Monday Open Thread

Busy work day. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< How to Get a Gold Star From the DEA
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    About Ernie Banks. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 01:42:30 PM EST
    I was too late to the last open thread to post about Ernie. As has been said, he was a great guy and just about the best goodwill ambassador MLB and the Cubs ever had. Oh, and he loved the Cubs. Just like the rest of us fools.

    One of my favorite personal facts as a kid was that Ernie Banks, Jackie Robinson and I all shared the same birthday. What am I saying "as a kid", hah, that is still a favorite personal fact.

    ruffian, I know that it feels like a Cubs World Series will not mean much with Ernie and your dad gone, but, if they do get there in the next few years, i bet we all get pretty excited, perhaps unbearably so. I understand your feelings on this. My mom is 86 and my uncle 89. I so hope the Cubs get it together while they are still alive. The only member of my family that I knew, who got to cheer a Cubs victory in a WS, was my late grandpa who was 8 years old at the time of the last win.

    Pitchers and catchers for the Cubs report to spring training on Feb. 19. Just 24 days to go.

    First real blizzard (none / 0) (#1)
    by CST on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 12:08:06 PM EST
    Of the year for the east coast and it's supposed to be a doozy.

    They've officially cancelled the MBTA for tomorrow and are instituting a travel ban at midnight.

    All stocked up, can't wait for an adult snow day, although I will be bringing some work home with me.

    I am so jealous...we're supposed to (none / 0) (#3)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 12:18:16 PM EST
    eke out around 3 - 6 inches here in MD, but that's just nuisance snow, not enough to keep people home.

    So, I'm here at work, and will probably be here again tomorrow...sigh.  I just hate these events where you don't know what to do - do you stay home and feel bad if it doesn't amount to anything?  Do you go and hope it doesn't crank up and it takes you hours to get home?  Argh...

    Certainly aware that blizzards can be deadly, and don't wish harm to anyone - and I know there are people who won't have the luxury of having work or school canceled - I just wanted a guilt-free day off!

    Our other offices will probably be closed tomorrow - Philly, Pittsburgh, Princeton, Boston - but the rest of us will likely be plodding in to work.

    Oh, and did I mention I'm getting a cold?  Really swell way to start the week.

    Yes, I'm feeling sorry for myself.

    Be safe and report in when you can!


    We are only predicted to get (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:58:31 PM EST
    One to two inches, but it's supposed to be worse east of here (which is unusual).  The Washington County schools opened two hours late today, but really, the roads were fine early this morning, and they probably could have safely opened on time.  An abundance of caution, I'm sure, and I would hate to be the person that decides whether to open, close, or delay the schools.  They catch flack no matter what they do.
    I'm much more worried about Daughter Zorba in New York City.  They are supposed to get it much, much worse than Maryland.
    Philly, New Jersey, New York, and points north of that.
    May they all be safe.

    NYC is fun in a blizzard (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:14:03 PM EST
    as long as you are all stocked up. I used to go out and romp with the Dot before the snowplows came through (but there was some good accumulation) and then we would go in and hunker down for some stress free quiet time. When it was over, we would go back out and do some snow drift diving :P LL's take care of all the shoveling (and I lived across the street from a school, so that was always kept cleared too), so it was a relatively painless unless you slipped on ice a few days later ;)

    I just spoke to Daughter Zorba (none / 0) (#43)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:39:59 PM EST
    She was getting ready to leave Manhattan, where she works, and stock up and go back home to Brooklyn, where she lives.
    She said that she is taking work home with her, and expects to work from home tomorrow, which fortunately, she is able to do, assuming the grid is still working and she has phone and Internet service.
    And if it's so bad that she even loses those services (which is very doubtful), she will still have lots of paperwork to catch up on.  And they do have candles and such.
    As well as plenty of food.  And booze.   ;-)

    My friends there are well stocked (none / 0) (#70)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 06:24:10 PM EST
    on booze, lol!~ Sounds like they aren't going anywhere until well after the storm.

    Power usually holds up during winter storms. Summer heat waves are another story. I never worried about power in the winter, but some days in the summer, I did a bit of praying as the power would take dips . . .If the power goes out, heat/hot water/gas stoves are still there. (pretty sure the heat is still there if it's radiators . . . )


    What is Shocking to Me... (none / 0) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:11:19 PM EST
    ...is that 30 inches is a record.  That I think 22 inches was the old one, WTF, as someone who grew up in Wisconsin that is a good sized storm, but not the stuff of records.  I had no idea New York didn't get snow like Milwaukee or Chicago.

    30 inches (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:19:48 PM EST
    would be a record in Boston where it's currently 27.something from the blizzard of 78.  I've been here for a few 2+ feet of snow but that's definitely a big storm.

