Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojkt1972 – Just before midnight, amidst the backdrop of the twentieth Olympic games, 9 Israeli Olympic athletes are massacred on the tarmac at the Munich airport after a botched rescue attempt turns into a firefight between their Palestinian captors and German security forces. The athletes, most of them members of the Israeli wrestling team, had been taken hostage (2 others were killed) by members of the terrorist organization Black September after the terrorists had sneaked into the Olympic Village and stormed the Israeli apartment complex in the early morning hours. After an initial demand for the release of some 230 prisoners held in Israeli prisons, a day of negotiations is played out in front of a worldwide television audience of millions. Eventually the attackers request a plane to take them to Cairo, a request ostensibly granted by German authorities, who prepare to ambush the attackers after transporting them to an air base in helicopters. The plan, to the extent there really was one, goes drastically awry when security forces posing as airplane attendants take it upon themselves to abort the mission, thus tipping off the terrorists to the trap. In the ensuing firefight, the terrorists turn their fire on the bound hostages in the helicopter, and then toss a grenade into it, incinerating anyone who was still alive.
1836 – Sam Houston is elected as the first president of the Republic of Texas. A year earlier Houston had been appointed to be a military commander of the Texas army during the nascent movement to establish Texas independence from Mexico. Under Houston’s leadership the Texas army had recovered from a disastrous defeat at the Alamo in early 1836, and had gone on to defeat the Mexican army, capturing its general Santa Anna in the process. Santa Anna was subsequently forced to sign an armistice granting Texas its independence. Houston actually gets elected as Texas’ president twice, serving from 1836-1838, and then again from 1841-1844. He would go on to serve as a Senator in the US congress after helping Texas gain admission as state in the US in 1845.
1774 – In response to the passage of the Coercive Acts, more locally known as the Intolerable Acts, 56 delegates representing 12 of the 13 colonies (Georgia was unrepresented) gather in Philadelphia for the first ever session of the Continental Congress. It is the first formal act of unified opposition to British rule among the American colonies. The delegates, who will draft a declaration of rights and grievances to be sent to the King, include Patrick Henry, John Adams, and George Washington.
Title added by Michi
Filed under: This Day in History |
All Things in Moderation 
The Munich slaughter still blows my mind.
LikeLike
McWing;
The Munich slaughter still blows my mind.
Agreed.
BTW, I think the Germans really bungled it.
LikeLike
FYI — you’re missing a headline.
LikeLike
Thanks.
LikeLike
nova:
On the Kaiser paper you linked to earlier, from NRO:
But when you thumb through the Kaiser report, you learn something interesting. Its authors did not actually measure whether or not Obamacare would increase premiums relative to what they are today, because they claim it would be too “complicated.”
So if the Kaiser authors didn’t compare Obamacare rates to pre-Obamacare rates, how do they arrive at their conclusion that premium increases will be “lower than expected?” By comparing rates in 2014, under Obamacare, to rates “implied” by a Congressional Budget Office projection about premiums in 2016.
(Kaiser assumes that the CBO would have predicted that the second-cheapest “silver” plan on the Obamacare exchanges will cost $320 a month, drawing that from the CBO report predicting that in 2016, such a plan would cost $433 a month.)
That is to say, what matters to the Kaiser authors is not whether rates will go up relative to what they were before Obamacare. What matters is whether rates will go up by even more than the CBO predicts. Their thinking can be summarized this way: If a car today costs $10,000, and the CBO predicts the same car will cost $15,000 next year, next year’s price is “lower than expected” if the price only goes up by 40 percent, instead of the predicted 50 percent.
LikeLike
Fixed.
LikeLike
De nada, mi amigo.
LikeLike
Funny. And all you need to know about Syria.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/05e15bba3e/alyssa-milano-sex-tape
LikeLike
Here’s the big problem with the whole thing: “and the CBO predicts the same car will cost $15,000 next year”
there’s really no way to know what the car is going to cost next year.
LikeLike
Has the CBO ever been right in its predictions?
LikeLike
Sorry, posted this on the wrong thread.
