home

Tuesday Night TV and Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 07:44:38 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The second episode of "V" is on ABC tonight. I bet The Biggest Loser's ratings go down the first hour. Then, it's DWTS with results from last night's competition. I hope Kelly Osborne and Donnie Osmond and Joanna stay. Why Joanna? Because I like her partner Derek. I don't care about Mia or Aaron. I don't even know who they are or why they qualify as "stars" and I've watched every episode.

Same-sex marriage suffered a setback in NY today. Watch out for free wi-fi. President Obama is weighing 4 options for Afghanistan. Bill Clinton is urging Dems to pass the health care bill.

That's all I've got tonight, so here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Jury Acquits Bears-Sterns Hedge Fund Managers | Veterans Day Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Night TV and Open Thread | 40 comments (40 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Futuristic Paso by Derek and Joanna (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 08:35:49 PM EST
    last night was so much fun to watch!!

    Is Susan Boyle going to be on tonight's results show? Tom B said something about her last night.

    Doesn't come on for another 2.5 hours on the west coast.

    Medical pot (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by athyrio on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:53:45 PM EST

    AMA reverses itself on Medical Pot...It's about time IMO...

    ok here is the link hopefully done correctly (none / 0) (#13)
    by athyrio on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:10:39 AM EST
    Medical pot link

    Parent
    TCM=Becket (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by oldpro on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 01:18:18 AM EST
    Burton, O'Toole, Guilgud...still wonderful after all these years.

    One of my all-time (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 10:11:57 AM EST
    favorite films, start to finish.  O'Toole is just beyond wonderful, and Burton is at his most delicious.  I've always thought this was a much, much more interesting film and more interesting situation overall than "Man for All Seasons," in which a guy stands firm and virtuous from start to finish with no inner conflict of loyalties.

    Parent
    But he had a very strong will to live (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 11:23:33 AM EST
    That was the conflict. As for inner loyalties -- he also felt loyal to the king.

    I'm a Scofield fan.

    Parent

    Scofield fan here, too. I was (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by oldpro on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 06:19:48 PM EST
    horrified at the pathetic ego of Charlton Heston in remaking the film and casting himself as More in the Scofield role.  Talk about confusing life and art!

    Parent
    There's no conflict (none / 0) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 03:04:07 PM EST
    in having a strong will to live, IMHO.  It's very tragic and all, but just not very interesting, to me anyway.  I was actually acutely bored and irritated by the film.  I'm afraid I'm not much of a Scofield fan.

    Parent
    Y'know, the righteousness is (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by oldpro on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 06:28:50 PM EST
    annoying, I'll give you that, but there is so much more to this play/film in its examination of corruption and its connection to power by nearly all characters in the play.  Not More, of course, or the Common Man.

    As a child of the 50s, the question of my loyalty to the government was raised as powerseekers saw communists under every bed and loyalty oaths were demanded and enforced though we were only lowly students working in the dining halls.  The film's examination of More's loyalty to the King/country is a surprising element and a thought-provoking one.

    Parent

    Both wonderful... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by oldpro on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:15:40 PM EST
    scripts, actors, directors, subject!

    I was particularly struck by the brilliance of Thomas' response to Henry's question 'am I not the strongest?'

    "You are today, but one must never drive one's enemy to despair; it makes him strong. Gentleness is better politics, it saps virility. A good occupational force must never crush. It must corrupt."

    Says it all, wouldn't you say?  Talk about timely...

    I loved Anhalt's writing...two other favorites are The Member of The Wedding and (OMG) The Young Lions.  If you haven't seen it, get it NOW!  Brando as good as he gets and his ambivalence and the moral questions raised by 'the war' should appeal to you as they did to me.


    Parent

    Young Lions is a treasure (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ellie on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 03:05:25 PM EST
    I saw it on a (rep) double bill with another Dmytryk gem, Crossfire. Wow!

    Parent
    A double bill! That would have (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by oldpro on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 05:59:33 PM EST
    wiped me out...I don't think I could have watched another film immediately following 'Lions.' It took a lot out of me the first time I saw it.  Even in rerun (and I've probably seen it 4 or 5 times over the years) I was melancholy for hours, picturing my WWII GI husband and father in such settings.  Thankfully, they never were...but easily could have been.

    Parent
    They're powerful films - we discussed in between (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Ellie on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 08:04:06 PM EST
    It was at a FI/Cinematheque retrospective on writers and directors that were blacklisted during the McCarthy era. (Dmytryk was one of the "Hollywood Ten".) There was a dinner break in between.

    As for Paul Scofield, another great performance (and gem of a movie) is The Train, with Burt Lancaster (dir John Frankenheimer). Mind you, with Scofield, it's hard to find a bad performance from the guy.