    We don't get anything bigger than that.  I'm not sure if Chicago is anything like Pittsburgh, but one thing I noticed living there was that it would snow for like a week straight.  You'd only get an inch a day but still.  That doesn't really happen here.  We get one big storm, and then it will probably be sunny until the next weather event.  But you almost never see a full week of any kind of weather.  Not really sure why that is.

    I know everyplace has the saying "if you don't like the weather wait a minute" - and in a way it was true in that you could have 80 degree weather one week and 40 the next - but it wasn't the same in that it was constantly changing.

    This is considered a slow moving storm around here - which is why we'll get so much snow.  But it should still be over by Wednesday morning.


    The notorious "Lake Effect," ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 05:20:59 PM EST
    ... in which the Great Lakes act as a heat sink during wintertime to draw cold Arctic air in a southward rush, sometimes creating massive snow-producing clouds in the process that then move onshore, tends to exacerbate the effects of winter weather throughout the region.

    Further, according to some meteorologists, cities like Chicago, Milwaukee and Duluth MN / Superior, WI -- all of which front the shores of the Great Lakes -- are particularly prone to some rather outsized snowfalls because like the Lakes themselves, as urban industrial areas they're warmer than the surrounding land.

    While inhabitants of Midwestern cities and towns located further inland may be subject to even colder temperatures than their lakeshore brethren, they also generally tend to receive less snow.



    I know exactly what you mean (none / 0) (#5)
    by CST on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 12:33:53 PM EST
    Nothing worse than a few inches of snow - enough to be annoying but not enough for any of the perks.

    Although looking at the radar right now we're gonna get hit with the worst of it.  They're talking 30 inches or so - which would be 2-3 inches more than we've ever had on record.  That being said - we're used to 2 feet, you just stock up, stay inside, and ride it out.  Hopefully without losing power.  Most of all - stay off the road!

    When they shut down public transit and institute a travel ban even the most overzealous of employers has to back down.  Obviously emergency personnel will be working but hospital workers are being told to get there tonight and bring an overnight bag.


    When I was attending college in Seattle, ... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:04:05 PM EST
    ... it snowed exactly four times during the five years I was there. Two of those times, the snow didn't last a day. But the other two were blizzards that shut down the city for several days, until they could dig us out and / or the snow finally melted.

    One of those times occurred during finals week in December, which played havoc on everyone's plans -- from professors and instructors who were trying to wrap up the quarter, to students such as myself who were going home for the holidays.

    And then, about a quarter century later in December 2008, when I was in south Seattle to conduct a marketing and feasibility study for a client, there was what local residents still refer to as "Snowpocalypse!" (The similarly abnormal and heavy snowfalls they endured only three years later in January 2012 were collectively labeled "Snowmageddon!" Go figure. What'll they call the next one -- "Blitzenkreig"?)

    Granted, I live in Hawaii and grew up in SoCal, two places where it only snows at upper elevations, but I've still been around. And personally, I've never seen it snow so relentlessly like that anywhere as I did in Seattle that December, except perhaps the year prior in Chicago, and that was only two days' duration.

    For about five days, right up until Christmas Eve, heavy snowfalls repeatedly inundated the entirety of western Washington state, which pretty much wiped out any opportunity I had to survey and interview project stakeholders as part of that study. I had to reschedule all my interviews for a return trip two months hence, which in turn delayed my report by about a month.

    While everyone else were apparently enjoying their pre-Christmas week off, I was basically snowbound at the Southcenter Doubletree Inn by Sea-Tac Airport for the better part of three days. Thank Gawd the Southcenter Mall was open and right next door, so at least I could escape there and watch movies at the octoplex. And when I finally left Seattle, that was the only time I've ever been on a plane which had to be de-iced twice prior to departure.

    (One thing I've noticed is that King County, WA is almost never prepared for such blizzards. Such events are relatively rare phenomena in Seattle, and almost all the snowplows are invariably deployed in the Cascade foothills in the eastern part of the county, where it snows all the time.)

    Good luck. We'll be thinking of you.


    One December Day in 1978... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 04:50:48 PM EST
    ...when I was visiting my best friend, who had moved to Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga, it snowed enough to leave about three or four inches on everyone's lawn and back yard. We went wild as only SoCal kids could under such miraculous conditions. That was my ONLY snow day as a kid in the metro L.A. area, granted far east and in San Bernardino County, but still. And he didn't live up in the higher parts there, just on the edge of the "flatlands," knowing that the flatlands out there aren't exactly North Hollywood level.Will remember that day forever. Had no mittens, so we put sock on our hands.

    My mother remembers several days ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 05:40:05 PM EST
    ... in January 1949 during which the San Gabriel Valley received a thick white coat of snow, while the rest of the L.A. basin received snowfall in lesser amounts. I'm sure your parents would likely remember that particular event as well, if they were living in the region at the time. She has some great B/W photos from that time, in which you can see my grandparents' house and all the neighbors' houses just covered in snow, along with all the pine trees and surrounding foliage.

