Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

Roe isn’t about choice, it’s about freedom.

Nothing worth doing is easy.

Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.

Following reporting rules is only for the little people, apparently.

Reality always lies in wait for … Democrats.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

Hot air and ill-informed banter

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

Come on, media. you have one job. start doing it.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

And we’re all out of bubblegum.

Everybody saw this coming.

As long as McCarthy is Speaker, the House will never be in order.

Battle won, war still ongoing.

Republican obstruction dressed up as bipartisanship. Again.

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

Bark louder, little dog.

Something needs to be done about our bogus SCOTUS.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

After roe, women are no longer free.

So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.

You are here: Home / Open Threads / Good and Bad

Reader Interactions

35Comments

  1. 1.

    Face

    Markets soaring. Who wouldn’t buy knowing the gov’t has pretty much backstopped every and all gambling losses from now until god-knows-when?

    The banks can now basically gamble risk-free. Speechless.

  4. 4.

    bootlegger

    Just wanted to share this from salon.com on the Geithner Plan

    But before taking a deeper look at the plan itself, one can’t help but note that the varying reactions demonstrate the historically unprecedented position Tim Geithner inhabits — demonized by both the left and the right. Not only can’t he, by definition, please everyone — the very fact that he satisfies one side sends the other into a panic.
    As economic historian Brad DeLong noted over the weekend, the world is divided into "people who are strongly opposed to the Geithner plan because Tim Geithner is a socialist who wants to destroy American finance" and "people who are strongly opposed to the Geithner plan because Tim Geithner is a corrupt plutocrat who wants to give Americans’ money to the princes of Wall Street."

    This sound familiar to anyone?

  5. 5.

    Kevin K.

    Thanks, John.

    We’re going to take a little break. It’s been a tough couple of months, but I’m sure there will be a kitten down the road. We’ve already decided it’ll be named Biscuit regardless of its gender, primarily because my wife, somewhere along the way, came up with a really funny voice to say "biscuit."

    Yeah, that shouldn’t make sense, but trust me, it’s funny as hell when she does it.

  6. 6.

    Rick Taylor

    Wonderful. An open thread to pontificate about things I know little about.

    In talking about Krugman, either pro or con, it’s important to be clear that his bottom line argument isn’t that Geitner’s plan funnels money to people who got us into this mess; his bottom line argument isn’t even that we’re going to pay too much for this toxic paper. His bottom line argument, right or wrong, is that it isn’t going to work.

    The proposed plan is partly about funneling a trillion dollars into the financial market, but that by itself isn’t enough to solve the problem; that’s a small figure compared to the questionable paper out there. The goal, if I understand correctly, is to create a market in this paper. The argument is the market is currently undervaluing it, and by getting the paper moving, we can raise the price which will stabilize the banks’ balance sheets. At least that’s how I understand it. Krugman’s argument, right or wrong, is that the toxic paper is already near it’s true value, and that attempts to raise it by sleight of hand won’t work in the long run. So eventually it won’t work and we’ll have to nationalize the banks anyway; only by then we’ll have spent a huge amount of money and political capital making it that much harder.

    There are two groups here, both on the left, yelling at each other. One group is arguing, you ivory tower types who don’t have to deal with political reality don’t understand! Your proposed cure is worse than the disease. Nationalization sounds good on paper, but what good is that if it’s politically and practically impossible?

    The latter group replies, you political types don’t understand! The problems in the banking system are deep, and playing games like this won’t fix them. Funneling money to the banks might be politically safer than nationalization, but what good is that if it won’t work?

    And so the two groups are shouting at each other, and my big fear is that both of them might be right.

  7. 7.

