Thursday Afternoon Open Thread

No change to the status of Florida all purpose star Percy Harvin. He is still questionable for Saturday's SEC championship game against the Crimson Tide of Alabama.

I know you were all on the edge of your seats waiting for today's Harvin report.

This is an Open Thread.

< Driving While Ambien'd Prosecutor Gets Home Detention | FBI Agent Charged Re: Pellicano Wiretapping Case >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Still waiting (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:02:47 PM EST
    for the providential bounty which is assured by "Free Trade" to begin raining (or trickling) down on all of us.

    Whats causing the delay in the economic Rapture (foretold in the book of NYT/Wall St mouthpieces)?

    BT, as one of the intiated, maybe you can explain it to the rest of us?

    Ya know jondee... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:00:36 PM EST
    Capitalists and Communists and every "ist" in between has promised a bounty for the masses...and in all cases the bounty ends up stashed in the broom closet of the halls of power.

    It's why I can't help but dig what the Somali pirates are doing....


    - The Clash, Bankrobber

    Surely you do not condone (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:29:26 PM EST
    murder or amputating hands.

    No... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:39:29 PM EST
    I don't.

    I've said before I'm ashamed of myself for rooting for them...but I do.  


    Well if you cant use (none / 0) (#43)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:35:05 PM EST
    inside info to make a mil a day or make sure one man's foreclosure is your gain, you can always do it the old fashioned way, the way some Somalis have.

    Maybe, in order to salvage a vital part of of the Somali economy, the World Bank'll post bail for them, if they ever get caught.


    Jondee (none / 0) (#108)
    by cal1942 on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 11:05:24 PM EST
    for that comment you deserve 100 5 ratings.

    Cows v Cars (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:56:30 PM EST
    It looks like eating less meat can be the most direct way to reduce greenhouse gasses. The environmental groups are silent on it because many feel that they would lose their rancher/hunter allies.

    But when Rajendra Pachauri, who runs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), made a suggestion that could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 18 percent, he was excoriated. Why was his proposal so unpalatable? Because he suggested eating less meat would be the easiest way people could reduce their carbon footprint, with one meat-free day per week as a first step

    Ben Adler via War & Piece

    Worth a read. looongish

    We'll never get anywhere (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:12:21 PM EST
    when people respond like this:
    "How convenient for him: He's a vegetarian," sneered a Pittsburgh Tribune Review editorial. "Dr. Pachauri should be more concerned about his own diet. A new study shows that a deficiency of vitamin B-12, found primarily in meat, fish and milk, can lead to brain shrinkage." Boris Johnson, London's outspoken mayor, posted a long screed on his blog, declaring, "The whole proposition is so irritating that I am almost minded to eat more meat in response."

    Geeze, suggesting that people concerned with the environment cut out one meat meal a week, shouldn't be met with sneers. It's a relatively simple thing to do.

    I have to wonder if feeding cows a "proper" diet along with more roaming pasture time would lower their emissions. I don't think all that corn and grain and other crap/waste/pharmaceuticals were in their original diet . . . .

    Another way to be environ friendly and eat meat is to buy grassfed in bulk  ;)


    Olive branch here... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 06:50:15 PM EST
    Squeaky, regarding our exchange earlier today: I'm willing to overlook your calling me "utterly dishonest" in the heat of the moment. But, for the record, I don't think Obama is "into torture", as you believe of me. I imagine he abhors torture, but he is in a legal and political dilemma with respect to enacting the anti-torture campaign promises we all want to see fulfilled. The idea is to keep the pressure on and, unfortunately, that isn't always pretty.

    I wish that you didn't view my comments on torture as too numerous, "repetitious" and "chattering". That being said, you counted correctly: I have made 20 comments on the subject since 11/16/08. But, I've made those comments during a time frame when torture has been very much in the news. And to be fair, I made 97 other comments unrelated to torture during that period. You're also right in that I do often (7 times) include Obama's one-liner from 60 Minutes. But, I've generally used the quote within the context of a broader discussion, inclusive of new content.

    I know my links looked "outdated" to you today, maybe because I didn't include dates. I imagined readers might click through and see for themselves. Anyhoo, here are the links again (with dates) for the news stories I've linked to, and posted about, in the past couple of days (on the topic of torture):

    Peace out, for real.

    I'm Fine (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 06:58:13 PM EST
    With your comments. It is just the sleight of hand regarding the BTD comment and misrepresenting, imo, the 60 minutes quote too many times sent me round the bend.

    Keeping the issue alive is important. That is a good thing.


    OK (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 07:12:31 PM EST
    I overreacted, "utterly" was an utter exaggeration. Sorry about that.

    On a lighter note... (none / 0) (#101)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 07:30:01 PM EST
    Preface: I have some vision problems which slows down my typing, so I often do drafts in my email account before I post something.