    She said the weather paralyzed much of the city for obvious reasons, so they had no school for two whole days. And apparently, the farmers in the San Fernando Valley, which received over a foot of snow, were hit particularly hard. The Los Angeles Times also has a photo essay of the snows of '49.

    It's never happened again since.


    Yeah, Those Days... (none / 0) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:06:02 PM EST
    ...where you are right before the break point really sucks.

    Not a damn thing wrong with wanting a guilt free day off of work.  We get it with the torrential downpours.  Houston used to be a sea floor so it's flat as a board, so a half inch stops the city.

    I will say this, they cancelled work once time before a huge storm was coming in, it missed us and since that time, no more cancelling before hand.  We have to call in to see at 7am, and that sucks, not knowing the night before, just sitting there praying enough rain will hit to cancel work, but not too much as to flood homes.

    I remember as a kid, maybe school was cancelled one day a year because of snow, never because of the cold weather and in Wisconsin, that included the entire month of January, which back then rarely got above zero.  Now cold weather, which is actually warmer, is cause for cancellation. And as I write this I realize I was starting to sound like my dad in regards to how easy these kids got it...  But it's true !


    Did anybody (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 12:18:07 PM EST
    read about the GOP freak show that went on in Iowa this past weekend? It sounds like we're going to get a repeat of 2012 with the GOP flying their full freak flag.

    Did you read also that the Koch bros (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 12:33:15 PM EST
    Snubbed Romney?  They invited Jeb to their affair, snubbed Romney

    Have decided that Romney's way too (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 12:51:14 PM EST
    desperate and needy - and there's something about all that groveling and a$$-kissing that's just so off-putting.

    No, Mitt, we don't like you; we really, really don't like you.

    [do you think the Koch brothers arrived at the meeting in the capitalists' version of the Pope-mobile?]


    Nah (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 12:57:52 PM EST
    Murikan Snipers Luv them :)

    No (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 12:38:07 PM EST
    did not know that but then in all honesty why would they? Romney has already lost one time.

    Iowa Freedom Summit (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jim in St Louis on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 12:56:33 PM EST
    Very attractive  Deep Bench was my thought.   Quite a wide variety of candidates and speakers, all with different backgrounds and different skills. Lots of new ideas and proposals.  Was nice to see several speakers challenged or even heckled. Good for politicians to have to face the party activists and be accountable. Will be interesting to see what direction the party goes.

    Seems more `democratic' to have lots of candidates rather than one designated person anointed by the party super-genius delegates that shall be unchallenged if you know what is good for you Bub.


    If all you have (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 01:26:37 PM EST
    is a bunch of freaks running then you're going to get a freak for a nominee. I wouldn't think that's a good thing but then I don't care what the GOP does. One of their freaks is probably going to lose and that's a good thing for the country.

    I Saw Clips... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:20:39 PM EST
    ...who was it, I want to say Paul, but not 100%.  Anyways he was saying something about HRC being the 'architect of Obama's foreign policy'.  And yes, the part in quotes was the actual words.

    Christ, that statement is so many times wrong, that I can't begin to understand what it meant.  Does that mean Kerry is now the architect of US foreign policy, and what the hell was wrong with foreign policy during those years, we didn't bomb a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 just because we could.

    I'm guessing it meant:

    Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, you are getting sleeping, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, now don't think about anything but how Obama and HRC killed people purposely, and how outraged you are, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi...

    Is it just a coincident that Jim seems like an identical protege of the other Jim ?


    If you can't be bothered... (2.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Jim in St Louis on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:46:44 PM EST
     So some guy who you can't be bothered to figure out said that Hillary! is the 'architect of Obama's foreign policy'.

    Hillary! was SOS for the whole first term and into the second. What is so many times wrong with saying that?



    So Secretary fo State... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:08:17 PM EST
    ...set the President's foreign policy ?

    Thanks for making my point, the right is bananas, but I am guessing the same is not true for GWB, or did Condi set foreign policy.  I would say that would explain a lot, but she and GWB are brothers of other mothers, so to speak.

    It didn't feel like showering, but since you care so much, it was Rubio, "Hillary Clinton is the chief architect of the failed Obama foreign policy."

    And then there is Paul Ryan:

    "I think she's clearly very much to the left of her husband, and she's a liberal-progressive who was the architect of a catastrophically weak foreign policy," he added.

    The quote is worse than my recollection and thanks to your proding, I realize that this is a mem 'artchitect of foreign policy'.

    No comment on how Obama policy was a failure during the HRC years ?  This is news to me, and news to a whole lot of folks I would think, but please explain how FP during HRC was a failure and how that is her FP, and not Obama's.


