 at 1:32 p.m.

"During GWB's administration the "grab" for power by the Administrative branch has been unrelenting."

I am not a fan of GWB however the power grab has continued and escalated. GWB never went as far as to ignore the war powers act or to assassinate U.S. citizens and their minor children.

frobert — November 30, 2011 at 2:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Fro,

"...the power grab has continued and escalated..."

Are you talking pre GWB? Like Waco and Ruby Ridge? Yeah, I would have to agree. It was signs the military state was coming.carlisl

pdxtech91 — November 30, 2011 at 2:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I seem to remember frobert saying "The OWS movement was over before it began, because they had no cohesive message."

**How Republicans are being taught to talk about Occupy Wall Street**
By Chris Moody

**"I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death," said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation's foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message. "They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."**
Luntz offered tips on how Republicans could discuss the grievances of the Occupiers, and help the governors better handle all these new questions from constituents about "income inequality" and "paying your fair share."
Yahoo News sat in on the session, and counted 10 do's and don'ts from Luntz covering how Republicans should fight back by changing the way they discuss the movement.
1. Don't say 'capitalism.'
"I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."

...

3. Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the 'middle class.' Call them 'hardworking taxpayers.'
"They cannot win if the fight is on hardworking taxpayers. We can say we defend the 'middle class' and the public will say, I'm not sure about that. But defending 'hardworking taxpayers' and Republicans have the advantage."
4. Don't talk about 'jobs.' Talk about 'careers.'
"Everyone in this room talks about 'jobs,'" Luntz said. "Watch this."
He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a "job." Few hands went up. Then he asked who wants a "career." Almost every hand was raised.
"So why are we talking about jobs?"
5. Don't say 'government spending.' Call it 'waste.'
"It's not about 'government spending.' It's about 'waste.' That's what makes people angry."
6. Don't ever say you're willing to 'compromise.'
"If you talk about 'compromise,' they'll say you're selling out. Your side doesn't want you to 'compromise.' What you use in that to replace it with is 'cooperation.' It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles but still get the job done. Compromise says that you're selling out those principles."
7. The three most important words you can say to an Occupier: 'I get it.'
"First off, here are three words for you all: 'I get it.' . . . 'I get that you're angry. I get that you've seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system."
Then, he instructed, offer Republican solutions to the problem.

and a few more @
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/republicans-being-taught-talk-occupy-wall-street-133707949.html

mr_basil_seal — December 1, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — December 1, 2011 at 8:30 a.m.

How many weeks now have you been going on about that? You take one line out of context, the funny thing about it is my original post was in support of the OWS movements right to protest.

frobert — December 1, 2011 at 8:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*"movements [sic] right to protest."*

Probably a vain attempt to keep you honest; you know, actually support your claim / opinion.

But we could review some of your others if you wish; you still haven't explained why you are supporting the only corp that couldn't develop a better product and then asked for a special dispensation.

Or any of your originalist claims.

mr_basil_seal — December 1, 2011 at 9 a.m. ( | suggest removal



**Thanks to Nurses Union and Occupy Wall Street, Pressure for Wall Street Speculation Tax Grows** Sarah Jaffe

Calls for the financial transaction tax have only been getting louder and stronger in recent weeks and months. **The passion stoked by the Occupy Wall Street movement has brought the nation's and the world's eyes back** to the big banks and the bankers who crashed the global economy with their “sophisticated” financial instruments and rapid-fire trading of mortgages and anything else that could be packaged into a security and sold, many times over, each time at a profit.

http://www.alternet.org/story/153276/thanks_to_nurses_union_and_occupy_wall_street%2C_pressure_for_wall_street_speculation_tax_grows/

mr_basil_seal — December 1, 2011 at 9:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal


We were talking about the role of local newspapers yesterday.

**The secrecy-loving mind of the U.S. journalist**
by Glenn Greenwald

As usual, American journalists are the leading proponents not of transparency but of secrecy, not of accountability but of covert decision-making in the dark, not of the rule of law but the rule of political leaders. As Cohen’s Washington Post namesake put it: “it is often best to keep the lights off.” That, with some exceptions, is the motto not only of The Washington Post but of American establishment journalism generally. That’s what NYU Journalism Professor Jay Rosen meant when he said that the reason we got WikiLeaks is because “the watchdog press died.” With some exceptions — some of this we have learned about from whistleblowers leaking to reporters, who then publish it – the American media does not merely fail to fulfill its ostensible function of bringing transparency to government; far beyond that, it takes the lead in justifying and protecting extreme government secrecy. Watching a New York Times columnist stand up and cheer for multiple covert, legally dubious wars and an underground foreign policy highlights that as well as anything one can recall.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/29/the_secrecy_loving_mind_of_the_u_s_journalist/singleton/

mr_basil_seal — December 1, 2011 at 9:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — December 1, 2011 at 9 a.m.

Keep ME honest? I'm not the one that took one line out of context and harped on it for weeks.

frobert — December 1, 2011 at 9:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Basil

you might want to check this out. it seems the feds don't like their employees writing critical articles about the federal government.

"crimes of thought" is about the government's movement away from legal restrictions and curbing the first admendment.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011112981630635791.html

mrd — December 1, 2011 at 9:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Possible abandoned vehicle gets towed**

Photo by Lou Brancaccio
Vancouver Police check out a possible abandoned vehicle on Harney Street in front of Garrett Sign. A tow truck was on the scene early Thursday morning to take it away.
**By Lou Brancaccio
Columbian Editor**
Thursday, December 1, 2011

Has anyone ever tried to get another newspaper up and running? A community of this size deserves at least two heavily invested publicationsnailingit — November 30, 2011 at 11:23 a.m.

After this exquisitely done photo shoot and gripping story to follow, why would one ask?

mr_basil_seal- *But actually, sales tax is regressive and I think the C is responding to that issue without actually saying it in so many words.*

I agree with "without actually saying it in so many words."* :)

nailingit — December 1, 2011 at 9:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — December 1, 2011 at 8:30 a.m.