    Parent

    Also re The Young Lions (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Ellie on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 08:27:10 PM EST
    Check out director George Stevens' informal documentaries D-Day to Berlin (1994) and (the restored and repackaged) D-Day: The Color Footage (1999), which was shown on PBS.

    Stevens, also a cinematographer, was trying out a new state of the art portable color camera. By happenstance, he used it to captured some striking scenes, people and events from WWII, with a clarity and grace that puts today's "reality films" to shame.

    Much of the material was the loose basis for what would become The  Young Lions.

    Parent

    Stupak and The Family (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 01:18:34 AM EST
    Jeff Sharlet has a great article at Salon about Stupak.  Stupak is part of the theocratic cult group, The Family.  I read the book this summer.  This is beyond scary.  This is what happens when you let these people into the party.  

    Thanks -- a beginning (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 01:43:03 AM EST
    for the sort of backgrounder I've been seeking on, as it says, the growing evangelicalism in the Democratic Party that brought it down to this.

    The council of "progressive Christians" was not willing to even consider any deal that didn't leap past the Hyde Amendment into a new country -- or maybe it's old -- of abortion restrictions.


    Parent
    Cream (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 02:07:10 AM EST
    Look, this was the gray area that during the primaries we all had such concerns about.  This was the stuff.  Remember the Reno Gazette the "culture wars do nor resonate with me", also all the pandering t the faith based people.  it's coming to bite us big time.  I am really disturbed.  

    Parent
    Yes, I remember writing (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 07:30:24 AM EST
    of (and writhing at) the religiosity from the start of the campaign from a certain candidate -- and we saw it right through to the end, at the convention.

    A Democratic Party convention that opened with an evangelical minister denouncing a plank in the Democratic Party platform.  

    It disturbed me since December 2007, when the religiosity emerged in the campaign (if not sooner, but that's when I saw it) -- and you do remind me, Stellaa, of how you called it out throughout, too.  But did you even imagine it would lead so soon in this administration to the debacle we saw last Saturday?  I did not.  I did not imagine that it would feel like this, like we have to fear for Roe v. Wade.  (Not that there's much left of it in a lot of states like mine, in all practicality for a lot of women.  But even the shreds that are left look to be imperiled.)

    Parent

    I can't understand why more people (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 08:14:26 AM EST
    are just indifferent to this; maybe it's a denial based on "Democrats aren't like that," but I think it's been creeping up on us for a while, and I think Obama speeded it up more than a little by catering to it - and not just to get votes, but because I think he shares more than a little of the philosophy.

    Have you got any ideas about how to counter this, or put the lid on it?  Does anyone?

    I don't know, Stellaaa - I've been a Democrat forever, but these people are not Democrats, I'm tired of being treated like I don't matter because I'm a woman, we have Tim Kaine at the head of the DNC now, so I expect to see more candidates like Stupak; what I'm not seeing is a place for myself in this "new" party.

    I suspect I'm not alone, but there's not a whole lot of comfort in that.

    Parent

    I can't understand the lack of affect (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 08:54:35 AM EST
    about it, either, Anne.  To me, the religiosity is so antithetical to the core of the party principles.  It's so Republican.  That's the intellectual response, but I don't expect everyone to know the principles and platform and think it through.  (That is, not everyone had the marvelous experience I had of a graduate seminar with George Reedy as a professor in the 1980 campaign and being assigned to read every single platform statement of both major parties since the beginning of time!)

    But the visceral response is that it's just . . . creepy.  And I would expect more Democrats to feel that.  So it must be that a lot of them never really were Democrats?  Talked the talk but never really walked the walk?  Or did agree with most of the core values of the party and just counted on the pesky gender part to not really matter and just go away?  I mean, how could so many Democratic members of Congress think that such blatant moves that we see now would be okay?  Did they think that 18 million-plus voters last year were just having their time of the month?  Didn't they see that so many of those voters stayed loyal month after month after month of being told how stupid (and racist) they were?

    Parent

    Confrontation vs. Capitulation (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 09:40:09 AM EST
    People have a visceral fear of confrontation, instead they move to a passive capitulation.  How do you think extremist bullies take over nations?  They do it with the complicity of those who have no stomach for the fight.  They get a few crumbs and they move on to their daily bread.  

    Parent
    maybe (none / 0) (#23)
    by Emma on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 09:43:28 AM EST
    because having to fight both your enemies and your putative allies about the same issue over and over again disincentivizes people with real concerns from expressing and following up on those concerns.

    As you well know, having participated in the Hyde v. Stupak threads here.

    There is no way to counter this from the inside.

    Parent

    Or maybe (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:31:22 PM EST
    it just wears us out.  I am trying to regear for getting back in the battle.  But time is ever shorter to refight the wars of so many years ago -- as well as last year -- within and without as well.  And now we know how soul-weary the battle within can make us, which makes us warier of getting it again.  Now I have to look at what is left on my to-do list of life and ask myself how many other hopes I would be giving up to try to get others to change . . . while they go merrily along in getting to their to-do lists of life.

