Wednesday Open Thread

The movers will be here at 8:30 to start packing me up and I'm still not sure where I'm going. I think I found a place to rent for the rest of the month, but it's not yet signed and done. Cutting it close is an understatement, since I have to move out on Thursday.

Here's a new open thread, all topics welcome. And please stop the insults to other commenters. I don't have time to babysit the threads. Even long time readers may find themselves in timeout if they keep doing it.

< Moving Week Two and Open Thread
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Geez, Jeralyn, what a nightmare. (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 11:27:13 PM EST
    If  I could, I would bring you a nice hot dinner and a good bottle of wine. Or maybe a gin martini, or two.

    Some cheer we can deliver... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 05:42:58 AM EST
    I was at that concert in 1968 (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peter G on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:17:05 AM EST
    the Tribute to Woody Guthrie, in Carnegie Hall (New York), soon after Woody died. This was Bob Dylan's first public performance (with the Band) after his self-imposed recovery/exile in Woodstock after his motorcycle accident. They were just stunningly good in every way. Blew the roof off the old place.

    Since this is an Open Thread, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:27:28 AM EST
    would you please give me your opinion on this argument by Barney Franks from a legal or Constitutional perspective:

    Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) on Tuesday insisted that a state-by-state approach was the only way to legalize same sex marriage.

    "There was a fundamental confusion here,' he said on MSNBC. "There has never been a practical law saying that what marriage is. Marriage has been left to the states."
    "The point is there is no federal law to be passed," he explained. "Look at the situation with race. When there were states that would not allow interracial marriage, even after the Civil Rights Act has passed in '64 and '65, there was no federal law saying interracial marriage had to be allowed. It was done by the Supreme Court. The constitutional framework has always been states decide who gets married."

    "It has always been up to the states," Frank added. "The only federal rule on the subject was the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Democrats are trying to overthrow."



    Without a link, it's impossible to understand (none / 0) (#18)
    by Peter G on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:07:58 AM EST
    the context. Was this something Rep. Frank said recently (i.e., "Tuesday" as in yesterday) or two years ago, or what? But certainly he is correct. In our federal system, domestic relations (including regulation of marriage) is generally within the sphere of state not federal control. Subject, of course, to the Fourteenth Amendment (as is all state legislation and government action); that is, whatever laws the states enact must not deny due process or equal protection of the laws to any person (or class of persons) within that state. And similarly where the federal government extends benefits according to marital status (Social Security, federal tax law, etc.) it generally accepts the label put on a relationship by the state but at the same time must abide by 14th Amendment-like equal-liberty limitations under the Fifth Amendment due process clause. Was Franks responding to someone suggesting otherwise?

    Franks said it in 2012 (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:25:01 AM EST
    But yes, it's the same principle as how states can determine the legal age at which one can marry (most states, it's 18 without parental consent, but Nebraska has decided the age is 19 and Mississippi has decided that the age is 21).

    Lucky Duck... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:36:45 AM EST
    I'd kill for a ride in Doc Brown's Delorean to have been there too Pete, I have no doubt they did!  Pretty quality recording in that link.

    But I've got old Bob as a notch in my concert belt, as well as several Midnight Rambles at Levon's farm before he passed.  And even reclusive Garth Hudson a few times.  Sadly I'll never get the chance to see Danko & Manuel.


    Been through something similar (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by scribe on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 08:38:06 AM EST
    a few years back.  I sold my home without a new place lined up, nor a job, nor anything other than having put my stuff in storage.  I left my suits at the cleaners, figuring I would come back in a week or two with money to get them out.
    And I threw the last of my stuff - a couple changes of clothes and some odds and ends - and the dog in the car and pointed it out of town, crashing with friends for the weekend it took for the checks from the closing to clear.  And then picking a town from a short-ish list, and living in a motel for a couple weeks until I found a new place.
    Technically, I was homeless.
    But it all worked out OK.

    And it will work out for you, TL.

    In 1994 (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:01:39 AM EST
    I left Boston to take my first film industry job in LA.  Having done the interviews and sealed the deal in Dec I came back supervised the movers getting my stuff and departed in a step van with the stuff I did not trust to the movers, i collect, the dog and high hopes.
    That was Jan 15 1994.  I was officially on my way to a place I had already rented as were the movers.  On Jan 17 I found myself snowbound in a motel in Tennessee.  If that date sounds vaguely familiar it's because it's the date of the Northridge earth quake.  I was stuck.  There was nothing in tv but wall to wall coverage of the destruction.  They of course made it look like LA was in flames.  Phones were out.  I could not call anyone to find out if I still had a place to live or work and it stayed that way until I arrived.  But I could not go back.  