How many weeks now have you been going on about that? You take one line out of context, the funny thing about it is my original post was in support of the OWS movements right to protest.
frobert — December 1, 2011 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal | Ignore User )

Keep ME honest? I'm not the one that took one line out of context and harped on it for weeks.
frobert — December 1, 2011 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal | Ignore User )

fro- All you needed to do was source your information. Bill O'Righty and the Fox News crowd began saying the exact same thing on said day. So many "conservatives" are ashamed that they view fox as their primary news source. Someone that used to post here touted Becktonian philosophy and faux news talking points 24/7, yet denied ever watching fox news.

Repent fro. Turn away from blatant propaganda, and view other news sources that provide a subtle, subversive route/view of our political structure. :)

nailingit — December 1, 2011 at 9:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*"took one line out of context "*

Actually, that was the first line in your para, remember? A topic sentence, normally. But, in this case, a disjointed comment that then had and since had no support. You attempted to double down make a claim it was your opinion and didn't need support.

But that is like much of your commentary; opinion that can't be supported. So, yes. Keeping you honest; showing what informs your thinking, as it were.

mr_basil_seal — December 1, 2011 at 10:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*"crimes of thought" is about the government's movement away from legal restrictions and curbing the first admendment.*

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011112981630635791.html

mrd — December 1, 2011 at 9:42 a.m.

Well, that ties in with the legislation voted on yesterday, though that the WaPo and WSJ published it says a lot.

mr_basil_seal — December 1, 2011 at 10:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Linked Fates – “Occupy” and the Climate Negotiations**
Tom Athanasiou

Anyone who claims that the fate of the climate talks is bound to the fate of the Occupy movement better expect a bit of skepticism in return. Now, if it were Occupy and the Climate Justice movement, that would be a different story! Both are complex social movements, and both are driving hard for economic justice. Their overlap is inevitable. But the negotiations themselves? What have they to do with economic justice? What have they to do with the great divide between “the 1%” and “the 99%”?

It’s an easy question to ask. Too easy, actually. It’s a question that raises others…

Beyond vague talk about “the most vulnerable countries and people,” few of us are really prepared to approach the climate crisis as a justice problem. So it should be said that it didn’t have to be this way. If justice had long been a major part of environmental politics, we’d be in better shape today. But it hasn’t been, not until recently, and the truth is that Big Green still isn’t really on board with justice environmentalism. In fact, it’s fair to say that today’s progressive enviros are the inheritors of a long tradition, and that it’s not a uniformly admirable one. The climate politics mainline, in particular, has long focused, almost exclusively, on the technical side of the transition problem. Not that there’s any hope without a technology revolution, but must it come packaged with a refusal to understand, let alone confront, the economic divide that’s at the core of the global climate-policy deadlock?

Things are changing now, or at least they could. But the past matters.

Remember Copenhagen? Remember the vitriol of the blame game that followed Copenhagen? Do try, because soon we’re going to see what, if anything, we’ve learned in the two years since that great debacle.
http://planet3.org/2011/11/18/linked-fates-occupy-and-the-climate-negotiations/

mr_basil_seal — December 1, 2011 at 10:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I thought y'll here would be interested in this article as to where Washington State is ranked.

17. Washington
> State debt per capita: $3,719 (18th highest)
> Pct. without health insurance: 14.2% (25th lowest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 12.5% (tied for 18th lowest)
> Unemployment: 9.1% (16th highest)

Washington state has moved down one slot from last year’s rank, partially due to an increase in unemployment and an increase in poverty rate. On the whole, the state performs better than average in most categories, including household income, violent crime rate and high school graduation. And while the state does not make it to the top 10 in any single category, it also avoids the bottom 10 in each.

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Report, Violent Crime Rate (2010)

Read more: Best and Worst Run States in America — An Analysis Of All 50 - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2011/11/28/best-and-worst-run-states-in-america-an-analysis-of-all-50/#ixzz1fJR94gTT

karma — December 1, 2011 at 11:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — December 1, 2011 at 9:55 a.m.

"Bill O'Righty and the Fox News crowd began saying the exact same thing on said day."

Major news organizations and even some OWS protesters were complaining about "lack of cohesive message" at least 5 weeks prior to my post. As far as what fox news said on a given day, I wouldn't know.

frobert — December 1, 2011 at 12:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


MANCHESTER, N.H. *-- Herman Cain said Thursday that he repeatedly gave money without his wife's knowledge to Ginger White, the Atlanta woman who alleged carrying on an affair with Cain for 13 years.
In an editorial interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader, the former Godfather's Pizza CEO said Mrs. Cain "did not know that we were friends until [White] came out with this story" and he regrets not telling her sooner. Cain acknowledged sending White money for "month-to-month bills* *and expenses."
Cain said that White sent him about 70 text messages in which, he said, she seemed economically troubled. "She was out of work and had trouble paying her bills and I had known her as a friend," he said. Cain would not elaborate as to how much he gave her.*

Sure, Hermie, I believe you. Wow, is this guy real? The GOPers must be keeping him on so Perry won't be the dumbest guy on the stage.

Hermie & the newt have something in common now-family values. But give Hermie credit, at least he's not screaming at some other cheating hubbie while he's getting a little himself on the side.

These guys are great entertainers. The sad part is one of these clowns could very well become president.

mrd — December 1, 2011 at 3:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd — December 1, 2011 at 3:29 p.m.

Any "republican" that votes for either of these two is just voting for Obama.

frobert — December 1, 2011 at 3:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**G.O.P. and Democrats Differ on How to Prevent Social Security Payroll Tax Increase**

Senate Republican leaders introduced a bill that would keep the payroll tax rate at its current level for another year. The cost is roughly $120 billion. Senate Republicans would offset most of the cost by freezing the pay of federal employees through 2015 and gradually reducing the federal work force by 10 percent.