    Well...yes I think that is true. (2.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Jim in St Louis on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:25:07 PM EST
    I'm not getting your point here.  The SOS is responsible for setting the administration's foreign policy; and that is subject to the President's approval.  (Its also subject to the Senate's advice and consent- at least treaties and ambassadors are- but lets not confuse a cat)

    I think that Hillary! is going to have to get used to defending her record as SOS. If you think that she can just say "Oh that was not me- that was just my boss"  I don't think it will sell at all.  Is that what you are saying?

    I can tell that you have a clever and sharply timed come-back insult if you can only goad me into saying Benghazi.   OK go ahead- shatter me with your wit.  


    Well As Far As I Know... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 04:10:37 PM EST
    ...the right's only FP issue during Clinton was Benghazi which isn't a FP.

    I won't repeat, but Anne covered it below.  It's the President's Foreign Policy, not Clinton's, which seems to be what the right is implying or straight up stating this week.  Last week, last year, since GWB, it was Obama's and I would imagine it would only be Kerry's if he decided to run, because to date I have never heard anyone call current FP Kerry's FP, or that Kerry is the architect of current FP.  But like magic, the right has realized they were wrong, it's actually Clinton's FP, imagine that.

    Which is precisely my original point, the right is bananas with this stuff.  Beyond the ridiculous claim, neither mentioned, nor have you mentioned what the issue was if we are to believe it was actually HRC's FP.

    What is the problem with it ?


    Lybia (none / 0) (#41)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:32:58 PM EST
    That one sits squarely on the shoulders of Hillary along with Susan Rice.

    Obama let them talk him into that one and we see how that turned out without even discussing Benghazi.


    Actually, it was Marco Rubio who said it, at (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:21:28 PM EST
    the Koch Brothers' ring-kissing:

    All three jabbed at former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is expected to be the dominant contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. Paul referred to "Hillary's war in Libya" as "a disaster." Rubio said it would be "a mistake to elect as president the architect of Obama's foreign policy."


    I get that the move is on to demonize Clinton at every opportunity, but it has been reported that the two did not always agree on strategy or philosophy, with Hillary being to the right of Obama, and much more hawkish.  It seems to me that she was carrying out his approach, not acting on her own.  But if you can give us some examples that show otherwise, that would support your objection to someone taking issue with Rubio's statement, we'd love to see it.

    And, just a suggestion: if you want anyone to take you seriously, you might want to consider losing the exclamation points; they just seem so, I don't know, juvenile.


    Juvenile? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:49:20 PM EST
    That's actually giving him more credit than he probably deserves.  I know some "juveniles" who are more mature than that.
    Just saying.   ;-)

    Can Someone Explain... (none / 0) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 04:12:17 PM EST
    ...what this means ?


    It's just a juvenile (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by sj on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 04:57:50 PM EST
    attempt at cleverness meaning... something. I don't know. I saw it the first time as an attempt to be clever responding to "Benghazi!" which iss a short cut to refer to the mantra wingnuts like to bring out when discussing HRC.

    IMO it never works out: conservatives shouldn't try for clever. Or funny. Definitely not for funny.

    In this case, I bet he can't see how it's just a baby step from his attempt at cleverness to out-and-out obvious misogyny.


    Clinton's role as SOS (2.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Jim in St Louis on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:44:58 PM EST
    You make up false assertions, and then you demand that your evil opponent's should provide links to counter those assertions. You really have been paying attention during the Obama years since the false charge that was said by no-one never is his favorite trick.  

    I'm not even sure what you lefties are mad about!

      So you want me to say that Hillary! was a tool, and a pawn and a robot? and only Obama is responsible for his foreign policy? Or should I just say she was not acting on her own- just carrying out his approach?

    If you don't know why Hillary! has the exclamation point,  well  then you just are not ready for Hillary!


    Yeah, deep bench alright... (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:34:58 PM EST
    it is loaded with crazy all the way to the third string level.

    And the practice squad's got some potential in that area, as well.



    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:25:54 PM EST
    is reported to have said that Jeb Bush is the real threat and Christie is a sideshow.   Agree, but Jeb needs to get through the primaries and that crowd seems bushed.  And, agree, too, that Christie and all the rest are rightly described as a sideshow, as in Circus.

    The Court's have come to the rescue of the Republican party on same sex marriage, but some (Cruz, Jindal, Huckabee) still see gold in them thar hills.   Cruz and Jindal are calling for resistance with an amendment to the US Constitution; Huckabee takes a less cumbersome tact--urging states to ignore the Court's rulings, just try nullification--as Jackson said to John Marshall: he made his law, now let him enforce it.

    Romney, his close allies say, is ready for his third try as a calling from his Mormon faith. He will, this time, no longer downplay, but rather,  highlight his faith, pointing out his leadership skills as a pastor.  