    It worked out.  I agree with the above,  it will work out.  Breathe.  Maybe day drink.

    Speaking of day drinking, I just finished season 4 of The Wire.
    Is it to early for a vodka?  Damn.


    Off Conversation Question... (none / 0) (#8)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:16:40 AM EST
    ...about Hollywood, specifically special effects.

    How are all these shows replicating people floating in the weightlessness of space.  It used to be something you would only see in the movies, but now I see it all time, which leads me to believe it's not very complicated or costly.

    I look closely and it's done so well that it's been seriously bothering me.  The only thing I can come us with is they have built a set in one of those planes that goes up and free falls for a minute or two, but that seems unreasonable.  

    Either way, I am seriously impressed.


    Well (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:22:33 AM EST
    The "vomit comet" is possible.  But I suspect it's probably just suspension rigs. They have gotten really really good at that.
    I have a friend who specializes in that stuff.  He worked on Gravity.  That was all rigs as far as I know.

    Did you know the vomit comet was first used in Apollo 13, one of my film credits?   Some of the best stuff I was ever able to do.


    I Did Not... (none / 0) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:46:01 AM EST
    ...but I am pleased to know, even if I am 20 years late, that the plane was used for filming.

    If they are using rigs, holly smokes, that is something else.


    Thinking of you, Jeralyn. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:05:32 AM EST
    I hope things move as smoothly and comfortably as possible for you.

    I also hope that you received some financial compensation from the company whose employee set the fire in your new home.

    Best wishes to you.

    I will raise a glass this evening in your honor.
    And thank you for TalkLeft.

    Trump referred to himself (none / 0) (#4)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:00:29 AM EST
    as being "militaristic".

    In fact, he said something to the effect that he is more militaristic than anybody.

    He said he would strengthen the military so that no one would dare mess with us - or words to that effect.

    Even though he phrases this sentiment somewhat more inelegantly than others on the campaign trail, I don't think that his vision is at odds with theirs.

    What I don't think that these people have taken in is the experience - the trauma - of September 11, and the bombing in Boston at the marathon.

    The lesson I think that might have come across to these politicians is that a few schmucks with a box cutter - or a pressure cooker - can immobilize a country. Nukes - Armies...planes, nuclear subs and the rest are no defense - and as we have seen are of no retaliatory use either.

    These guys running the show don't seem to have taken this in.

    There is no such thing as a war on terror.
    It cannot exist. Terror is a term we apply to the work of an individual - or a small group of individuals.

    Our version of destruction - massive bombing campaigns - are not considered to be acts of terror - although I'm fairly confident that the people in and near the vicinity of the target are terrorized from head to toe.

    Unless what is meant by a "war on terror" is a serious attempt to sit down with people with grievances - no matter how unsavory they may be - and try to defuse them.

    But that is not what I get from our leaders or would-be leaders when they talk of a war on terror.

    In my jaded opinion, building up the military is more and more money down the drain - and lives - young lives - wasted and squandered by politicians stuck in the military-industrial-legislative complex mentality of the 1950s.

    I Thought Somehting Similiar... (none / 0) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:31:53 AM EST
    ...when I read the comment, "Is not spending more than every other country, combined, on the military not enough Donald ?"

    This notion that they are doing all this stuff because they aren't scared of us is absurd, we can destroy the entire planet how many times over, and Trump thinks multiply that number will stop terrorism.

    To me terrorism is the obvious choice when your 'army' is outnumbered, outgunned, and out-everything, not because you want to to strap bombs on your brothers and sisters, but because it is very last option you have.  But now it's transformed into this thing where people have lost all sense of humanity, and they are doing it for the shear pleasure of it, there is no longer an end goal with terrorism, they could care less if lighting people on fire or lopping off heads with have any effect on anything.

    We have been seriously fighting terrorism for more than a decade, it's time to realize that our intervention is having the exact opposite effect, which is to eliminate it.  And there is Trump admitting Iraq was a mistake, but hot damn if he doesn't want to double down, that is insane, at least according to Einstein.


    They've taken everything in (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:45:14 AM EST
    They are saying what their lizard brained base wants to hear. It isn't any more complicated than that.