In addition, **Senate Republican leaders would go after “millionaires and billionaires,” not by raising their taxes but by making them ineligible for unemployment compensation and food stamps** and increasing their Medicare premiums.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/us/politics/social-security-payroll-tax-hike-drives-wedge-in-washington.html

mr_basil_seal — December 1, 2011 at 4:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The Democratic party is far from being without blame for many of our counties woes. Having said that, which party for the last half century consistently trumps freedom in the way of individual rights, and which is first to monger a war. Baggers are quick to skew and site the constitution to diminish the role of the Fed. From Roe v Wade to Civil Rights to the Patriot Act and beyond. My God think what would happen if they had both houses and the presidency!......oh yeah, Bush 2000-2006.

How'd that turn out?

Obama should have had the stones and resolve to undo much of what Bush has put into place. From the preemptive strike doctrine to Gitmo and beyond, Obama has been swept up in the imperialistic mindset of the Pentagon.

**Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens Not Blocked By The Senate For The Second Time**

The heated debate has crossed party lines, with **three Republicans -- Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah) and Mark Kirk (Ill.) -- favoring the amendment, and 10 Democrats and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) opposing it.** The debate also has left many Americans scratching their heads as to whether Congress is actually attempting to authorize the indefinite detention of Americans by the military without charges.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/military-detention-us-citizens-senate-second-vote_n_1123929.html

nailingit — December 1, 2011 at 4:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**America Isn't Broke**
Katrina vanden Heuvel

That’s a wrap. The Supercommittee Show is over, brought to you by corporate media that continue to peddle horse-trading, the blame game and the mini-drama of who compromised and who didn’t to consumers.

What’s missing from the coverage is what matters—a recognition that the inside-the-Beltway crowd has a misplaced obsession with short-term deficits and debt rather than the real crisis of our time: joblessness, growing inequality and building a more sustainable, Main Street economy.

There are in fact many alternatives out there worthy of attention—ideas that are more reasonable, more equitable and accomplished far more fiscally responsibly and in hold more promise for bettering people’s lives than anything considered by a Supercommittee and Congress heavily mortgaged to corporate dough. The Progressive Caucus’s People’s Budget is one example. And now, a recently released report by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), America Is Not Broke.

IPS focuses on twenty-four fiscal reforms that amount to an estimated $824 billion in potential revenue per year—seven times the total savings the Supercommittee was charged with identifying. The revenues are found in three categories: taxing Wall Street, corporations and the wealthy; taxing pollution and ending environmentally harmful subsidies; and cutting military spending. IPS is uniquely positioned to offer a comprehensive report like this because it has experts working year-round on defense, energy and fair taxation issues. Many of the reforms called for are widely supported in opinion polls, and reflect the kind of broad, bold vision that Democrats should embrace if they want to connect with the 99 percent.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/164826/america-isnt-broke

mr_basil_seal — December 1, 2011 at 4:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


crazytrain @ 1:51 *Don't know who said this, but boy is it ever true..*

Millvina Dean?

nailingit — December 1, 2011 at 4:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — December 1, 2011 at 4:38 p.m.

You would have to come up with considerably more proof then just one bill to prove your point that one of the parties is more complicit then the other in suppressing civil liberties.

frobert — December 1, 2011 at 5:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The Gregoire-cannabis-schedule-II-thing:

The comments over "there" *almost* prompt me to do the FB thing. But I won't. I suppose I'm a bit torn. Torn between anger, frustration and the desire to instruct. I become agitated 'cuz I have a hard time believing some (of the comments) aren't from ignorance. They're from some sort of misguided agenda.

I mean, for the life of me, I can't believe that with all of the information at one's fingertips the ignorance can really be, uh, like, ignorance.

On one hand I'd like to go over there and shred Lew, Doerk et al. On the other, I'd like to educate them -- or, at the vary least, provide arguments in a public forum that would take the sails from whatever the heck their "agenda" might be.

I'll do this:

This is an open invitation to ANYONE to come to the cellar and engage me in open debate on cannabis; medicinal, recreational, whateveral.

What's Lou's gig?
Well, class...
*Here,* you WILL be expected to show your work.

Drift — December 1, 2011 at 5:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — December 1, 2011 at 5:44 p.m.

Lew has the same problems as other neoconservatives, they don't believe in government regulation unless the government is regulating anything they don't like. This is different from progressives who support your civil liberties unless those civil liberties include something they don't like.

frobert — December 1, 2011 at 6:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Yeah, see Fro, I don't do the lefts, rights, donkeys, elephants, conservatives, liberals... all'a that jazz.

Frankly, I'm not real sure what all of that is/means.

I'm pretty good with science and research, though.

I'd be more than happy to discuss that with you. If you'd care, too.

Drift — December 1, 2011 at 7:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"What's Lou's gig?" As well as 'discussioner in charge' and top commenter on Face Book, his 'nose for news' sets the example for the highly skilled reporters on his staff. Check out his latest offering to include displaying his uncanny skills behind the camera lens. Stunning optical work, and for our benefit! Turning what most papers would see as a lousy pictureless story, into front page news, and transferring it onto a digital canvas. Brilliant!

Possible abandoned vehicle gets towed

*PHOTO HERE* {B^))

**Photo by Lou Brancaccio**
Vancouver Police check out a possible abandoned vehicle on Harney Street in front of Garrett Sign. A tow truck was on the scene early Thursday morning to take it away.
**By Lou Brancaccio**
Columbian Editor
Thursday, December 1, 2011

Vancouver Police check out a possible abandoned vehicle on Harney Street in front of Garrett Sign. An employee of Sunrise Bagels, across the street, said the vehicle with Florida plates has been there without moving for more than a month. A tow truck was on the scene early Thursday morning to take it away.

nailingit — December 1, 2011 at 7:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**civil liberties** n. rights or freedoms given to the people by the First Amendment to the Constitution, by common law, or legislation, allowing the individual to be free to speak, think, assemble, organize, worship, or petition without government (or even private) interference or restraints. These liberties are protective in nature, while **civil rights** form a broader concept and include positive elements such as the right to use facilities, the right to an equal education, or the right to participate in government. (See: civil, civil rights) The free dictionary (farlex)

nailingit — December 1, 2011 at 7:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"This is different from progressives who support your civil liberties unless those civil liberties include something they don't like."