    This time around, it may be a well-considered idea to close that Swiss bank account. And, hopefully, during the past two years, he has been too busy to file an amended 2011 tax return--the one in which he did not take all his charitable deductions (Mormon Church and his Foundation, primarily), to which he was entitled so as to keep his tax return from falling below a threshold that would betray his assertions that he never paid lower than a 13 percent tax rate in 10-years.

    He overpaid to get to 14.1 percent, otherwise, it would have been 12.2 percent ( $1.95 million on income of $13.7million).   Then there is that car elevator, dressage, binder of women, Michigan trees of the right height, 47 percent--and the dog strapped onto the car's roof.  Had I known Mitt was going for a do -over, I would have devoted more time over the past two years working on making it all look better. But, it  really is a full-time job.



    Jindal (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:27:02 PM EST
    OMG what an international embarrassment. He went to England and repeated the Fox News lie that there are Sharia courts there and Birmingham is 100% Muslim. So he was on the news saying this and the entire populace of England is now laughing at that moron and he's being skewered in satire.

    Looks like Jindal (none / 0) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 04:30:23 PM EST
    is trying to elbow his way between Huckabee and Perry in the fashion runway.  At the Hellzapoppin confab, hosted by scary  family values types, in Louisiana last Saturday, the Governor of the State called for a national spiritual revival and urged attendees to proselytize on behalf of their Christian beliefs.

    No mention, however, of exorcism.  In 1994, he penned a piece for the 'New Oxford Review" describing the beating out of a demon--the physical dimensions of spiritual warfare.  Bobby describes his participation in the exorcism of his very close friend, Susan.  This experience should help with the primary crowd, and it something that Perry and Huckabee are unlikely to be able to top.


    Romney is living in a fantasy world (none / 0) (#33)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:08:37 PM EST
    Even Republicans aren't dumb enough to pick a three time loser.

    Scott Walker or Jeb Bush will be the nominee.

    As entertaining as all the other kooks are republicans still always nominate a normal person to be their candidate.  All this talk of a Cruz or Huckabee is just nonsense.   Look back at the last 10 nominees.   Nothing to get too excited about.

    I like Walker because he's battle tested three times in the last four years defeating the unions in a blue/purple state.

    No idea how he plays as a northerner in the South with the social conservatives but that is why he showed up last week in Iowas to get a little street cred and then hopefully not have to dive in that water much more.

    Hillary Walker would to me at least be an interesting campaign.  Can't label a guy who's won 3 elections in Wisconsin as a right wing crazy.

    So much depends on the next two years.

    Does the ME continue a spiral into despair?

    Does the economy finally turn around or are we in for another Summer decline?

    How does the final roll out of Obamacare go as the individual mandate goes into affect and the pricing starts to become real?

    Does Obama flip the script the next two years and become the obstructionist president?    

    And by the way which does Hillary want?   Obama gumming up government to protect progressive principals or him working to get a few things passed or even something big?


    History (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:31:59 PM EST
    has been that they nominate a normal person but the problem is that the GOP primary turns even a normal person into a freak. By the time someone like Scott Walker gets out of the primaries he'll sound just like Ted Cruz because you have to sign onto all the ideas.

    And the first thing Scott Walker did was pull a Karen Handel after this past election and crank up the war on women. He's doing a lot to show the far right he's their guy. Never fear though I'm sure Hillary has all his crackpottery on tape to play in a general election.

    That is at least where Jeb Bush seems to be smarter by staying away from those kinds of events that encourage crazy remarks.


    Not sure the war on women (none / 0) (#42)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:38:29 PM EST
    has the same traction it did last time around but we'll see.

    Also Jeb wipes away one of the only talking point advantages republicans have against Hillary which is that she's old news and a legacy.

    Jeb is not only a legacy but a legacy to a more unpopular president.

    No matter who they nominate the dems will load up with the same talking points about women and taxing and all the rest so I'd rather have a candidate who isn't a retread and a legacy going up against Hillary and who again has just recently won elections where everything but the kitchen sink was thrown at him.



    I'm guessing (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by sj on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 05:00:49 PM EST
    you would have greater insight into the traction the war on women has if you were, you know, a woman.
    Not sure the war on women (none / 0) (#42)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:38:29 PM MDT

    has the same traction it did last time around but we'll see.

    But then again rightwing males are always convinced they know what's best for the little lady.

    sj (none / 0) (#63)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 05:45:45 PM EST
    I am a lover of women and not approving of the democratic position on abortion (totally because I'm not against in all cases) and free birth control doesn't mean I'm waging a war on women.

    Some women like my wife agree with me.  Is she waging a war on women? Am I waging a war on her?  Do all women think the same?  It's just confusing for us right wing males.

    My comment was in reference that this issue did not help dems in last election.   That's all I meant.