    This afternoon, when I was doing the back and forth with you on torture (damn that word), I was titling my drafts "Squeaky Torture". That sounds bad, but it was just short-hand so I could quickly identify that a particular draft was an exchange with you on the subject at hand. Honestly!

    Let's all have a good evening.


    lol (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 07:48:45 PM EST
    Wouldn't wish it on anyone.

    Infants/toddlers go directly from boob to juice boxes and skip the milk bottle?

    Did the study look at historical context? ie., didn't we used to have billions of buffalo tooting up a storm?

    Don't deer chew cud, implying gaseousness? Aren't there millions/billions more in the US now than when the Pilgrims landed?

    Aren't sheep similarly malodorous?

    First they came for the rib-eyes, but I did nothing becuase I preferred lamb shank.


    Yes - reduce consumption of leather too (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by CST on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:31:22 PM EST
    The process used to raise and process beef is unlike anything you mentioned for the other animals.

    No one us suggesting a ban on beef - we are suggesting a little personal responsibility about the quantity of it.


    Seriously, who needs 2 or 3 patties (none / 0) (#41)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:34:19 PM EST
    on their burger?

    Someone who wants to reduce their (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:47:09 PM EST
    hamburger bun consumption?

    Heh, the bun's prob healthier than the meat ;) (none / 0) (#65)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:02:18 PM EST
    Seriously... (none / 0) (#58)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:52:02 PM EST
    ...there are those amoung us who require a diet with increased protein and/or iron and cannot not process supplements, so eating meat is the best way to address these dietary concerns.  

    I don't recall your being an MD (and certainly not any of mine), so perhaps you should stick to making fun of people's facial hair instead of handing out diet advice.  


    Ya know, I was going to add an exception on there (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:01:32 PM EST
    as I know some athletes do etc, but just kept it simple. Do Drs actuall prescribe eating triple patty burgers from a fast food joint? Or do they suggest a higher intake of meat in the diet in a healthier way?

    I have a side of beef in my freezer (or what's left of one!), so meat eating isn't something I have a problem with. A super-sized fast food world and horrific farming practices I do have a problem with. Don't need to be a DR to see that Americans are not benefiting from these things. By the way, where did I give advice? Seems to me I asked a question . . . .  ;)


    They don't tell me what exact items... (none / 0) (#74)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:17:54 PM EST
    ...to order off what menus, but they do strongly recommend that I eat anything and everything I can possibly tolerate, no matter how fatty or "unhealthy" or how many empty calories are contained therein.  

    So, when you pose a question that comes across as somewhat scornful, it sounds like you're telling people what they should or shouldn't do.  Hence my reaction.


    Actually, that was your chosen (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:30:39 PM EST
    interpretation to my question. My scorn isn't for people, but the mass consumption push by fast food companies. Especially when they push in on children.

    Your Drs don't worry about other health issues that could arise from an unhealthy diet? Honestly curious here as one who works hard to keep from losing weight :)


    No, those issues would be minor... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:35:27 PM EST
    ...compared to the ones I already have.  Can't get a transplant if I'm not in good enough shape to make it through surgery.  

    They're pretty strict about that for some reason...


    Ah, gotcha. Thanks. (none / 0) (#86)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:52:06 PM EST
    My apologies... (none / 0) (#105)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 10:05:11 PM EST
    ...for being so snippy earlier.  I usually know better than to post when I'm feeling crappy.  

    Thank you and no problem :) (none / 0) (#113)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 02:17:41 AM EST
    I don't know what else you're doing for weight gain, but you may want to avoid any protein/nutritional/weight gain formulas powder and liquid. I'd be totally shocked of they weren't toxic (melamine and friends). I stopped mine once they revealed what was killing the pets. It was easy math to figure all protein ingredients could be dangerous in processed food items.Our government is being just about as irresponsible as China in this mess. Soy and baking soda/powder etc are up next . . . just a heads up since we, the people, seem to be at the bottom of the pile here  ;) Eat safe, gain weight and enjoy :) My fav is homemade ice cream made with creamline milk served up with hot fruit pie. For breakfast! {grin}

    I drink Nepro... (none / 0) (#117)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 09:23:44 AM EST
    ...and for what it costs, it darn well better not be toxic!  If it is, Abbott Labs has some deep pockets...

    The low phosphate diet makes it hard to find much of anything to eat (hence my horror at the though of giving up red meat).  I've had to cut my dairy intake by about 2/3's, so I don't eat much ice cream.  

    No chocolate or whole grain and nuts either.  I'd forgotten how horrible white bread is...