"free to **speak**, **think**, **assemble**, **organize**, **worship**, or **petition** without government (or even private) interference or restraints.

fro- Please...elaborate.

nailingit — December 1, 2011 at 7:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou- I thought I would re-post your thoughtful statement, to include this weeks itinerary! Good luck and good fortune with your journey. It's very cool having a basement member checking out OWS. Looking forward to your report!

"basil: You have posted some very informative information above. Chris Hayes' report blew me away yesterday. We are going to see more of it in days to come. I was also particularly interested in Paul Krugman's opinion you shared at 7:12 am.

I spent a great deal of time yesterday viewing live streaming video of the OWS General Assembly meeting in Liberty Park. These protesters are our children, our brothers, our sisters, our neighbors. They seem smart, passionate, and dedicated to getting the message out. There was a lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of sending OWS reps to Egypt to offer support for the elections. The opinions were shared in rational manner and there was respect given to all who wanted to speak. Since there are no microphones, the crowd repeats what the speaker is saying so that others may hear. Fascinating process.

*I am traveling to lower Manhattan in the first week of December and intend to go visit to see for myself.*

It is easier to demonize and marginalize the participants in the Occupy movement, but, if you take a look, these folks are not much different than you and I and they could very well change the course of our nation's future in a positive way.

Check it out: http://www.livestream.com/occupynyc

manthou — November 20, 2011 at 7:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal | Ignore User )

nailingit — December 1, 2011 at 8:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — December 1, 2011 at 7:49 p.m.

I see plenty of progressives standing up for gay marriage, yet they fight tooth and nail when someone wants to legalize polygamy.

frobert — December 1, 2011 at 8:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


fro @ above

...and even more that condemn both gay marriage and polygamy. Those would be the intelligently ignorant conservative evangelical, God guns & money crowd. The ones that question our President's patriotism, heritage and citizenship.

Like Newt Gingrich.

Personally, I think this is one of the few times that the narrative "one suffer, all suffer" would be applicable. :)

nailingit — December 1, 2011 at 11:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Encourage everyone to get married. Give tax breaks and incentives for those that are married. It'd be like the sixties, and extra breaks for those that are gay and married, and most certainly for those that engage in plurality in marriage and most importantly gay plurality in marriage. Require the Federal government to consist only of married people.

Could this be the demonic plan wrought by the evangelicals? To have government so miserable and disoriented as to cause this implosion and dissolution?

As a matter of fact, it is like the sixties. Demonstrators getting gassed & shot in the streets. The establishment Nixon crowd demanding we shackle our youth in war, keep abortion illegal, treat gays as less than human, hating today's youth without trying to understand them, or failing to reflect on their own youthful passion for right and wrong. Or even worse. Writing it off as youthful idealism mixed with being "naive", and knowing so much more now.

I wonder how many wars we would have engaged in the last 40 years if we still had a draft.

*---___---Drift___---___* In the past I have requested the C to devote a forum on said subject, to include all drugs. Sometime if you want to debate, I'd be more than happy to play devil's advocate. From prior posts on the subject of Cannabis I think we most likely mirror one another.

Not to mix apples and oranges, or should I say greens & pie, but I would love to debate the pro's and cons of legalized prostitution, which I believe I requested a forum for also.

Exercising individual liberties in the context of American civil rights, and the government's role, well it's that crack in the wall that can't get painted over enough.

nailingit — December 2, 2011 at 12:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger- Just wanted to say hello and wish you well. Take care of yourself.

nailingit — December 2, 2011 at 12:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


anybody else notice how dull the basement's become....?

DeeLittle — December 2, 2011 at 11:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Yup! DEE, quite dull if you ask me..

I see all the flap on the FB side over a special meeting regarding getting everyone on the same page for the new bridge... Just build the dam thing and move on.. Geez.. No one's going to be happy either way that if it's not built then some will say, how can we get some of the money spent back.. I think Madore will lead that charge with his hired accountant who keeps saying she has proof of improprieties on the spending side but they haven't brought anything forth as evidence..

Nail-
we already have legalized prostitution... There called democrats and republicans, they've been raping us for years... We need some new people in congress, get rid of anyone who has been in there over 8 years and open there seats to elections..

vanwadreamer — December 2, 2011 at 11:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*yet they fight tooth and nail when someone wants to legalize polygamy.
frobert — December 1, 2011 at 8:54 p.m.*

After your OWS statement debacle, one would think one would think twice.....

Actually, when Lew and Bob and Ray posited the same idea, there were several requests for them to start the needed paperwork....

mr_basil_seal — December 2, 2011 at 12:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — December 2, 2011 at 12:23 p.m.

Got any proof, that's not the way I remember it.

frobert — December 2, 2011 at 12:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I've got to hand it to the GOP. For pure entertainment value, these debates have been the best ever. And now, the 'the coup de grace'. The final act on centre stage with the ringmaster himself!

The Republican party will be 4 or 5 elections away from dominating the political scene/media like it has the past couple of years. At least let's hope so. Given the high profile and attention these debates are getting, and the reason they are getting the attention, absurdities/stupid moments tend to stick in the publics mind.

This time it's the entire political structure of the Republican Party. I wonder which one of these candidates will be appearing on the Apprentice once they get voted off the island we call Capital Hill.

How about a spin-off titled "The Portentous". Episode {1} would have contestants split into pairs and told to go "sit in the corner" while occupying a round rubber room. The first team to seek dialog with Trump or fellow contestants trying to better understand the situation, would be disqualified on the grounds of seeking knowledge. If no one steps forward then.."sudden death" occurs. They would all receive endorsements from George W. Bush.

**Donald Trump Presidential Debate: Newsmax Teams Up With Trump To Host GOP Forum**

Donald Trump is moderating a Republican presidential debate.