    Slado, the "war" isn't about (none / 0) (#71)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 06:37:29 PM EST
    the fact that people disagree about the issue, it's about the imposition of restrictive and even punitive beliefs on all women of childbearing age.

    What the anti-choice people don't seem to be able to grasp is that allowing women to make the choices that are best for them does not force any woman to take any one particular path.  If abortion and contraception are legal, accessible and affordable, it does not mean that any woman will be forced to have an abortion or use birth control.

    Don't believe in abortion?  Don't have one.  Don't believe in contraception?  Don't use it, abstain from sex, or pray - whatever works.

    Please don't make the mistake of thinking your beliefs are so much better or moral than mine that they should be forced on all women.  But also, don't assume that those who support the right of women to choose when and whether to have children would themselves choose abortion.

    I am a mother who chose not to have amnio because we knew that perfect genes did not guarantee a perfect life and we would have our baby regardless.  But who am I to tell anyone that she cannot choose differently?

    These are personal and private decisions that should be allowed to remain entirely within the control of each woman.  Period.


    Well (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:51:28 PM EST
    frankly the people in congress are doing a great job of running women off. Scott Walker is doing the same. You don't even have to use the "war on women" thing just show what they actually have done and said.

    Hillary doesn't represent the past though. The GOP can't talk about anything but the past and wanting to return America to the past. Nobody even remember the 1950's unless they're at least 65 years old. Lots of people remember the 90's though and remember it as the last time we had a good economy.

    Besides that we're not far enough away from the GOP having complete control of the country and the disaster they wreaked on all of us for voters to let the GOP have control of the country again. We see that the GOP only answers to the far right 20% of the country. We see it today in congress and we saw it with George W. Bush. There's a reason why Obama's ratings are climbing. It has nothing to do with what he's done or hasn't done so much as he's the only one keeping crazy at bay now.

    You can nominate Scott Walker but he's going to be shopping the same old tired ideas that the GOP has been bringing to every election for the last 1/3 of a century. And polls show him not even carrying his own state which shouldn't surprise anyone since Paul Ryan didn't even carry his own congressional district.

    To win the GOP needs to completely revamp the entire party but they are not going to do that so they are going to lose.


    A rare honest LOL (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jim in St Louis on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 04:08:54 PM EST
    People always use lol- but that one got me.  The young new vibrant democratic party with their standard bearer:  67 year old Hillary! Clinton.

    But if Hillary! is too stogey and old fashioned for you there is always waiting in the wings that upstart, whipper-snapper rebel...Elizabeth Warren at 65 years old.

    Bernie Sanders as a blushing and budding 73 is a distant third and Joe Biden at a boyish 72 to round out the pack.

    Dems as the party of youth? Not a chance- those who are politicaly active will give their allegience to the Green Party or Occupy or something like that. Go read Kos- none of them are voting for the Dems.


    Hate to break it to you (none / 0) (#53)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 04:49:06 PM EST
    ... but if you're using Kos to determine who the youth vote will choose, you're going to be greatly disappointed.  Not to mention the fact that you don't need to be under a certain age to be the choice of younger voters.  Care to place a bet on the number of young voters gathered by the Democratic nominee vs. all of the third parties combined?

    Yeah, ... didn't think so.


    Please, oh please (none / 0) (#54)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 04:49:29 PM EST
    keep repeating the age attack.  Please keep concentrating on the top contender among both sides of the field  the experienced and well-known and most-admired woman, Hillary Clinton.

    My old self & similar-aged friends were trying to recall (with our old, addled brains) how old that Republican idol, Ronald Reagan, was as he entered into his first term? Was it 70?  Ah yes, the inquiring Baby Boomers want to know.

    That age attack will work like a charm ... for us Democrats.  Thanks.


    Yes, ageism (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 05:20:41 PM EST
    sounds like a real winning strategy.   Doubt, though, if it will be part of the campaigns of Jeb (age 62), Romney (age 67), Perry (65), Huckabee (60), Lindsey (60), or Trump (68).  And, it may be the first time McCain (age 78--72 when a candidate) will not go on the Sunday talk shows.  

    Dems might have (none / 0) (#61)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 05:39:58 PM EST
    elderly candidates, but their policies always appeal to the young voters. The GOP has had a deep bench of young "rising stars" with limited shelf life over the last decade. Jindahl, Bachman, Ryan, Palin just to name a few who end up either marginalized,embarrassing,on Fox or all of the above.  

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 06:12:39 PM EST
    they don't get it. It's not the age of the candidate but the age of the policies and their policies are old and tired and outdated.

    And young doesn't appeal to anybody if it's crazy.


    So (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 06:11:25 PM EST
    you're going to do the age thing when most of the people who vote Republican are over the age of 65? You guys never cease to amaze with your ability to drive people off.