    Here's a link to the formula testing (none / 0) (#119)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:21:56 PM EST
    keep in mind, they waited a full 2mos after China went public before really cracking down and doing some serious testing. Gave manufactures time to clean up their act, IMO. Abbott is one of the companies they are looking at. Also, they are only testing down to .25ppm if I read the info right. There's a forum where we've been following the issue since the beginning of the pet food recall that has tons of good info. It's down today, but when it goes back up, I'll grab the link for you. There's a list of suspect ingredients that has been compiled from all the recent melamine recalls globally. It's very odd we've had so few here. I don't mean to freak you out or anything, just want you to stay safe. One of my huge issues is how they keep changing what's "safe" and for who. They seem to totally discount seniors, people with health issues, etc. When I saw how they handled the fact this had gotten into livestock etc during the pet food problem, I blew a gasket. As a healthy, but light weight adult, I take child doses of OTC meds and such. The FDA model that they use to figure their risk assessment (assumption as they haven't done long term testing) weighs 25-30lbs more than me.

    White bread?! O.M.G.! {twitch}. I haven't had that since I was about 12yo, lol!~ Mom went on a health kick and started making whole grain breads . . . I make my own bread these days with this easy recipe It's pretty much fool proof and no work at all. It's a sturdier bread with a sour dough type texture. I also like this blog
    and have the book. I'm all about simple in the kitchen  ;)

    Again, when the forum gets back up (prob a day or 2) I'll hook ya up with some links  :)


    The worst part is how... (none / 0) (#120)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:31:50 PM EST
    ...it sticks to the teeth and roof of your mouth!  Gah!  Not to mention that it is all chalked full of high fructose corn syrup.

    Yeah, I tend to cut my med doses way down too--except the BP ones.  The Dr's are always amazed that I can make my pain meds last so long.  I don't like the constant pain, but I don't like being a zombie either.

    I sure hope the Nepro isn't bad.  It is about the only thing I can stomach in the morning without throwing up.  Nothing like morning sickness that lasts most of the day.  


    The sticking issue is the first thing (none / 0) (#121)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 05:06:43 PM EST
    that came to mind {shudder} You don't even want to get me started on corn ingredients!  lol!~  ;)

    Does ginger help with the "morning sickness"? I got a carbonator and make my own ginger ale or sometimes just ginger tea to help with my stomach when I have allergy/sinus issues.

    I hope the Nepro isn't bad either. I'm just SO un-trusting of anything with protein concentrates. And now other dairy ingredients. And nobody is owning up. Kraft was contacted about their milk protein during the pet food recall. They said they got it from a company in NZ. Well, that company was/is up to their eyeballs in the infant formula problems. If you call them, they'll still prob tell you not to worry, it's from NZ. And where the heck is our media on this?! So d@mn frustrating  :( During the pet food recall, we learned there was a mass die off of pets in China in 2004. Nobody raised the alarm. Then our pets died*, still not enough to take preventive measures. Now almost 300,000 babies in China may have problems for the rest of their lives. . . . What's it going to take?

    * I was spared as I was already not feeding commercial food. To think I could have poisoned 5 cats and a dog . . . .


    Drs prescribed my son eating lots of fast food (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:54:56 PM EST
    french fries when he was smaller in order to keep weight on him and keep him off of a feeding tube.  It seems to have worked.

    Good to hear... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 09:53:15 PM EST
    ...your son was able to avoid the feeding tube.  They are the suxor--as are any tube and/or needle.  

    My Mom was so thrilled when I told her I had gained back the weight I lost after my last surgery that she was literally walking on air for weeks.  

    I might have to try increasing my FF intake and see if I can gain some more!


    If only fast food intake worked the same for (none / 0) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:00:06 AM EST
    moms, it isn't fair :)  Oh yeah, the fair is in the fall.

    Just french fries? (none / 0) (#88)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 05:03:34 PM EST
    I used to throw down the occasional FF meal during deadline crunch times for the calories then switched to downing protein drinks in between meals. Now I just avoid the insanity and enjoy my ice cream ;)

    There are exceptions (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by CST on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:02:56 PM EST
    Of course - but lets face it, most Americans don't need more beef and obesity is a problem.

    This is just a suggestion for one way to make a difference for those that can and want to.  It's not an attempt to regulate or ban anything - or force people to make that choice.  It's just about providing information that beef is bad for the environment.  It's still up to the individual what to do with that knowledge.  I don't think anyone would expect someone who is starving to cut back on beef consumption either - but for those of us who can, why not?


    that's the problem:
    There are several major sources of methane: rice paddies (methane-producing bacteria thrive in the underwater environment), swamps and wetlands (ditto), mining and oil drilling, landfills, termites (although there's still some controversy on this one), "biomass burning" (notably in the Amazon rain forest), and animals.

    Ninety percent of animal methane is produced by ruminants (i.e., cud-chewers).