Yes, you read that right! The conservative Newsmax magazine told the New York Times that it has teamed up with Trump — America's most famous birther/maybe-candidate — to moderate a Republican debate in Des Moines, Iowa on Dec. 27. The debate will air on the Ion cable network. It's not clear how many candidates have agreed to fit the new session into their already-clogged debate schedules.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/02/donald-trump-debate-gop-newsmax_n_1125917.html

nailingit — December 2, 2011 at 2:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — December 2, 2011 at 12:47 p.m.

If you don't mind digging through the muck, try Victoria Taft's and Lew's blogs or Bob's facebook pages-though he deletes stuff. Otherwise, it is just your mem v mine I guess.

mr_basil_seal — December 2, 2011 at 3 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I've said it for quite a while now - the only explanation for the clown show the Repubs have running is that they don't want the Presidency. They can talk all they want about beating Pres Obama - talk is cheap. (Unless it's Newt, that is.) But if you look at it from the perspective that the economy will not improve for the next several years, then not taking the office back makes sense. We tend to blame the Pres, though the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader have more ability to impact taxes and spending.

The races we should focus on are The House and The Senate. Depending on the news source, both are vulnerable to change of control.

roger — December 2, 2011 at 3:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — December 2, 2011 at 3 p.m

I remember discussions, but it was after bob was gone, including myself, Lew, RWE, You and Nailingit, along with several others on either side. Unlike some of the others however, I am a firm proponent of marriage equality, and was not using it as a ploy. As I recall most of the progressives in the argument were vehemently opposed to polygamy. I do have to admit however, that I do not recall your opinion on the subject.

frobert — December 2, 2011 at 3:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger — December 2, 2011 at 3:23 p.m.

What should concern people is war and civil liberties, on these subjects most of the GOP field is in line with Obama. Hopefully the voters will look past the media blackout and at least listen to what Paul has to say.

frobert — December 2, 2011 at 3:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Vandreamer,

Reference the new I5 bridge - the Repubs in DC are saying they'll refuse to approve transportation funding for rail construction - e.g., the nearly 1 billion light rail that's part of this project. Oregon is broke, and the bridge is NOT their priority - the only reason they even went along with it was if we (Washington) included extending the MAX to Vancouver. And with the Washington legislature in emergency session now to figure out a 10 billion budget shortfall - is this cost share there? Gov Gregoire made her position clear when addressing the funding problem when the two Govs met a few months back - if the money doesn't come from the gov't shares, then the toll payers can pick up the slack.

The CRC keeps saying the project will run about 3.5 billion. Opponents say they're not including interest payments, tolling operations, and other expenses - that the actual cost over time will run closer to 10 billion.

Finally, every argument for why we MUST have a new bridge has been challenged and/or discounted entirely, except for one. The only REAL reason for it is so people don't have to wait for bridge lifts. I for one don't see this as a good enough reason to build the thing.

roger — December 2, 2011 at 3:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal


There is no doubt the Republicans will lose the election with the field of candidates they have. I also think they are just biding time until 2016. At the rate obama and his pals are bankrupting the country, the Republicans can run Christie and win by a mile. That is, if China hasn't taken over by then. Our leaders, who must be on the take, will give China anything they want. After all, obama wants several billion more to create jobs, even after the first stimulus failed to do so. All of this money comes from China, so how much are they paying our politicians to help them out? I'll bet it would scare the hell out of us if we knew what our wonderful and corrupt leaders have in mind for us. When it's all said and done, all all politicians, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents will share in the spoils. This is why you can't get any worthwhile change from the newly elected. They will do what they are told by the good old boys or they won't get a piece of the pie.

cranky — December 2, 2011 at 3:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger — December 2, 2011 at 3:23 p.m

We all know who runs the country, (as far as government is concerned) don't we? The Presidency is of no concern to those boys, they would rather play around and test the waters for 2016 when the natural progression of the country should get back on the plus side and they can blame even more on Obama. What we need to do is re-elect Obama and dump a whole lot of Repubs from the House and Senate and turn this whole thing around without their help. After all, they don't seem to be too interested in doing anything to help things along as it is now.

hawkeye — December 2, 2011 at 3:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*most of the progressives in the argument were vehemently opposed to polygamy. I do have to admit however, that I do not recall your opinion on the subject.
frobert — December 2, 2011 at 3:29 p.m.*

Well, given there are about 3 or 4 progressives.....

The point of argument is that being gay is a biological fact; one that has become political. Polygamy is social / religious .

Which makes using polygamy a false equivalence.

And, if my recollection is correct; most progressives asked who / when was the paperwork started to get polygamy ruled legal. Hardly "vehemently ".

mr_basil_seal — December 2, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — December 2, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.

It is not a false equivalence, religion is protected under the first amendment, what you are physically isn't covered until the fourteenth.

frobert — December 2, 2011 at 8:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Barely 5 am back home in da 'Couve.

Spending 4 full days in NYC. There was a big gathering at Zucotti Park yesterday and Jackson Browne debuted his new OWS song called Which Side are You On. I missed the performance, but was given a replay by a young couple who captured it on a smart phone. The place was packed with a broad cross section of people, young and old. Many students from these schools: NYU; New School; Columbia. AIDS activists were protesting cuts in medical and prescription support, but I saw no arrests (I heard later that there were some). The police are keeping a presence, but are not threatening. Crowd is respectful, friendly and interested in engaging me in discussions. Portland (not the Couve, sad-to-say) enjoys a legendary rep here.

There is a 24 hour Occupy Broadway event ending today at about 6 pm. Since I am heading there for a matinee (Alan "Snape" Rickman in Seminar), I will swing by that gathering that is highlighting speakers, actors.

Tomorrow, farmers are joining the OWS folks for another theme-based day of awareness-raising about corporate control of family farms.

I do not think we should be so dismissive of these folks. Big government is hoping we minimize the power of this effort by making them seem like strange outliers. They are not. I am impressed with the multiple messages and joining of diverse, passionate voices. I really feel that this movement is historic and that the regular guys like you and I will benefit greatly from the efforts of those who have the stamina and will to get out and demonstrate.

More later......

manthou — December 3, 2011 at 5:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — December 2, 2011 at 8:14 p.m.