Compare:
Sanders told Schultz he had similar concerns, especially since Republican lawmakers have expressed opposition to further tax hikes. “What may well be happening is the cost of this war is more kids being thrown off Head Start, senior citizens being thrown off Meals on Wheels programs, educational programs being cut,” he said.
And contrast:
In this afternoon’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote on the resolution to authorize military action, seven Democrats voted for it compared with three Republicans. Meanwhile, five Republicans voted against it compared with two Democrats. Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey voted “present.”
How’re Senators Sanders, Warren and Markey gonna vote?
http://m.nationalreview.com/corner/357639/sanders-gop-using-syria-cut-head-start-meals-wheels-andrew-johnson
P.S. How could they forget that Republicans will drown puppies as well? That’s some sloppy reporting Ed.
LikeLike
it’s an impossible task. they have to make a set of assumptions and run with it. and they have to base it on current law. how do you predict what things will cost when you really have no idea what enrollment will be, what states will implement medicaid, how many providers will be available, etc.
CBO gets a bad rap, but they’re flying blind.
LikeLike
nova:
CBO gets a bad rap, but they’re flying blind.
I don’t blame the CBO. I blame those who tout their numbers as if they are indicative of reality.
LikeLike
http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-majority-of-americans-approve-of-sending-cong,33752/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Default:1:Default
LikeLike
And his Christmas trip into Cambodia is seared, seared(!) into his memory.
@mlcalderone: Kerry tells @chrislhayes that “picture we all saw in the paper today…of those people being shot” could happen more if US doesn’t act. (1/2)
I shit you not.
LikeLike
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-05/libertarians-are-the-new-communists.html
Okay then
I don’t know what to think. It’s certainly nice to be making all the right enemies
LikeLike
nova (from the article):
Some are followers of Texas Senator Ted Cruz, whose highest aspiration is to shut down government.
We really need not read any further. It is immediately obvious that the authors are either dumb as a box of rocks or not interested in a serious, honest analysis of libertarianism, “radical” or otherwise.
LikeLike
What a douche. Apparently, wanting a government that does less makes you a ” radical.” So, what about those that want to reduce defense spending? Radical, genocidal extremists?
Pure trolling.
Wait a minute…
LikeLike
It’s really quite the article. Points for actually including Somalia.
LikeLike
Ahhh Somalia, the “radical” Libertarian paradise of freakish lefty fever dreams.
LikeLike
McWing:
Ahhh Somalia, the “radical” Libertarian paradise of freakish lefty fever dreams.
And yello’s.
LikeLike
jnc:
I meant to link this yesterday, but forgot to. I know the SEC’s penchant for settling cases without demanding admission of wrongdoing is a pet peeve of yours, I figured you’d be interested in an op-ed yesterday in the WSJ, The SEC Should Admit a No-Admit Change. Unfortunately it’s behind the firewall, but if you don’t have a subscription, I can e-mail the whole thing to you.
Among the big news at the Securities and Exchange Commission this summer was a reported change in the agency’s long-standing policy of allowing accused wrongdoers to settle charges without admitting misconduct. Last month’s settlement with Philip Falcone and his Harbinger Capital hedge funds, in which Mr. Falcone admitted wrongdoing, has been heralded as the first concrete proof that the agency will sometimes require admissions of culpability. Media reports suggest other cases may be coming.
But if a major policy change is under way, it is unusual that the agency has said nothing publicly about it. While recent media reports have quoted unofficial comments and internal emails of individual SEC officials, the agency has consistently defended no-admit settlements before courts and Congress. It has said—correctly—that no-admit settlements are the civil law-enforcement norm across all federal agencies and essential to the prompt and effective resolution of cases.
Ordinarily a federal regulatory agency puts a major policy shift into effect through an official statement explaining its reasons, or even a formal rule-making. This is a legal requirement. The Supreme Court has held repeatedly—most recently in the obscenity case FCC v. Fox Television Stations (2009)—that when an agency reverses existing policy it must “provide reasoned explanation” and “show that there are good reasons for the new policy.” At a minimum, an agency cannot “depart from a prior policy sub silentio or simply disregard rules that are still on the books.”