    These include sheep, goats, camels, water buffalo, and so on, but most of all cattle, of which the world has an estimated 1.2 billion.

    Ruminants eat hay and grass and stuff containing cellulose, which can be digested only by special microbes that, to minimize commuting problems, live in the ruminants' guts.

    Unfortunately, the microbes tend to make a mess, and about 6 or 7 percent of what they eat winds up as methane.

    Thus the problem.

    hmmm (none / 0) (#52)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:45:26 PM EST
    Ruminants eat hay and grass and stuff

    I think we feed more "stuff" that grass and hay, right?


    Sorry, I have no idea what your saying. (none / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:48:00 PM EST
    Sorry :) I was referring to (none / 0) (#72)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:12:10 PM EST
    factory farmed cattle diets.

    By "the process" (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:54:32 PM EST
    I also mean breeding - beef exists on a scale today that is completely unnatural.

    "beef exists on a scale today (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:00:41 PM EST
    that is completely unnatural.

    Ah so.

    Sheep too, of course. And deer as well, supposedly...


    Cut back on that too if it makes you feel better (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CST on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:08:10 PM EST
    But it's pretty clear that beef is a bigger problem and has a greater impact.

    Hey, stop being so reasonable. (none / 0) (#73)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:12:25 PM EST
    Millions of leather footballs made each year, and doubtless countless more baseballs and soccer balls.

    Think of the children!


    Let them play golf (none / 0) (#77)
    by CST on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:25:57 PM EST
    And eat cake :)

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:10:31 PM EST
    A big problem is the enormous land use requirement and deforestation that goes along with raising them.

    I love planet earth as much as the next guy... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:29:04 PM EST
    but I don't know if I love her that much:)  No meat, no meal...that's my motto.

    Besides, the earth is fine...it's we humans that may or may not be f*cked.  But life will go on with or without us, of this I have no doubt.


    Obama: Fix Drug Policy petition tops 10,000 (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:10:52 PM EST
    on Facebook

    Petition Sponsor:


    To: President-elect Obama
        We petition that...

    When you called the War on Drugs an "utter failure" in 2004, you were right. A 2008 Zogby poll found that 3 out of 4 of Americans agree with you.

    When appointing the head of your Office of National Drug Control Policy, please select someone with health, science, or education credentials rather than a military general, law enforcement official, or "tough on drugs" politician. The next "Drug Czar" should base policy on proven methodology rather than counterproductive ideology. At a minimum, he or she should support these measures:

    *Ending the racially unjust disparity in sentencing for crack and powder cocaine.

    *Ending the practice of prosecuting patients in states with medical marijuana laws.

    *Eliminating the federal law that denies financial aid to students with drug convictions.

    We all know that the War on Drugs is failing because handcuffs don't cure addictions -- doctors do. You have the opportunity to bring us the change we need. Will you?

    I'm taking names.

    Yea! (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:12:28 PM EST
    I signed it.

    Are you not compelled, in (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:33:39 PM EST
    the interest of consistency, to call out this repetitive posting?

    Huh? (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:43:50 PM EST
    Not sure what you are getting at, perhaps my poor writing skills have occluded my point.

    Lying at worst, or at best having an eccentric position reeking of ODS and then repeating the same quote ad nauseum,  is a far cry from posting new petitions in the hope of getting our politicians to end the absurd war on drugs.

    Last time I looked that is a big concern for TL. ODS is not supported as far as I know by TL.

    As far as I know this is the first mention of the facebook petition.

    I see zero comparison between the two commenters you are obliquely referring to, that goes for quality and content.  


    This particular petition has been (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 05:36:47 PM EST
    previously posted by Ben.  Not that I object.  

    Not Really (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 06:29:21 PM EST
    The reason for posting this for the second time is that the petition had a goal to get 10,000 signatures, at least that was the goal when I signed it a few days ago. This comment reports that goal has been reached, which is news, AFAIAC.

    Besides (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 06:36:52 PM EST
    There is still no comparison, twice, second time with an update does not compare to relentlessly repeating the same parcel of misinformation.

    Clearly you are goading.


    Oops, forgot the link. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:13:18 PM EST
    Ever get a response from a Senator (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:20:24 PM EST
    and have no clue what you wrote that prompted it? lol!~

    Ok, so Schumer is slow in his responses and my memory isn't that great, but his reply should have at least been something that triggered my memory! I had to read it several times and I'm guessing it's about HHSs attempt to restrict womens access to reproductive health care and labeling some contraceptives abortion. I just kept reading it and wondering what sort of rant I went on to get this email about Church and State. Apparently he understands my position on it {grin} Oh, and I shouldn't hesitate to contact him in the future if he can ever be of assistance on this or another matter  :P

    3AM, a Bottle of Whiskey and ... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:40:27 PM EST
    a stable Internet connection.