    Rick Taylor

    And just to add my own current opinion, the current proposed plan troubles me, because it seems designed to elevate the prices for these assets above their ‘true value.’ Given the amount of ignorance, it’s tough to say what they’re true value even is, but we could say it’s what an intelligent investor would expect them to pay if held to maturity. There is an argument to be made that these securities are currently underpriced because of fear and lack of liquidity, and there are ways we could try to get a market going to get them closer to what their price ‘ought’ to be. But the current plan seems designed to get investors to overshoot that price, by limiting downside loss, and selling to people who may have an interest in propping up the banks independent of their interest in making money investing in the paper. To some who support the plan, this is a feature not a bug; they want to get capital into the banks, so if we overpay for these securities, that’s good. But then the administration is not being entirely honest, when it says this is designed to price these securities accurately; and also the goal of developing a stable market in these assets may be undermined.

  9. 9.

    Laura W

    Deep thought:

    It’s probable that come summer I will be changing my handle to Mission to Marzipan.

    There are 3 others sure to haunt me if they show up here in Tiny Town.
    Assholes.
    (Edit: They really are assholes. The link didn’t go directly to new flavors. Guess you just have to go dig out their 8 or so new flavors. I mean, if you’re into that kind of stuff…)
    http://www.benjerry.com/flavors/our-flavors/#

  10. 10.

    JenJen

    @Laura W: Chocolate Fudge Brownie (I kick it old-school), followed closely by the young up-and-comer, Americone Dream.

    Another Deep Thought: OMGZ TEH MARKETZ! Either it’s screwing up everyone’s meme today, or there’s a deep conspiracy unfolding.

  11. 11.

    D-Chance.

    NY state senator indicted for slashing his girlfriend’s face with broken glass, requiring 25 stitches.

    Somehow, Colleen Long, AP writer, fails to note the political identity of the indicted state senator (hint: he wasn’t Republican).

    Although, he IS a former police officer…

  13. 13.

    Laura W

    @John Cole: I tried the Peach when it came out and was meh on it. Sadly for Willie, his Peach showed up here the same time as Cinnamon Buns and Creme Brulee. Those were my go-to flavors all last summer whenever I succumbed.

    I hate that they discontinue stuff. I am Happy Happy to see Oatmeal Cookie Chunk. Years ago when they were testing it out I was so obsessed with it that I emailed them and insisted they add coconut to it, and probably raisins and nuts, knowing me. I saw it in a local store last year marked: "Discontinued" and bought all 4 points, naturally.

    I hate that they do temporary, seasonal flavors. PUMPKIN SPICE? Omigod. It showed up here in November and I assumed it’d hang around for Christmas but noooooooooo….Assholes.

    I can’t wait to try the Orange & Cream because who does not love a 50/50 bar and much like the Mint Chocolate Cookie, it will be refreshing in the oppressive heat.
    I am pretty sure I’m gonna die over the Marzipan Mission, the COCONUT SEVEN LAYER BAR, and probably Chocolate Macadamia. As you can see, the chocolate flavors are not high on my B&J’s list. If I must go dark, Phish Food is the only choice.

    Sorry, what was the question, John?
    (Edit: I seem to recall they have a Dead Flavor Cemetery link on their site? Or used to? I’m not gonna go look ‘cuz it makes me sad. I can only grieve so much.)

  14. 14.

    AhabTRuler

    @Laura W: I am so ridiculously predictable that I will admit that I recognize only one real flavor: coffee.

    Chocolate has a sort of hazy, ephemeral existence that coalesces at a rate inversely proportional to the presence of said coffee ice cream.

  20. 20.

    AhabTRuler

    the SO and I went to Amsterdam for New Years Eve in 2001, and some point I thought I had spotted a Ben & Jerry’s. Later when we had a, shall we say, desire for some ice cream, or rather, some good ice cream (stick with the olliebollen and the stroopwaffles, folks), we could not find it. We searched for an hour before we settled for a watery milkshake from a shwarma stand.

    However, when we went back in 2004, again for New Years, we found the damn (well, actually dam, i guess) place!

  21. 21.

    Comrade Mary, Would-Be Minion Of Bad Horse

    Maudit!

    In the past year, [Debbie Wasserman Schultz] underwent seven major surgeries, including a double mastectomy and reconstructive surgery, while balancing motherhood, Congress and her roles as a chief fundraiser for House Democrats and a political surrogate, first for Hillary Clinton and then for Barack Obama.

