The Tigers became the first team in major league history to blow a three-game lead with four games left.

That discussion prompted blogger Alex Rodriguez to pose this question: "Is Jazz Finally Over Ken Burns?" This really caught my attention, because I've been having discussions with many people over the last few years about their impressions of Ken Burns' film, Jazz, that was broadcast on PBS in 2002.

I'll state flat out that I think most of that film was pure sh!t, due to Burns' bad judgment in putting Wynton Marsalis and Stanley Crouch at the helm, allowing them to frame the history (or their version of it), the themes, the high points, and bloviate on camera non-stop. My loathing of those two was only intensified because Burns basically gave them carte blanche in guiding him (a self-described, complete jazz novice) over what, and which players, to cover. White musicians were pretty much ignored (even Bill Evans -- arguably, the most influential jazz pianist since the 1950's, and Mike Brecker, the most influential sax player since Coltrane) and the film basically stopped at around 1960, when Marsalis and Crouch deemed jazz over.

So... I'm just curious: Does anyone here have any thoughts on the film? Did you see it? Did you watch the whole thing? Did you learn something? Did it inspire you to go out and buy some CD's by certain players or bands? Do you agree that everything that's been created since the 1960's is not "real" jazz, and therefore, not worthy of listening to? Did you come away from it feeling like some important things were missing?

All right class. Now write 500 words answering those questions, in narrative form. Hand in to me
by the end of the week.

From the NYT:

President Obama told Congressional leaders on Tuesday that he would not substantially reduce American forces in Afghanistan or shift the mission to just hunting terrorists there, but he indicated that he remained undecided about the major troop buildup proposed by his commanding general.

Meeting with leaders from both parties at the White House, Mr. Obama seemed to be searching for some sort of middle ground, saying he wanted to "dispense with the straw man argument that this is about either doubling down or leaving Afghanistan," as White House officials later described his remarks.

But, what if this is a situation where the middle ground approach doesn't actually solve anything?

Now, in following that form, our critters want to be sure our police officers don't get stuck with any new medical taxes that might be coming down the pike for the rest of us, ostensibly due to the "risk" of their jobs. Evidently, even though police officering isn't actually a very dangerous job, and isn't much dangerous at all once you factor out the riskiest part (driving cars), the idea that these brave souls risk life and limb daily out of their love for us just won't let go -- especially when it's time for politicking and looking to have "traditional conservative values".

If you remove the risk that comes from driving cars on the job, the safety of police officering comes in a little worse than newspaper publishers and a little better than gas station attendants, all of whom have it better than Farmers and ranchers, Garbage collectors, Roofers, Electrical power line installation/repair, Truck drivers, Oil and gas extraction, Taxi drivers, Drinking establishment employees, and Construction workers. I wonder if any of those people could use a tax shield?

After all, let's make sure those police officers, who risk so much and place themselves in such incredible danger each day for us, get a free ride on health care taxes. Sounds good to me!

Justice Stephen G. Breyer asked about "stuffing geese for pâté de foie gras."

[. . .]

"Could you tell me what the difference is between these videos and David Roma's documentary on pit bulls?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Mr. Katyal, referring to "Off the Chain," an exposé of dogfighting. "David Roma's documentary had much, much more footage on the actual animal cruelty than the films at issue here."

Mr. Katyal responded that "the line will sometimes be difficult to draw."

Justice Scalia said the law violates the First Amendment by treating speech condemning depictions of animals fighting more favorably than speech celebrating the fighting. Mr. Stevens's "message is that getting animals to fight is fun," Justice Scalia said.

The hypothetical Human Sacrifice Channel came up late in the argument. Justice Alito described how it would work.

"Suppose that it is legally taking place someplace in the world," he said. "I mean, people here would probably love to see it. Live, pay per view, you know, on the Human Sacrifice Channel."

Aides to Senator Jay Rockefeller reportedly have been working recently on a revised draft Senate bill that would give the President broad powers in the event of a Cybersecurity emergency, and that apparently would go so far as allowing the President to temporarily seize control over computer networks in the private sector.

wtf
do you not understand that the cars were already made and shipped and sitting in lots waiting to be sold?
the cars sold were not made specifically for the c4c orders.  
and
it made it harder to get used cars?
again.  wtf.
do you honestly think there is a shortage of used cars in this country.

I have been out of touch since last monday afternoon so just catching up and this stuff drives me nuts.