    That's my guess as to what prompted your email to Schumer.



    lol!~ (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:50:51 PM EST
    no bottle of whiskey for this gal, especially at 3AM and working :)

    Knowing me, it was about keeping their D@MN RELIGION OUT OF MY BODY!!! But this would have been over the summer. Like I said, Schumer is slow to respond  ;)


    But aren't you (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Steve M on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 05:46:35 PM EST
    now telling him what he cannot post...?

    Bush still rewriting history (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Lora on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 06:54:50 PM EST
    We went to war with Iraq because Saddam was defiant and wouldn't let the inspectors in, remember? [NOT]

    And the press is compliant as usual.

    Do we have medical evidence Percy (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 01:37:31 PM EST
    even sprained his ankle?

    Meanwhile, updating the news from the world of opera, Met is having problems with its Tristan yet again.  Who will sing this difficult role for Saturday's radio broadcast?  

    I saw (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by liminal on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:26:27 PM EST
    La Damnation de Faust, last night, in the movie theater.  It was spectacular.  I loved it.  The devil was awesome and the chorus was magnificent.  The sound production was really well done for the broadcast version.  

    I wish I could've seen it live, but it's too far away/out of my budget.  


    I saw it last night also. (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:55:57 PM EST
    Such gorgeous music, especially the English horn and Susan Graham singing back and forth to each other.  I did see the opera at the Met and listened to the Sat. radio broadcast.  Quite interesting to then see the HD.  The devil was kind of a blur in NY but his facial expressions on the HD were really evil.  Also, in NY, the audience saw the male crucifixes swing into position.  I'm wondering why the HD did not show that part.  It was rather shocking to see live.  And, at the Met, I was unaware Faust started out old and got younger.  If only the supertitles were functioning at my seat!  Finally, at the Met, I didn't realize there were devil surrogates tormenting the dancing angels.  I did very much enjoy watching Levine conduct in NY however.  He really is a "Maestro."

    P.S.  I'm not sure Thomas Hampson should have used the French title of the opera if the purpose of the HDs is to bring in new opera afficianados.


    The music very much (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:09:31 PM EST
    repays rehearing many times.  Berlioz does wonderful things with the orchestra, and of course, great, great tunes and themes.

    It's amazing to realize the piece was cobbled together from this and that, isolated bits he had here and there, cut from this piece, written for that occasion, etc., that he pasted together.

    I've sung I think four different (non-staged) productions of it and therefore heard it dozens of times and never found a moment's tedium or over-familiarity.

    We're finally getting some of the Met's HD theater broadcasts here in Vermont this year, but not all of them and not even starting until next month. I'm most interested in the stuff that's off the beaten path-- the John Adams, the Berlioz and the like-- but so far, all we've got scheduled here are the bel canto-type operas, which I have zero interest in unless there's a singer I'm keenly interested in hearing.

    To top it off, Vermont Public Radio just up and canceled their music service, and therefore the Met radio broadcasts, for a huge chunk of the state, including where I live, and trying to listen through the computer is just too wildly unsatisfying.


    I listen to Met radio broadcasts (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:28:09 PM EST
    via computer, but with extra speakers and booster.  Here's link for other HD (La Scala, et al.)  Looks like I'd need to go to LA to see though.  Link

    San Francisco Opera is also supposedd to be doing HD, but I don't have any info yet.


    The Music is Absolutely Gorgeous... (none / 0) (#102)
    by santarita on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 07:32:55 PM EST
    I saw the Met production on HD.  I really enjoy the HD live concept even if it means going to the local theater at 10 A.M. on a Saturday. It's nice not having to watch the action thru binoculars.  The sound is great.  And the behind-the-scenes action and discussion is fascinating.

    I thought the visual effects were appropriate for the story.  I was sure that Faust was actually in the water and I wondered how he dried off so quickly.

    I've seen three versions now of  the Faust story - one by Boito, one by Gounod and now this one.  I like the Boito version the best in part because I prefer Italian to French but also because it explains the Marguerite story the best.  I thought the Berlioz version left out too much.  (I liked the Gounod version because I saw it with Samuel Ramey as Mephistofele - I was about three rows from the orchestra.  What a devil Ramey made!)


    I Ramey in NY in the Boito revival. (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:38:50 AM EST
    Richard Leach sang well as Faust but he is a terrible actor.

    Have you also sung Berlioz' (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:40:59 AM EST
    L'Enfance du Christ ?  Probably my favorite choral work for Christma.