    They forgot to mention that this woman has kicked serious ass every time she has gone on tv as a surrogate. What a fucking trouper.

  22. 22.

    Laura W

    OK, someone has to ‘splain this to me please!
    You are with a woman (without any break-ups, IIRC) for 23 years, have a 6-year-old child together, and decide to marry her NOW?
    Why?
    Is Letterman terminally ill? Seriously, what on earth is the motivation here?
    (I believe I have already confessed in a thread somewhere that I take an excessive interest in the relationship dynamics of other people.
    Prolly if I got one of my own I wouldn’t care so much.)

    Edit: Whooop! I call sexist pig on myself. Maybe she just now agreed to marry him?
    Regardless. My question still stands.

  23. 23.

    Laura W

    @Comrade Mary, Would-Be Minion Of Bad Horse: HOLY CHRISTIE!
    Makes me want to delete my superfluous, petty post (but I won’t because I’m petty and superfluous by nature.) This is the first I’ve heard of this. I was blown away by all of her activities before I knew about her health challenges. Now I just thinks she’s a Goddess, in the literal sense of the word. Wow.

  24. 24.

    JenJen

    Also apropos of an Open Thread, Tweety is really pushing his pronunciation of "Cheney" as CHEEEEEENEEEEEEE today. Can’t miss it. Over the top.

    CHEENIE CHEENIE CHEENIE

  25. 25.

    Litlebritdifrnt

    @Laura W:

    They are putting Marzipan in ice cream? I am not a big fan of ice cream but I am a marzipan nut and I should imagine that concoction will be absolutely heavenly, it could convert me.

    Oooooooh I just thought, a battenburg ice cream cake made with that stuff, OMG that would be awesome.

  26. 26.

    Laura W

    @JenJen: UBER-annoying, was it not?
    Quick! Lou Dobbs is about to have "Three of the Best Thinkers in the Universe" on.
    Name two!

  27. 27.

    Mission To Marzipan

    @Litlebritdifrnt: Didja read the ingredients?
    Sweet Cream Ice Cream with Almond Cookies & a Marzipan Swirl
    Almond Cookies too! Like the kind you get in Chinese restaurants, I hope? And sweet cream vanilla ice cream.

    I don’t know if I can look my boiled kale, yellow squash, prawns and tofu soup in the face right now, frankly.

  29. 29.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    @Laura W:

    I had brussels sprouts for lunch and am having BOILED KALE for dinner. Talk about predictable.

    If yer tryin to lose weight for Letterman, too late. I’m reliably informed he’s finally tying the knot.

  31. 31.

    Laura W

    @Just Some Fuckhead: Oh Praise Allah, a man’s here. (You’re a man, right?)
    Walk me through this. How does this happen? Why does this happen? What’s it all about, Fuckhead?

  32. 32.

    Laura W

    @JenJen: Kitty Pilgrim! You win!

    (Please disregard duplicate post once my earlier response is freed from Mod Jail. It’s best I not switch handles back and forth cuz I can never remember to switch back after I spoof. Some day I am totally going to blow my BOB cover.)

  33. 33.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    @Laura W: He’s been asking her for years and years and she always smiles and says no but with pain in her eyes because her ex was such a bastard and she never wants to be in a relationship again where she can’t just pick up and disappear.

    But Dave nursed her through a recent illness and she realized she doesn’t ever want to leave. So she said yes.

    That’s my theory.

  35. 35.

    AnneLaurie

    You are with a woman (without any break-ups, IIRC) for 23 years, have a 6-year-old child together, and decide to marry her NOW?
    Why?

    Another possibility: Your six-year-old child starts asking questions you can’t answer with "Because". Yeah, kids these days are used to serial relationships and families so extended that the genealogy charts require fourth-dimensional math, but the only creatures more deeply and stubbornly conservative than dogs are children under the age of twelve.

Comments are closed.