    And I wasn't talking about her age. I was talking about ideas. All the GOP is offering up is theocracy, plantation economics and the culture war. The same thing they've been talking about for oh, 1/3 of a century.

    Kos does not represent much I hate to tell you. And it has nothing to do with age with them anyway. They are for Elizabeth Warren who is older than Hillary.


    I figure by the time the general (none / 0) (#73)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 06:45:47 PM EST
    campaign is over, the GOP will have p!ssed off quite a bit of the female population . . .   between ageism and sexism, oy, how low will they go . . .

    I am betting on Walker (none / 0) (#65)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 06:00:35 PM EST
     Koch Bros Bro, Corporate friendly, union busting,hippie punching hero of the TP. Definitely battle tested, enough of a culture warrior  from  "real America" to be palatable to the southern evangelicals. Some ethics and corruption baggage, don't they all, and his name ain't Bush

    It seems (none / 0) (#64)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 05:56:52 PM EST
    to me that the press is salivating for a Clinton-Bush "rematch".

    The media have a way of sinking people they don't want to be bothered with.

    Jeb and Hillary!

    That's entertainment!

    Maybe they'll even wind up running together on the same ticket.


    A pretty scathing critique of American Sniper (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 12:44:31 PM EST
    In book and movie form

    I have one beef, the declaration made that the Iraq War was illegal.  BTD covered that ground over and over again because so many on the Left wouldn't stop wasting energy and time.  It was not illegal.  It may have been immoral but that doesn't equal illegal.

    More Chris Kyle's claims from the book though that are very disturbing if found to be true.  This critic claims that in the book Kyle says that he and other SEALs did not observe the rules of engagement.  And Kyle claimed in the book he simply killed every male between certain ages ( wonder how he knew their age, did he check their ID first?).  That would be a war crime for starters, and murder, and well...illegal.  He places other SEALs on the chopping block with him too.

    own opinions, but I took a quick look at your link and this particular sentence intrigued me:
    On an appearance on Conan O'Brien's show he laughs about accidentally shooting an Iraqi insurgent.

    so I watched the Conan interview that the sentence linked to.

    The sentence is completely not accurate.

    Kyle did not at all laugh "about accidentally shooting an Iraqi insurgent." He and Conan, somewhat modestly, joked that an insurgent Kyle shot - from over a mile away - was simply a lucky accident, that he dropped the gun and it went off and that's how the guy got shot.

    That's the only claim your article makes that interested me, so that's the only one I looked up, and I found it to be false.


    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by sj on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:30:08 PM EST
    I don't see a material difference between this
    On an appearance on Conan O'Brien's show he laughs about accidentally shooting an Iraqi insurgent.
    And your more long-winded explanation about how he and Conan O'Brian came to be joking about accidentally shooting an Iraqi insurgent.

    If a comment of mine is too "long-winded" for you, please feel free not to read it.

    To Me... (none / 0) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:50:39 PM EST
    ...one is inferring he was laughing at shooting someone he did not want to shoot, accidentally.  When in fact he was laughing about the gun going off accidentally and shooting an intended target.

    It distorted what happened and and made Kyle seem to be flippant about shooting shooting someone he didn't mean to shoot, when he wasn't.  There was obvious bias with that set of circumstances, so you have to assume that same biased was applied throughout the article.

    It's a valid point IMO.


    Look, I could see how someone (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 01:30:09 PM EST
    Would feel disgusted by joking about killing another human being.  He did joke about the shot, and the it was an accident that he killed the guy, and he laughed.

    I didn't feel disgusted.  But think about where I have been hanging since 911 and then think about someone who walked their five year old to school and then watched that while feeding the baby. It's a little unhinged in a nurturing civilized setting.


    Your linked website/the sentence says (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:07:02 PM EST
    Kyle killed someone accidentally and then laughed about it.

    That is completely inaccurate. Kyle did not kill someone accidentally.

    He and Conan did joke, in a self-effacing way, that this one shot he did, where he shot a guy from over a mile away, was not a shot that was skillful, but rather, they joked that he dropped his gun and it went off and that's how the shot happened.

    Maybe your author's sentence was inartful, that he/she was unknowingly misleading. Or maybe not, who knows.

    I'm not going to research the rest the author's many claims to see if they are false too.

    It does make me chuckle that the author seems to be shocked that a hollywood movie might take some liberties with actual events in order to create more drama. I wonder if he/she has the same quarrels with "The Imitation Game" or "Selma?"


    I realize that your emphasis here is on (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:23:50 PM EST
    the facts, and I'm not saying those aren't important, but I find myself thinking that, okay, so let's say the article wasn't accurate as to what Kyle and Conan were joking about, but that it is accurate to say they were joking.

    I can't find the funny part, no matter how hard I try.