    Percy .. (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 06:38:25 PM EST
    is known to have a good voice in a crowded locker room and he may be available to handle the Met problems

    He is an all-purpose type of fellow. (none / 0) (#111)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:41:39 AM EST
    Here is an interesting article (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 11:18:46 AM EST
    about an MVP football player who now sings at the Met.  Best part:  first opera he saw, he was also singing in it (Aida):  Morris Robinson

    Remember Windgassen? What a name (none / 0) (#3)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 01:44:46 PM EST
    for a heldentenor!

    I never heard him. Funny name. (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 01:49:24 PM EST
    It was pretty obvious (none / 0) (#34)
    by Amiss on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:27:04 PM EST
    that he was badly injured when he tried to get up. The announcers, after he came off the field, some time later said that he indeed suffered a severe sprain of the upper ankle. Quite a few players were hurt during the game due to the downpours we had and the slick field. Tallahassee is about 15 minutes from the Georgia border and lots of clay, even here in North Florida to make it that slick.

    A severely sprained ankle would, (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:51:27 PM EST
    natch, set back an ordinary mortal for more than a week.  But I'm always amazed at how athletes, with daily treatment, sometimes rebound much more quickly.  

    Roll Tide. (none / 0) (#2)
    by JThomas on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 01:39:29 PM EST
    Actually, not a fan of either team or coach.
    Saw that the coaches all american team had 4 bama players on 1st team.
    Everyone thinks the gators will roll so I have to root for Bama.

    The real BIG GAME on saturday is Army vs Navy anyway...Go ARMY..Beat Navy.

    Josh is hoarse from hollering War Eagle (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:50:56 PM EST
    there was even a Roll Tide entry in the Xmas parade, a bunch of people and kids hollering Roll Tide and wearing red and white.  Josh screamed and screamed until I threatened to take him home early.

    Rep Ros-Lehtinen (none / 0) (#5)
    by indy in sc on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 01:52:17 PM EST
    This story is hilarious.  I can understand her not wanting to be "Palined," but I thought she would figure it out after the second attempt to reach her (made by Rahm Emmanuel--someone she knows far better than Obama).

    Oh well, the congresswoman from my former state might do better sticking to pole dancing (I kid you not).

    Why did Obama call a GOP (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 01:57:15 PM EST
    congress person?

    He Is Not Bush? (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:07:55 PM EST
    Perhaps we have moved away from the policy 'you are either with us or against us." Obama may need her in the future.
    The call came about 1 p.m. Obama congratulated her on her re-election, saying he was looking forward to working with her as the ranking Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs committee, Ros-Lehtinen told the newspaper.



    Torture: Greenwald wants to know what changed? (none / 0) (#9)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:14:24 PM EST
    He's talking about the Dems and torture and he asks: Why do Feinstein and Wyden [the new Administration] sound much different on the torture issue now? The short answer is: Obama got elected.

    When Obama did his 60 Minutes interview he was already walking-back his former tough stance against torture. Obama devoted precisely one dumbfounding sentence to the subject:

    "I said repeatedly, America doesn't torture and I'm gonna make sure we don't torture".

    As President-Elect, Obama didn't define what he means by "torture" (although he previously has); he didn't say the Bush Administration has practiced torture (although he previously has); and he didn't say his Administration would only permit interrogation techniques specified by the Army Field Manual (although he previously has).  

    Likewise, Obama didn't say he would "stop" or "end" torture. Such a statement would been an unambiguous reassertion of the fact that, 'enhanced interrogation' is torture and the Bush Administration is guilty of torture.  

    Instead Obama gave Bush et al, legal cover; and he left open the option that his Administration might someday use 'enhanced interrogation' techniques that may fall outside of a strict legal definition of torture.

    Disappointing. I gather (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:20:04 PM EST
    he will wait until he's in charge and see if he is ready to give up these options.  Similar signs:  let's see if Congress and the current President can resolve the Big 3 bail out issue. Also:  has the Treasury Dept. betrayed the U.S. taxpayer by dealing out money w/o government oversight?

    B3B: Big three bailout (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:03:11 PM EST
    appears to be a game of hot potato right now.  Everyone thinks something ought to be done - they just think that Someone Else ought to do it.

    Beating A Dead Horse (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:23:00 PM EST
    You have made the same silly comment over twenty times, maybe more for all I know. Why don't you stop your BS, it is a waste of bandwidth.

    We know that you believe that Obama is into torture, and that you believe he is covering for BushCo.

    We get it. Now stop.


    This may come as a surprise (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:13:04 PM EST
    but you do not get to decide who posts what in comments.  If it annoys you, move on and read the next one.

    And Take Your Own Advice (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:21:27 PM EST

    I am just as entitled to my opinion of what chattering is as you are. A one note song from a die hard PUMA is a waste of bandwidth imo. Obviously that is the kind of chatter that turns you on, so be it.

    Also the dishonest move by posting an antique BTD post is both counterproductive. BTD held Obama's feet to the fire and got results.

    Move on to something productive.