    Trump Calls GWB a Disaster (none / 0) (#7)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:08:50 AM EST
    When Baier asked Trump if he stood by a statement he made 2007 and 2008 saying he would impeach Bush for getting into the Iraq War, Trump replied, "I think he was a disaster and I think it was one of the worst decisions ever made. (He) has totally destabilized the Middle East. If you had Saddam Hussein, you wouldn't have the problems you have right now."

    Fox News Link

    I don't really care what Trumps thinks about anything, but this interview was on Fox News, and it's pretty damn funny that he is basically told his 'base' they are completely wrong about GWB & Iraq.

    And don't skip the comments, it will remind you of just how good we have it around here.

    Imagine how the press would react (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:52:35 AM EST
    if HRC did what Joe Biden did.

    They would lose their minds.

    you know what though? (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:24:47 AM EST
    She's gonna win anyway most likely, and he almost certainly won't.

    There's some fantastic karmic justice in all that.


    Did you see? (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:30:55 AM EST
    HRC sent a note and copies of her book "Hard Choices" to all the Republican candidates who participated in the debates who continually pose, "If you want to stump a Democrat, ask them to name Hillary Clinton's accomplishments.". She also joked that there are so many of them, they could start a book club.

    Not That it Matters, But... (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:37:11 AM EST
    ...Biden Team Calls Report on 2016 Leak 'Categorically False'

    "The bottom line on the POLITICO story is that it is categorically false and the characterization is offensive," said a spokesperson for Biden.


    The vice president's office is neither confirming nor denying that a conversation took place between New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and the vice president, but sources say the paper is flatly wrong to suggest that Biden intended the leak to be a trial balloon for his candidacy.

    Biden to me, is the classic press building someone up only to tear them down.  They never liked him, except for the jokes, until they thought he would be a thorn in HRC's side.


    Since I can't rate this comment 10 (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:40:04 AM EST
    I will just say I rate I a 10.

    This is exactly right.  Biden has been a press joke forever until he could be used as a club to beat Hillary.


    Yes (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:45:05 AM EST
    that's the press. Bernie is the same. Both he and Biden are more or less treated like "useful idiots" in the press game "I Hate Hillary". But should either of them beat her they would get the same treatment. For Biden it would be all about plagiarism and his record in the senate. And then Bernie would be the wild eyed socialist from the people's republic of Vermont. Anybody with half a brain can see all this coming.

    Yes (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:39:26 AM EST
    they would lose their minds for sure.

    Kdog Made a Comment... (none / 0) (#17)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:04:07 AM EST
    ...last week about the NFL and the Pink program.  He mentioned that no money goes to research, but only to awareness.

    In the end, after everybody has taken their cut, only 8.01% of money spent on pink NFL merchandise is actually going towards cancer research.

    Well at least some is going into research, but how about the awareness.

    If you're thinking that this is simply a case of signals getting mixed up between the NFL and its financial offices, there's some bad news: VICE Sports also looked into this a year later and found out the exact same thing. It also learned that the NFL is giving money to outdated an technology.

    In Regards to the NFL's A Crucial Catch campaign's "Annual Screening Saves Lives" it is highly misinformative.

    "Screening doesn't save lives and screening mammography ... is different from diagnostic mammography," Jagger says. "The NFL has no business providing medical advice to women that is outdated, unproven, and misguided."

    Jagger quotes well-regarded and independently conducted research that shows screening mammography has no overall impact on survival rates of women with the disease. The most substantive mammography research, a study that followed 100,000 women for 25 years, concluded that annual screening does not result in a reduction in breast cancer specific mortality for women over 40 in any way that goes beyond physical examination. These screenings are the mainstay and only measurable aspect of the NFL's A Crucial Catch campaign, which Jaggar says is spreading an outdated message about early detection.


    I would have to say that kdog was correct and that after looking into it, the program may be doing more harm that good.

    But it does sell... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:24:10 AM EST
    pink jerseys to the ladies...that's what counts;)

    Once upon a time... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:21:51 AM EST
    Lindsey Graham (Clown Car, Trunk) opposed federal aid for victims of Hurricane Sandy.  

    Today, his state is suffering catastrophic floods...why that's a horse of a different color!

    What a Weasel (none / 0) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:28:23 AM EST
    "I'm all for helping the people in New Jersey. I don't really remember me voting that way," Graham said.

    Pressed further, he said: "Anyway, I don't really recall that, but I'd be glad to look and tell you why I did vote no, if I did."

    Now he needs time to remember(spin) why some hurricane victims should get aid and others should not.

    Hypocrisy and karma. (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:32:43 AM EST