So, we've gone from false equivalency to skipping over the whole "all men are created equal" and leaping headlong into originalism....

We also didn't change the 2/5's until latter. Women didn't have the vote until later. We didn't directly elect Sen. until later. Somewhere in there we forcibly moved Native Americans. We didn't know how to us the power of government to help support the needs of the people through FDA, EPA, etc until later.....

And, yes, it took until the Civil Rights Act nearly 100 years later to enforce some provisions of the 14th....

mr_basil_seal — December 3, 2011 at 6:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal


It sure would be interesting to see which forum frobert gets his ideas and supposed supports from.....

mr_basil_seal — December 3, 2011 at 6:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou — December 3, 2011 at 5:11 a.m.
Well Done! Especially your last para which should be spread far and wide; please consider a LttE or other venues. Thanks!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltxMtS...

mr_basil_seal — December 3, 2011 at 7:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal


In response to Nail, Dec. 2 12:45:

Prostitution IS legal in parts of Nevada. When I lived in Tonopah there was a brothel on the edge of town. It went belly up (heh) before I moved away. A sign had been placed on the front door, "Closed. Beat it."

It's been months ago (year?) that I invited the C to come to my home and interview a "cannabis patient." I suppose they've declined, along with the County Commissioners, City Council and Task Force Commander. (shrug). It's rather obvious to me the C takes a dim view of medicinal cannabis.

Just for giggles, toss out a pro prohibition statement and let's see if I can rebut it.

Oh, and did anyone else notice the time stamps from about the time of Nail's post are out of chronological order?

Drift — December 3, 2011 at 8:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — December 3, 2011 at 6:24 a.m

My opinions are my own, I don't get them from a forum.

frobert — December 3, 2011 at 8:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Manthou, thanks for the report.

I have said this before and will again..
The Occupiers need to take the protests to each state capital, then onto the White House to be heard. Staying IN the cities will get them nothing but bad press.

@Basil and forbert, give it up, neither of you is willing to budge one inch. Both of you have the right to your opinion. If both of you stood back and really listened to the other, you'd find both have good points. No wonder our elected do not listen to each other and can not come to agreements when the citizens can't either. Seems the art of listening to others we were all taught in kindergarten has been forgotten.

ELISI — December 3, 2011 at 8:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Mr. Basil, from the ever evolving discussion with Frobert -

"The point of argument is that being gay is a biological fact; one that has become political. Polygamy is social / religious. Which makes using polygamy a false equivalence."

First, there is no clear proof that homosexuality in humans is biological - I'm attaching a 2003 article which says the differences in the brain are in areas that have nothing to do with sexuality. The conclusion is that this, like most behaviors, is a combination of environmental, sociological and other factors which we don't entirely understand. I haven't found anything more recent that, from a neutral approach, can provide a definitive explanation for how people acquire their sexual preferences. As Mr. Basil quite rightly notes, the politics of the topic are controlling this discussion.

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

Next, I think the role of religion in a society is the driving force in the whole argument of sexuality and how we express/practice it. (Which I interpret to be the basis of Frobert's arguments.) We have numerous laws still on the books in the states against anything other than heterosexual missionary position sex for the purpose of procreation. The latest stink over a church banning interracial couples can even be pulled into this discussion.

My point is that many of the social/rights/etc topics are contingent on the answer to whether our country is a Christian nation, or whether separation of church and state is intended to allow for alternate beliefs and practices. And I doubt we'll ever see this legally answered, because that could well lead to opening the more contentious topic of where we as a society can draw the line on what is acceptable and what isn't.

In closing, allow me to throw in another tangent to this discussion. Male homosexuality is still considered "icky" by the majority. Female homosexuality - at least the so-called lipstick lesbian variety - is fairly acceptable. Why?

roger — December 3, 2011 at 9:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger — December 3, 2011 at 9:05 a.m.

As a society we are much too obsessed with what our neighbors are doing behind closed doors. It makes no difference to me if my neighbor is married to another man, has two wives is smoking a joint or even shooting heroin. Neoconservatives and liberals seem to think they have the moral authority to make these decisions for their fellow man.

frobert — December 3, 2011 at 9:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Elisi at 8:53 a.m.

Agreed - the Occupy movement needs to branch out. They need to evolve from Occupy Wall Street (or where ever) to Occupy Our Government.

I side with the people that say they need a clearly stated goal. They're slowly moving in this direction, what with the message that our government needs to represent the people, not corporate America, becoming more prevalent. But there are still too many side issues to cloud the conversation. (I suppose that this point was one Editor Lou was trying to make with his Whales article.) But until this is clearly set forth, the whole movement will be at the mercy of the negative press from Fox, Limbaugh and other NeoCon sources - and these people do influence the beliefs of a large part of our population.

The movement also needs to have some sort of leadership; if for no other reason than to determine the role of civil disobedience in future efforts. People walking peacefully carrying signs can be ignored. People chaining themselves in the various capitol buildings (for example) require a decision on police and Nat'l Guard involvement. This escalates the movement to where it can't be ignored. This was clearly shown in the May Day demonstration in D.C. back in 1971 - the people who were arrested for "occupying" the Justice Building and various other nuisance activities in the week before the demonstration played a major part in getting the large number of people to show for the main demonstration.

roger — December 3, 2011 at 9:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert,

I'm inclined to agree. But you avoid the discussion of whether we as a society have a right to impose limits on our neighbors. Polygamy is something that I could live with, as long as the people involved want to be in that relationship. But let's look at NAMBLA - should these perverts be allowed the same consideration? So, how do we decide how and where to draw the line?

roger — December 3, 2011 at 9:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger — December 3, 2011 at 9:36 a.m.

I should have stipulated consenting adults, that is about the only line that should be drawn. Additionally a firm age of majority needs to be determined, having one age for alcohol, one for cigarettes, another one for sex and another one for the death penalty is not only unreasonable but may violate the fourteenth amendment.

frobert — December 3, 2011 at 9:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert,

Once again - agreed in principle. I think we have a moral obligation to protect those who aren't ready to make adult decisions. Having said this, I also think we need to re-look some of our applications of the laws. Should a 16 or 17 year old boy be labeled a sex offender for having consensual sex with a 15 year old girl? With the death penalty (which I would restrict but not abolish outright), we might want a very narrow window where it could be applied to a juvenile - a stone killer isn't going to change by growing older.