    Are you confident President Obama (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:31:37 PM EST
    will publically order a ban methods not in that Army manual?

    Not At All (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:39:16 PM EST
    Although I take it at face value that Obama has promised to rid us of the stain of BushCo torture. His dumping Brennan was a good sign.

    We will see how it plays out.


    It's about as certain (none / 0) (#51)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:42:35 PM EST
    as an enlightened, public-spirited person like HRC never voting for something so muderous and wasteful as the Iraq invasion and occupation.

    Speechless. (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:58:34 PM EST
    Remember site rules... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:40:50 PM EST
    about ad hominem attacks and personal insults.

    You have called me "utterly dishonest" and described my posts as a "chattering...one note song from a die hard PUMA [who] is a waste of bandwidth".

    You are over the line, imo.


    Take It To the Management (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:48:28 PM EST
    You have been arguing for weeks that Obama's quote "we don't torture" is a wink and a nod to BushCo.

    That is dishonest.

    You have repeated that saw over 20 times.

    That is chattering, imo, not to mention annoying.

    You have presented a provocative post by BTD as proof that he supports your idiotic notion that Obama is for BushCo torture, when it is plain and obvious that the post was to lobby Obama ditching Brennan. That was accomplished.

    That was also dishonest.

    And as far as PUMA goes, that is an extinct animal.


    Good luck with that one, lol (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:49:18 PM EST
    Remember site rules... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:40:50 PM EST

    about ad hominem attacks and personal insults.

    This from the person... (none / 0) (#60)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:55:40 PM EST
    ...who actively chose to defy the rules of this blog and post comments and troll rate people while banned.  

    Yes, this from that person indeed. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:57:42 PM EST
    Also, I welcome your troll ratings of my comments and consider them a badge of honor, so no worries there!

    Bless your heart... (none / 0) (#68)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:04:52 PM EST
    ...aren't you the special one!

    I welcome yours as well--they let me know I'm on the right track.


    Thank you! :) (none / 0) (#69)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:05:58 PM EST
    Why, you're certainly welcome. (none / 0) (#75)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:22:53 PM EST
    I hope the "5" I gave your comment in the other open thread doesn't inflict too much damage to your system.

    Ack! Cognitive dissonance! (none / 0) (#78)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:26:07 PM EST
    Go tell Glenn Greenwald to STFU... (none / 0) (#16)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:29:31 PM EST
    Oh, BTW, a "dead horse" isn't the subject of the "beating" under discussion.

    You Are Utterly Dishonest (3.00 / 2) (#17)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:35:47 PM EST
    As regards linking to BTD's post from a month ago.
    John Brennan is behind this and I am actually appalled to learn that he has anything to do with the transition.
    He is completely unacceptable and my hope is that he is disavowed immediately. It is why I write this provocative post.

    In case you missed Brennan is no longer involved with the transition, and he was disavowed as BTD had hoped.

    And as inflated as your ego may be, you are no Glen Greenwald.


    Please chill out on me... (none / 0) (#33)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:26:25 PM EST
    I don't appreciate being called "utterly dishonest", nor would you. For instance, I wouldn't say it was utterly dishonest of you to selectively edit BTD's comments. But I will remind you that I linked to the full post and thread, so people may read, and judge, his intent for themselves. In the meantime, it's worth noting what seemed to be BTD's bottom line at the time:

    No one asked the Brennan Camp to talk to the WSJ. They CHOSE to do so. And make no mistake this story is all Brennan. Now it is incumbent on the Obama camp to shoot Brennan down - NOW. I guess you really do not want to hold Obama to his promises on torture, Gitmo and warrantless wiretapping. That is your perogative. I choose a different path.

    One might hope that the ousting of Brennan will do the trick, but the dozen-plus ex-generals who met with Obama yesterday evidently don't think so. (I trust you don't want them to "stop beating a dead horse".) They want Obama to act decisively and immediately and:

    Put a couple of sentences in his inaugural address, stating the new position, then everything would flow from that," said retired Maj. Gen. Fred Haynes, whose regiment in World War Two raised the American flag on Iwo Jima.

    However, it appears that Obama will not honor their request:

    The transition team official said no decisions about the detainee policies will be made until after the inauguration and Obama's full national security and legal teams are in place.

    All of that will take too long for my taste, but I'm sure it will feel a lot longer to the detainees at Gitmo and god knows where else.


    Better (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:37:11 PM EST
    At least you added some new content to your saw. And as far as my alleged dishonesty goes, the link to BTD's thread is in the thread for all to see and read. So don't lay the trip on me that I am quoting out of context. Your link is outdated, and it is dishonest of you to suggest that BTD is unhappy with Obama's appointments thus far. In fact he was quite pleased with the ditching of Brennan.