    It's funny that the gun went off?  It's funny that Kyle has such a magical sniper touch that even when he drops the gun, he manages to hit a human target? Who dies?

    Sorry - I just don't get it.


    Fair enough, we all have things which may (none / 0) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:46:12 PM EST
    seem funny to us that aren't to others.

    I think you are searching for any scrap (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:21:49 PM EST
    Of a reason to not have to look under anymore Chris Kyle rocks or see anything pertaining to this issue that you don't want to see.

    You don't have to.  It's a free country.

    I can ask about someone's claims that he made in a book about his deeds during the Iraq War.  I don't particularly want to feed the monster though, because turns out the proceeds aren't going to soldier charity as he claimed either.  I hope to check the book for free, or perhaps someone here has the book.  Will do so the next visit to the library or Barnes and Noble.  If he bragged about or discussed ignoring rules of engagement though, he bragged about or discussed committing war crimes.


    of a reason to find dirt under Chris Kyle rocks or see anything pertaining to this issue that you don't want to see.

    Whatever that even means.

    Anyway, "If he bragged about or discussed ignoring rules of engagement though, he bragged about or discussed committing war crimes." ?!

    Why try to dirty up the dude with an "If?"

    Why not just find out if he did or did not discuss doing this, and if he did, call him out on it.


    Okay, you made me look (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:43:32 PM EST
    In his book, Kyle was complaining about Rules of Engagement, argues we shouldn't have them, then says their were "unofficial" ROE i.e. kill every male between 16 and 65.:

    The rules are drawn up by lawyers who are trying to protect the admirals and generals from the politicians; they're not written by people who are worried about the guys on the ground getting shot...

    Our ROEs when the war kicked off were pretty simple: If you see anyone from about sixteen to sixty-five and they're male, shoot 'em. Kill every male you see.  That wasn't the official language, but that was the idea.

    Now, if Kyle did indeed follow those "unofficial" ROEs, that would clearly be a war crime.  He doesn't give any specific examples, so it could be that he's smart enough not to put that in print.  Or, given his penchant for false bravado and just making $hit up, it could just be more BS.

    Who knows.


    I'm thinking it was deliberately phrased (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jim in St Louis on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:05:05 PM EST
     that way and intended to deceive.  

    Good call-out.


    Rudderless... (none / 0) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:28:58 PM EST
    ...saw it this weekend, how is that movie not on the top nomination for everything.

    Fantastically depressing and heart breaking movie, one of the best I have seen over the past year, if not the best.  

    Whomever recommended it here, thank you.

    Federal District Judge, Callie Granade, (none / 0) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:54:13 PM EST
    an appointee of President George W. Bush, issued a 14-day stay on Sunday to her Friday ruling that overturned  Alabama's statutory and constitutional ban on same-sex marriage so as to permit Alabama Attorney General, Luther Strange, to appeal to the Eleventh Circuit at Atlanta.  The Judge's stay bolded the section entitled: " The Attorney General has not shown that he is likely to succeed on appeal."  

    Mr. Strange said that the Judge's stay was "a step in the right direction."    The Alabama Probate Association (probate judges in Alabama are responsible for issuing licenses) proclaimed, on Saturday, that probate judges could not issue marriage licenses to same sex couples across the state, since the Federal ruling only applied to the two plaintiffs in the case.   Hopefully, the probate judges will take a two-week crash course in law so that they will not become reprobate judges come February 9.

    The Eleventh Circuit at Atlanta recently refused to grant an extension of a stay requested by Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.  Marriage become legal for all couples in Florida as of January 5, 2015.

    In what could become a humorous aside to this (none / 0) (#60)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 05:36:29 PM EST
    Gay Alabama lawmaker threatens to reveal colleagues' affairs

    MONTGOMERY - State Rep. Patricia Todd, D-Birmingham, had a warning for her Statehouse colleagues over the weekend.

    "I will not stand by and allow legislators to talk about `family values' when they have affairs, and I know of many who are and have," Todd, the state's only openly gay lawmaker, said on Facebook over the weekend. "I will call our elected officials who want to hide in the closet out."

    Winston accuser appears in a new documentary (none / 0) (#66)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 06:01:23 PM EST

    Even though it's meaningless to her I sure am glad they lost that Rose Bowl game to the buckeyes.

    I mean Ducks (none / 0) (#67)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 06:02:03 PM EST
    Right on time -- (none / 0) (#72)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 06:39:43 PM EST
    As expected the NFL has supposedly found someone to fall on his air pump for the Brady Bunch:

    Looks Like The NFL Will Try To Pin 'Deflategate' On A Locker Room Attendant

    Allegedly, the locker room attendant took the New England Patriots' footballs to "another area" before they made their way onto the field for the AFC Championship Game against the Indianapolis Colts. A video supposedly exists.

    I wonder if Belichick calls him "AC" -- for Atmospheric Conditions