LikeLike
Interesting take on what has really destroyed the institution of marriage.
LikeLike
Heh. Fitting, we’re just cartoon characters anyway.
LikeLike
I still cannot fathom what advantage marriage offers. The fact that the “institution” of marriage is changing or failing isn’t the fault of courts or society so much as it’s just not an advantageous situation.
LikeLike
McWing:
The fact that the “institution” of marriage is changing or failing isn’t the fault of courts or society so much as it’s just not an advantageous situation.
I actually think it is advantageous to women who want to have and raise children, as well as to the children they end up having and raising. It provides them with some level of financial security. The advantage to men rests (or, rather, used to rest) on women’s unwillingness to have sex outside of marriage. In the absence of that, I agree, there isn’t much advantage to men in getting married.
LikeLike
I’ll just note that the author of that piece is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
LikeLike
He is also a lawyer and consultant for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, and a special consultant for the Center for Bioethics and Culture. The relevance of which escapes me.
LikeLike
“it’s just not an advantageous situation”
I have a friend in his late 20s. younger brother of a close friend. he has no intention of getting married. they way he puts it “I have lots of sex and she won’t ever leave with half. she’ll just leave. and if that happens, there are others.”
LikeLike
“I have lots of sex and she won’t ever leave with half.
Wishful thinking for two reasons. 1 is that pregnancy will inevitably result. the second is that the law will change and disperse assets regardless of the “casualness” or the relationship.
LikeLike
McWing:
the second is that the law will change and disperse assets regardless of the “casualness” or the relationship.
It already has, to some degree. That was the point of the article I linked.
LikeLike
“pregnancy will inevitably result”
I believe, but i’m not certain, that he’s going to address that.
your second point is frightening.
LikeLike
So, second look at, er, self-satisfaction?
LikeLike
apparently the kids today are idiots.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2013/09/pill-no-prob-meet-the-pullout-generation.html
but, he mentioned in passing a vasectomy. not sure if he was serious or not .
LikeLike
I’m finding it pretty sad the men here see no reason for marriage now that they seem to think monogamous (on the part of women) sex is a thing of the past. In our family the men married with the hope of hanging on to the women they loved for dear life.
I happened to be in the waiting room of an out patient facility yesterday and was hanging out with four sixtyish (very stylish I might add) women who were waiting for their men to come out of surgery so they could take them home to baby them for a few days…………hah. We though about leaving for a margarita instead but decided to stick it out.
LikeLike
lms:
I’m finding it pretty sad the men here see no reason for marriage now that they seem to think monogamous (on the part of women) sex is a thing of the past.
I don’t think monogamous sex is necessarily a thing of the past. I do think that women refraining from sex outside of marriage is a thing of the past, and it is that fact that eliminates the advantages of marriage for a man.
In our family the men married with the hope of hanging on to the women they loved for dear life.
Well, you make a good point in that my analysis should include emotional attachment as well as sex. Women who say “marry me or I am gone” are providing an incentive to men (who care about them) to get married, just as are women who say “Marry me if you want to have sex”. But I think both types of demands are increasingly a thing of the past, although the former a little less so than the latter.
LikeLike
I like being married and wouldn’t have it any other way.
but i understand why guys are balking at it.
LikeLike
I’m finding it pretty sad the men here see no reason for marriage now that they seem to think monogamous (on the part of women) sex is a thing of the past. In our family the men married with the hope of hanging on to the women they loved for dear life.
I’m no spring chicken at 47 years old. It’s been my anecdotal experience that the overwhelming number of women and men I meet do not believe they will stay married to the same person the rest of their lives (this is the same for those that have never married as well as those currently on first marriage). There just is no expectation on anybody’s part of the permanence of One Marriage Only. The women that I know all fully expect to have more than one marriage while the men I know all vow to never marry again post first marriage. From an economic standpoint, and frankly emotional standpoint as well, it just makes no sense to marry from a male perspective.