Do we allow animal sacrifice? We have plenty of Haitians who would say 'yes' to this, and some who practice it. But I can hear the outrage of the animal groups if this was legitimized. HOWEVER, if we say 'no' then we have to consider our food industry.

And I suppose numerous other examples could be raised. So, we keep getting back to whether society has the right to restrict the individual. Which you did in your response. But what set of values should apply?

roger — December 3, 2011 at 10:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I'm not sure whether this should be considered a 'feel good' article. It seems we're in a market where home values are holding steady.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/no...

I was interested to see Zillow being used as a subject matter expert. Back in Jan 2011, the time being used for County tax assessments, they valued my home $15K less than the Assessor's office. There was an extended discussion here on this topic - I believe a little before the facebook split. I could swear that at the time we were told assessment value is higher because that is real value, versus the resale value used on websites like Zillow. And the counterargument being that in a buyer's market expect to get less than the Zillow amount. Whatever.

Are we at the bottom yet? Or can we expect this leveling out to be temporary, with further drops coming?

How do we couple this to the employment picture? I believe ours is at the higher end of the scale. Can we apply both to say the home construction/sales fields are pretty much closed down here for the foreseeable future?

And given where we are, should projects that will lower home values (BPA I5 Corridor) and cause increased financial hardship for workers and small businesses (Columbia River Crossing) really be considered at this time?

roger — December 3, 2011 at 11:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger — December 3, 2011 at 11:06 a.m

We haven't hit bottom on home prices until the median income can afford the median home. When the average worker can't pay for a home, the prices are artificially inflated.

frobert — December 3, 2011 at 11:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Well, the pizza guy is done.

frobert — December 3, 2011 at 11:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Did you tip him?

Drift — December 3, 2011 at 1:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


would the proper tip be 9%

frobert — December 3, 2011 at 2:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Make the tip whatever you want - pizza guy isn't going to claim it. Not if he's got any sense.

roger — December 3, 2011 at 3:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Besides, Cain is done. We can put 9-9-9 to rest.

You can tell he isn't/wasn't a professional politician. Otherwise, he'd have shown a complete lack of shame and tried to ride the storm out.

Which one is next to go?

There are 2 Repubs running that demonstrate principles and consistency - Huntsman and Paul. Unfortunately, that isn't going to get them anywhere.

roger — December 3, 2011 at 3:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*As Mr. Basil quite rightly notes, the politics of the topic are controlling this discussion.
http://allpsych.com
roger — December 3, 2011 at 9:05 a.m.*

I think you might want to reread the article and closely follow that with a reading of the research it is based on. And probably actually do a review of the literature.

The 'nurture' argument is thin on the ground, note that even the allpsych article has to stretch for stuff to show that as a possibility. One reason that article pops up in google is the # of links to it from sites trying to make the same claim.

mr_basil_seal — December 3, 2011 at 4:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Mr. Basil,

The point is that there is no science that definitively proves homosexuality is genetic, or otherwise biological, in nature. Any source that claims otherwise is most probably driven by the politics of the argument.

The allpsych article took the stand that it is probably due to a combination of inputs that are mostly environmental in nature; in other words, it is more likely a learned behavior. Just because you may believe something else doesn't mean their article should be considered "lesser" in quality.

Allpsych's mission statement says in part - "...we strive to provide psychology related material to help improve factual knowledge, inspire thoughtful discussion, and facilitate a unique understanding of the psychological theories, applications, and needs for research."

Hmmm.... Sounds sort of like what most of the people who post on this forum are trying to do over a broad range of topics.

roger — December 3, 2011 at 9:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal


" allpsych article took the stand "

Actually, no. It was a half done 'review of the literature' that is 8 years old. That is why I said you need to track down the cites for the 'nurture' side of their claims and check on the full body of research.

Like much of the climate change research, not all the work is available for free on the internet. And this particular article shows up in your google search because of who links to it.

Really, before you hang your hat on that one article, call up and ask a psy or a counselor and find out more about current research, your article's shortcomings,and how to critically analyze data.

mr_basil_seal — December 4, 2011 at 6:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Mr. Basil,

If you have a source that you can provide, I'll be more than happy to look at it. Please make sure the science has been supported, and verified via independent corroborating studies.

Otherwise, I prefer to stick with my behaviorist views. I don't see any purpose in going back and researching again - barring new evidence, that is.

Oh, and by the way. I side with Frobert that this is a matter of choice, and that it's none of my business what anyone elects as long as it doesn't cause harm to me and mine. Meaning - if this is what makes someone happy, then go for it. But stand up and say so; don't try to claim science, the devil, or something else made me do it.

roger — December 4, 2011 at 9:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger — December 4, 2011 at 9:23 a.m. (

Like much of the climate change research, not all the work is available for free on the internet. And this particular article shows up in your google search because of who links to it.
Really, before you hang your hat on that one article, call up and ask a psy or a counselor and find out more about current research, your article's shortcomings,and how to critically analyze data.

mr_basil_seal — December 4, 2011 at 9:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


From John Laird's latest column:

“And the Hounds of Whinerville won’t be muzzled anytime soon, Hub. C-Tran will present another ballot measure next year. And if it fails, a high-capacity transit subdistrict probably will be created and another vote taken.”

John's argument is that it's OK to reduce the pool of voters to those directly affected by the outcome of that vote. His conversation with a fictitious Amboy resident applies this train of thought to the recent Prop 1 vote that raised the sales tax to support C-Tran. And he concludes by saying we can expect the same with the C-Tran light rail maintenance vote next year - if the voters don't approve the measure, then it'll be OK to go back and reduce the voting district until we reach the desired outcome.