    I do not think anyone here is supporting Enhanced interrogation.

    Everyone slammed Obama for having Brennan around. Obama shifted his position. That was a good thing.

    My criticism has nothing to do with Obama love, but the fact that you have repeated the same exact nonsense over twenty times.

    Glad to see that you have provided new content even it is as a defense, and somewhat old.


    BTD, you were bloody well right on torture... (none / 0) (#12)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:22:37 PM EST
    Thank you for your prescient post from 11/11: Obama Transition Team "Clarifies" Position On Torture: He May Be For It.  

    Just Curious (none / 0) (#10)
    by Saul on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:15:30 PM EST
    How does the Obama camp, those that were always for Obama vs Hilary feel about Obama's choices for cabinet positions and other appointments Obama has made so far?  Are they ok with his choices or are they furious about these choices?

    Not speaking for the "camp," (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by indy in sc on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:24:01 PM EST
    but Obama was the candidate I supported in the primaries after Biden dropped out, which was fairly early.  I've been mostly happy with his cabinet choices.  I'm not sure yet about Holder, but that is more about my need to learn more about him for myself.

    The only reason (none / 0) (#18)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:37:01 PM EST
    I was ever "for" Obama (and I wonder how many others felt the same), was that I always saw him as more electable, ie he didnt carry the baggage of a slash & burn smear campaign that began in the early 90s.

    And the only thing Im personally "furious" about is that NONE of the possible choices nowadays are less than all-too-beholden to the narrowly defined intests that finance their careers.


    Tomorrow... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:45:32 PM EST
    is the 75th Anniversary of the repeal of alcohol prohibition.

    So don't forget to raise your glass tomorrow in celebration of the good old days when our government was capable of admitting a major mistake and (gasp!), correcting it.

    Thoooose were the days!!

    Repeal Prohibition Again! (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:16:41 PM EST
    I'm afraid... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:42:20 PM EST
    we'd need Doc Brown's Delorean to pull that off Ben.

    No, we have another Prohibition. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 10:33:16 PM EST
    71 yeasrs old.

    And we'd need the Delorean... (none / 0) (#116)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 09:14:45 AM EST
    to go back 71 years to prevent the prohibition from ever taking effect, these clowns in power now are hopeless, they'll never repeal.

    Questions about Puerto Rico statehood (none / 0) (#42)
    by magster on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:34:42 PM EST
    Yglesias has a post advocating DC statehood as a means of increasing Democratic numbers in the house and senate.

    It seems like PR statehood has more bipartisan support than DC statehood, and the last time (1998), statehood lost only by 4%.  Has statehood status gained popularity in the last 10 years, and if so, would Puerto Ricans be more inclined to vote for Dems or Repubs to Congress?

    by "last time" I mean (none / 0) (#44)
    by magster on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:35:44 PM EST
    the last time Puerto Rico held a plebescite.

    Puerto Rico went for Hillary (none / 0) (#112)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 02:10:38 AM EST
    in the primaries. That probably doesn't suggest much about a preference for Dems or the GOP.

    However, if the GOP is pushing for Puerto Rican statehood, it's probably safe to say that they're expected to vote Republican.


    Let's start eating more burgers (none / 0) (#76)
    by Manuel on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:25:33 PM EST
    We'll get free extra room when flying in Canada.

    lol!~ I wish our congresscritters (none / 0) (#80)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:34:11 PM EST
    would start saying this to some agencies and business that have been give time to comply with new regulations and haven't:

    "You've dawdled this whole year. Now stop all that bellyaching and get on with it."

    UGH (none / 0) (#100)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 07:25:39 PM EST
    Boo on Google for changing my reader and making it garish. It's the first thing I look at in the morning, and now it's as white as ivory soap!

    Bush bought (none / 0) (#107)
    by cal1942 on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 10:37:03 PM EST
    new digs in North Dallas.  The most expensive neighborhood in town, populated by some of the wealthiest Texans, says the report.

    Apparently he'll keep the "ranch" for occassional getaways.

    Wonder if he's getting the same kind of deal that Reagan got when he left office?

    Almost as big as (none / 0) (#114)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:43:53 AM EST
    the one in Chappaqua.

    The Clintons (none / 0) (#122)
    by cal1942 on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 09:35:28 PM EST
    actually earned the money they used to buy the houses in NY and Georgetown.

    The sick CDS infected people first resented them because they had nothing. The same sick people now resent them because they've earned money and have something.

    W hasn't earned anything.  It'll be intersting to learn how his new digs are financed.

    Reagan got a special "gift" from friends after he left office.  Wonder if the same will be extended W.


    Oh yeah... (none / 0) (#123)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:33:49 PM EST
    ...W's going to ride that Wingnut Welfare train like a hobo with a bad case of wanderlust.