I believe that the law will change, is changing, so that even the most casual of relationships will result in the splitting of assets. I can’t figure our why that’s happening without my latent misogyny shining through,so I wont.
Marriage as an institution, from my standpoint, is dying if not dead.
LikeLike
McWing, most of our daughters’ friends waited until school was finished and careers blossoming before getting married and all hope to spend the rest of their lives with their chosen mate. Weddings galore around here. The only one of any of them who is balking at marriage is my oldest daughter. She doesn’t want to pass her genes (asthma, drug and insect allergies etc) onto another human being, so she doesn’t really see the point of marriage yet. Now that her youngest sister has been thinking about it for the first time though she’s leaning her boyfriend’s way and may change her mind, but only about marriage not the kids.
You apparently know some very cynical, unromantic people. I’ve been married 35 years (it is my second and his first) and my husband still wonders what the hell I saw in him…………..hahaha
LikeLike
Lms,
The economic and emotional consequences of their parents divorce(s) as well as their own divorces has made cynics out of many of my aquantences. I did say it was anecdotal. I have been married for 18 years (and lived with my wife for 3 years prior to marriage). It is her second marriage and my first. I have no complaints and, according to my wife, am definitely NOT romantic.
Considering the what I have seen and experienced, the notion of romantic love underlying relationships is a breathtakingly bad option. Better a legal partnership entered into Eyes Wide Open and expectations written in advance in a legally binding contract.
It is what it is. I just don’t see advantages in romantic partnerships.
LikeLike
McWing
am definitely NOT romantic
You should try it sometime, you might like it. I use my youngest as a gauge for a lot of contemporary attitudes. She’s 31 and well educated, professional and attractive. Most of her friends are similar. Most of them are marrying and having children right now and happily pursuing careers at the same time. They’ve very liberal socially but not quite so liberal economically. She works in the oil industry and her older sister is an artist. The oldests’ friends are not quite so conservative economically but otherwise, not much different, just a little more outspoken and radical. Our nephew is 40 and also an artist living in SF and a complete lefty in every way who married his long time love last year.
Our son is 41 and a real entrepreneur. He’s pretty conservative except for when it comes to things like gay marriage, abortion, etc. He leans a little libertarian and I think he regrets getting married sometimes but loves being a father, which totally shocked him I think.
Maybe the marriage and commitment trends are changing over time, I don’t know but from where I sit, things don’t seem all that much different really. I swore off marriage at 23, until I met my husband 4 years later…………….lol
LikeLike
Lms, I would if I could, but I lack that aspect of character. Oh well.
It’s all anecdotal information we’re dealing with here. My sister and I have the longest and second longest marriage of anybody in our extended family or circle of friends.
LikeLike
They’ve very liberal socially but not quite so liberal economically.
excellent 🙂
LikeLike
True, it’s all anecdotal. Our youngest does have friends all over the country though (even Texas) between work and school. Like I said, I use her as a gauge since I’m so old……………..hah
Nova, they’re not quite libertarians though……………………..yet. One thing they have in common, perhaps from being starving and broke students for so many years is a belief in universal health care. Empathy I guess.
LikeLike
lms:
One thing they have in common, perhaps from being starving and broke students for so many years is a belief in universal health care. Empathy I guess.
I don’t see how “empathy” would underlay support for universal health care. I have empathy and I think universal health care is a horrible idea.
LikeLike
Scott
Didn’t say you don’t have empathy or that everyone who does supports universal health care. I do believe that some people are more empathetic to certain situations and ideas if they’ve lived through similar circumstances such as not having health insurance or knowing someone who doesn’t in your own age group or people with similar backgrounds. It’s not unlike how gay marriage has become more acceptable because more gays have come out and more of us know and love them. We want them to have the same opportunity for “misery” as the rest of us………….we’re empathetic……………lol.
LikeLike
lms:
I do believe that some people are more empathetic to certain situations and ideas if they’ve lived through similar circumstances such as not having health insurance or knowing someone who doesn’t in your own age group or people with similar backgrounds.
