Monday Open Thread
Is it Monday already? I swear a weekend was supposed to happen – did I miss it? Let’s open this thread anyway.
Congratulations to Kelly Kulick:
Kelly Kulick used a 15-pound bowling ball to smash a 52-year barrier when she became the first woman to win a professional PBA Tour tournament.
Kulick, 32, accomplished the milestone today at Red Rock Lanes in the Tournament of Champions, one of four “major” events in the Professional Bowlers Association.
“It’s been a dream of mine to win a PBA Tour event, but I couldn’t have imagined it would come in the Tournament of Champions,” Kulick said moments after defeating Chris Barnes 265-195 in the championship game aired live on ESPN.
Girl power!
A woman who was taking an art class at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art has accidentally fallen into a Picasso painting and damaged it.
The painting called The Actor sustained a vertical tear of about six inches (15cm) in the lower right-hand corner.
But the damage did not affect the “focal point of the composition” and should be repaired for an exhibition later this year, the museum said.
I wonder how often something like this happens?
Congratulations Kelly!
Class, in what NCAA sport do men and women compete as equals?
Has there ever been a bigger political implosion than John Edwards? John Edwards made a sex tape. Yuck!
Cheerleading !!!!!!!
h. good guess but no, the NCAA refuses to recognize Cheerleading as a sport.
Curling?
Equestrian?
Rifle, small bore (22 cal) and air rifle, is the only indiviual competiton where men and women compete head to head.
coed team sports – Fencing, Rifle, Skiing.
(the shooting I knwe, I had to look up the coed teams)
ps Bowling is a NCAA women’s sport, but not a men’s.
Clue train headed for Harry Reid and Senate Dems. They just can’t wait to get back to their nice quiet minority offices.
2 horrible things from the Obama admin today. 1) he said he would rather be a good effective 1 term president than spend the next 3 years campaigning for a second term…
He was being honest, and it is big of him to sacrifice his second term (potentially) to make the country better. BUT that is assuming the Dem-rats and republicans in the senate and house don’t turn their backs on the new lame duck and work on their OWN re elections. ALSO if he does decide to run for a second term, the right wing talking point can be “I guess he doesnt think he did a good job”
A very honest statement from Obama, but his VP can tell hm being honest doesnt work in washington.
second. Obama has informed congress the admin intends to sell weapons to Taiwan. Hopefully this is the Goodfellas style final 3000 dollars before we have to turn our back because THAT is troubling especially since war with China (we would presumably back Taiwan) would pretty much be the end of the world as we know it.
scary times.
Off the Kool-Aid, a.price?
Man, oh Man…Obama is putting in a Spending Freeze amid the worst recession since the great depression.
Del Lib UNITE and support!
Yes, the left is in full freakout over the spending freeze. It’s not much of a freeze, according to the details being leaked now.
It’s not that I think the so-called spending freeze is pandering to the right, because it is. I doubt he’ll get any credit for it. Obama also seems to be too enamored with “deficit reduction.” I just hope he has enough people who don’t drink the deficit kool-aid advising him.
I don’t think this freeze rules out additional stimulus packages.
There is nothing wrong or anti-progressive about enforcing some budget discipline on government agencies. If we don’t control the rate of growth, we are creating a structural deficit rather than a temporary deficit. Creating an entrenched structural deficit is the wrong kind of spending for properly executing a Keynesian stimulus.
We do need new stimulus spending, but stimulus should take the form of focused jobs bills rather then just allowing agency budgets to expand randomly.
Here’s an explanation of what’s going on with the spending freeze. The 2nd stimulus, health care reform and defense are not included in the freeze. The speculation is that the freeze is to 1) help get Senate votes for finishing hcr with the reconciliation sidecar and 2) reassure foreign bondholders of U.S. debt.
I am torn. Liberals I respect are screaming “Nooooo!” But Dave Burris hates the idea also. Hmmmm.
I therefore withhold judgment for a few days to look at it.
hey Slate linked to this site from an article about Beau. Here’s the link
http://www.slate.com/id/2242554/
I think that article is pretty far off the mark, actually.
LG,
I don’t think the spending freeze is really supposed to appeal to the left or to the right, I think it’s aimed at Independents.
I am embarrassed by liberals freaking out about the freeze. They are the cartoon liberals Repubs want us to be. What, did they think we’d never have to cut spending growth?
I don’t think it is anti-Keynesian; I think this freeze is fine on policy grounds, but Obama should have gotten something from Repubs for it instead of just offering it up free. DeLong makes the point (via dKos) that Obama should have offered it up in exchange for Republican concessions on tax increases:
Frankly, last night was an embarrassment for liberals. Kos himself accused Obama of being like Herbert Hoover. Ready, fire, aim.
I agree with DeLong that this spending freeze probably won’t get Obama what he wants. He should have tried to use it as a bargaining chip, maybe to get a vote out of Brown or Snowe.
First, the best thing we can do for the deficit is to reduce unemployment. Until we start seeing a real recovery, it’s going to look bad. Once we have a recovery going yes we really should look at the deficit because it is a long-term problem. Ending the wars should help a bit, but we also have to look at spending. I can tell that we won’t get significant deficit reduction for the short term since spending is higher than tax revenue. The only way to start seeing a deficit reduction is to reverse that.
Deficit reduction means different things to different people.
For Repubs, it means “Massive spending cuts, preferably those that damage Democratic constituencies like unions and poverty programs. Cut deep enough to also afford tax cuts for the rich”
For Democrats, deficit reduction is always “Something to do later.”
But on technical economic grounds, the path to deficit reduction is to raise taxes and control spending simultaneously. With the caveats of course that:
1. Temporary massive stimulus is still allowed, focus on job creation and not agency expansion;
2. Tax cuts should be progressive; if Obama keeps his campaign promises on taxes that should be covered.
3. Spending restraint does not require massive cuts, all it requires is to restrain the rate of spending growth.