John is applying the big kid on the block mentality to this argument. His train of thought is that what's good for downtown Vancouver is all that matters - the impact on those in outlying areas doesn't need to be considered. The bridge, and anything that affects cost and tolling rates, is a county-wide concern that we will all be paying for.

Oh, and by the way. Does John TRULY think light rail will result in more people coming up from Portland to spend money (even without paying sales tax)? Why? What do we have here that can't be found in Portland? If anything, the dollar flow will be in the other direction - light rail will eliminate the parking headache and make shopping in Portland much easier. Wider selection and no sales tax - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

roger — December 4, 2011 at 9:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Mr Basil,

If there is in fact more to this, especially if it supports the biological or genetic predisposition argument, then I strongly suspect this info would in fact be readily available and posted to the internet. Why would this be kept close hold and available only to the professionals?

And using the comparison to climate change, that you bring into the conversation - let's see, if I contact 10 experts, how many differing viewpoints will I receive? And there is plenty of science to apply to the climate change argument - that one is more about different interpretations, especially when applied over time.

Let's agree to disagree. We're not going anywhere.

roger — December 4, 2011 at 10:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal


> If there is in fact more to this, especially if it supports the biological or genetic predisposition argument, then I strongly suspect this info would in fact be readily available and posted to the internet. Why would this be kept close hold and available only to the professionals? -- roger — December 4, 2011 at 10:08 a.m.

A very sound observation Roger.

> The point of argument is that being gay is a biological fact.... -- mr_basil_seal — December 2, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.

Considering how frequently mister bs chides others to support their claims, one would think he would readily do so himself.

kn_dalai — December 4, 2011 at 10:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal


http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/273/1605/3031.abstract

C'mon, are you serious?
I know homosexual males whom are very effimanite -- from the voice to mannerisms to physical structure. I know lesbian women whom are very masculine in the same fashion.

But then, I know some that aren't.

I'd say it goes both ways (heh). That is, some folk are genetically disposed to present as the opposite sex, but there are also those (for whatever reason) whom have chosen their sexual preferences.

The argument cannot be won because the nature of human behavior is a moving target. The answer is, yes.... and no.

Drift — December 4, 2011 at 11:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Technology bloggers are asking if our phones are spying on us after a security researcher said a piece of software hidden on millions of cellphones was recording virtually everything people do with their phones. The software appears to be relatively innocuous. It does keep track of what owners of Sprint Nextel Corp. and AT&T; Inc. phones do with them, including what they type and the numbers they dial. But it doesn't seem to transmit every keystroke. Instead, it kicks into action when there's some sort of problem and lets the phone company know.

Would it be fair to suggest the Patriot Act, and especially application of roving wiretaps as approved by Pres Obama back in the May 2011 update, is behind this? When do we find that all cell phones have similar software? And though we're told the average law abiding citizen has no reason to fear that our gov't is monitoring us, how can we be sure?

roger — December 4, 2011 at 11:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal


What have you guys done with the Nail? I've been looking forward to a friendly dope debate ;^)

Drift — December 4, 2011 at 11:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift,

Interesting reading. I won't pretend to understand it all, but it looks as though they were developing mathematical models that could be used to apply to observations and show the likelihood of genetic morphing based on certain environmental influences. An awful lot of supposition is applied. But given that polymorphism is supported by science with other species, to include actual change of sex, it looks like their reasoning is sound. Who knows - maybe a little more research?

I'm sure this topic is of interest to pot growers and the desire for female plants....

roger — December 4, 2011 at 12:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger - I'm sure this topic is of interest to pot growers and the desire for female plants....

A little, but not much. When one takes a clipping from a female plant, it's a sure bet the clipping will be female ;^)

Typically, when one grows from seed (and isn't breeding) the males are discarded.

There *is* a process where flowering plants are treated with a silver solution with the goal of producing female seed. It's called "feminizing." The plant becomes worthless with exception to the seed.

Many of the European seed peddlers use this method. It's controversial. Many claim feminizing inhibits the genetic diversity of the plant. Myself, I've no opinion.

Drift — December 4, 2011 at 12:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The state is out of money and has to raise the sales tax, but they have enough money to spend $41,000,000 on a no bid contract for new two way radios in police cars? Why can't we get some politicians that understand living within their means. I would love to replace my ten year old car, but decided not to, because I don't have the money, why can't the state figure it out.

frobert — December 4, 2011 at 2:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Frobert,

Don't worry - Olympia will cut funding for a few more people programs, lay several more state employees off, and find a couple of more ways to tax us - they'll cover this "critical" need that's just too good for the State Police to pass up.

Why does this surprise you? There are still too many of us holding on to our homes, cars, etc. They've got to up the ante - along with bridges, BRT, rising electricity and water rates, etc, etc, - they'll get rid of this pesky middle class that think we have the right to a future for ourselves and our kids.

roger — December 4, 2011 at 4:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger, did you catch the printed artical/blog by Andrea Damewood called 'Scandal: Leavitt meets with advisers??' I'm so confused, I thought the City Council members were Leavitt's advisors but yet he set up 'His' advisory group on next year's C-Tran vote on light rail. Then goes to tell them what he did, nothing like putting his players in place??

karma — December 4, 2011 at 6:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*The state is out of money and has to raise the sales tax, but they have enough money to spend $41,000,000 on a no bid contract for new two way radios in police cars?*Emphasis**

don't know about that, but I have seen where the state is hiring more troopers. Don't know where they get the money to do so, but i guess the state wants to be ready when all hell breaks loose.

Teachers & education are suffering, but we gotta have more troopers. Maybe that is more cost effective-more cops, more revenue (however, I think a teacher starts at $40K, about 2/3 of a state trooper, and pays for their own training/education). Has the state ever considered if more troopers actually reduces the crime rate? Or is the crime rate based strictly on the number of arrests? Speaking of arrests, maybe there will be more arrests as protests become more commonplace and therefore more cops are required. Who knows? Evidently the state doesn't care. Just gotta have more troopers. Just book 'em, we can and will pay for that, but as for roads, schools, health care, etc, no way.

mrd — December 4, 2011 at 9:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal



Forum Login