Me too. I just don’t think it compels people to support universal health care. Ideology does. That is to say, a willingness/desire to use government to “fix” perceived problems is what compels it. A person who has had the same experiences, and is just as empathetic to those situations, but who does not have the willingness/desire to use government to “fix” perceived problems will not be so compelled.
LikeLike
Scott, I believe there are moderate people out there who are driven by circumstances more than ideology. Not everyone is a strictly ideologically driven consumer when it comes to a market place that is as broken as health care delivery. A lot of conservatives both rely on and continue to support Medicare for instance. A lot of conservatives supported TARP as an exception to their normal ideology. Most people realize the only way to get to universal health care will be government driven, and perhaps these empathetic young men and women, while conservative in many ways, are also realistic?
I personally think you, mcwing, nova, brent and jnc are perhaps more ideological than the average bear.
LikeLike
lms:
Most people realize the only way to get to universal health care will be government driven…
That seems to me to be a tautology. Universal health care = government run care. “Universal health care” isn’t a description of a particular outcome, it is a marketing slogan specifically for government involvement in health care.
…and perhaps these empathetic young men and women, while conservative in many ways, are also realistic?
If they think increased government interference with the provision/financing of health care is going to somehow fix the problems that already exist, I respectfully suggest that they aren’t being realistic in the slightest. They are engaging in wishful/magical thinking.
I personally think you, mcwing, nova, brent and jnc are perhaps more ideological than the average bear.
I think everyone here probably is.
LikeLike
i think you might be on to something, lms
LikeLike
Scott
Universal health care = government run care
Okay, tautology or not, I know people who call themselves fiscal conservatives who support universal care and since the only way to get there is with government intervention, they suspend their normal ideology in order to get what they want. It’s no different than conservatives voting for TARP or telling Obama to keep his hands off their Medicare. I didn’t say it was logical.
They are being realistic in the sense that they know pre-existing conditions preclude an individual from acquiring insurance on their own and so the only way to cover these people is with some sort of government intervention. This is where empathy comes in. I even heard Republican House and Senate members call for coverage for these people during the health care debate. It’s the single most supported, by large majorities, of all the provisions of the ACA. Naturally they didn’t specifically say how they planned to get there because we all know the only way is through the government.
Maybe you guys are comfortable with not suspending your ideology in the case of health care but I doubt all conservatives feel that strongly.
LikeLike
They are being realistic in the sense that they know pre-existing conditions preclude an individual from acquiring insurance on their own and so the only way to cover these people is with some sort of government intervention
But does it have to be Single Payer to get credited with empathy?
Maybe you guys are comfortable with not suspending your ideology in the case of health care but I doubt all conservatives feel that strongly.
Again, you seem to be saying that there is only one way to look at health care and that’s government run single payer, all other ideas not conforming to this are not legitimate and lack empathy.
Is it immoral to believe that health care is not a right?
LikeLike
McWing, what I’m saying is that I know people, especially young ones, who realize for some reason that not everyone receives the same opportunity to purchase health insurance or have their employers subsidize it, and they seem to believe that that opportunity should exist. I call it single payer, they can call it whatever they want but the only way to get where they want to go is with the help of the government.
Even the pre-existing plans enacted by 30 plus states pre ACA only covered about 200,000 people nationally and were subsidized partially by the Federal Government. Lots of Republicans seem to realize that someone with asthma, a bad back, cancer or even migraines should be able to purchase insurance but they don’t have a way to get there in the current employer provided system as an individual.
If you want to talk about eliminating that and the tax breaks that come with it and open up the market somehow, that’s fine, but I doubt you’ll ever get the insurance industry to cover sick people without some coercion.
Your plan to eliminate Medicare and just give people the money won’t ensure they can purchase insurance and there won’t be enough money to cover some of the existing costs.
Maybe there’s a way to lower costs and make sure everyone has the opportunity to receive medical attention absent single payer without the government being involved but I haven’t seen it yet…………..just pipe dreams.
LikeLike
And nowhere did I claim that only people who support single payer have empathy, read my comments again.
LikeLike