    Plus, in the current political climate, it won't happen with just us.  It will require a youth movement.  If I see it, I'll support it.

    Parent

    So (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Emma on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:50:55 PM EST
    one has to decide what one has the energy for.  For example, do I have the energy to care anymore about whether there is a public option in health care reform?  No.  I don't.  Mostly b/c, as I was recently informed, any public option insurance plan will not offer abortion services (even though it could, and should, and not run afoul of Hyde) nor will it offer ob/gyn well care.

    So, I'm out of the health care "debate" as any "skin" I have in the game has already been sanded clean off by my putative allies.

    Even if there is a "progressive" or "liberal" youth movement, I'm out.  I'm not going to repeat this fiasco with a whole 'nother generation of pundit- and access-wanna-bes.

    Parent

    I think this latest debacle with (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:51:40 PM EST
    Stupak (is the) Pitts has brought me to the point where I just want these stupid men to sit down and STFU; there's no respect for us in either major party, I'm sick of the I'll-prove-my-pen!s-is-bigger-than-yours-by-starting/funding/perpetuating-war cr@p, and this latest step back to the 60's is just too much: what have these a$$hats done for us that should make us want to keep voting for them, or keep supporting efforts to elect more like them who only have that (D) after their name and nothing else?

    I'm not totally disappointed with my Congressional delegation, but it's not enough and it's not helping me.

    I don't know if it's a youth movement that will do it, or a revitalized and supremely pi$$ed-off women's movement, but what we have is just not doing it for me.  At.  All.

    Parent

    To be specific, I mean a young women's (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 02:02:28 PM EST
    movement is what may matter.  Oh, a young men's movement for women's rights really would be heeded, but that won't happen.

    An old women's movement wouldn't be heard at all.  That much is more than clear in this Nu Dem world.

    Parent

    just sent this to my Congress critters . . . (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by allys gift on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 09:47:57 AM EST
    but now I am wondering if I am correct that such a paragraph could go into an appropriations or war funding bill:

    Dear **

    Now I'm really angry.  The Stupak amendment is a disgrace, denying care to 51% of the population for certain body parts.  Get rid of this health care bill that will not decrease cost, and will not provide actual health care to enough uninsured Americans to overcome the fact that it is a giant give away to the insurance companies, ensconcing their thievery in perpetuity.

    Just decrease the eligibility age for Medicare in the next appropriations or war funding bill.  One paragraph will do it.  Then do it again, and again, and again until we have Medicare for all.  There's you incrementalism, your bipartisanship, your decreased costs and your universal coverage. Cut off all chairmanships and DNC funding for any Democrat that stands in your way.

    Thank you,
    *

    Watching part II of Nova later tonight (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 07:48:21 PM EST
    on PBS.  6th grade tutoree is ahead of me on this subject.  

    Missed part one (none / 0) (#8)
    by TomStewart on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:04:08 PM EST
    but I saw part tow and part three is programmed on the DVR. Now, Dirty Jobs.

    Parent
    Polanski update: (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 07:58:48 PM EST
    thewrap

    Oh, thank heavens. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Cream City on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 08:09:36 PM EST
    I was beginning to worry that the world had stopped worrying about poor Roman Polanski, what with all this frivolous discussion of health care and such.:-)

    Parent
    it's not a news update (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 08:09:24 PM EST
    but a story about celebrity support and lack of support for him.

    Parent
    It is fairly newsy that Emma Thompson (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 08:15:09 PM EST
    says she will "unsign" the petition she signed in support of Polanski.

    Parent
    Public radio is rebroadcasting last night's (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:41:57 PM EST
    concert in Berlin Cathedral, including "Now Thank We All Our God" at about 1/2 the usual tempo here.

    I watched (none / 0) (#18)
    by kmblue on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 06:38:01 AM EST
    the Burton Taylor version of "Taming of the Shrew".
    Wonderful to see them flaunting their talent in gorgeous costumes.

    a very underrated movie (none / 0) (#31)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 11:24:54 AM EST
    I like even its self-indulgence

    Parent
    Boys in college (none / 0) (#26)
    by Manuel on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 10:35:37 AM EST
    The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will investigate whether colleges discriminate against women by admitting less qualified men.  Here is the WSJ article.
    Good link; thanks. It will be forwarded (none / 0) (#27)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 10:53:02 AM EST
    widely among my colleagues, as we have watched this debate for a while.  We know it is happening; we see the result in our classes.  

    But I have to disagree with conclusion -- yet another capitulation to discrimination.  And it really doesn't help students to admit them to college if they are not ready and only will fail again.  And then get trapped in an endless battle to be readmitted, retake courses to raise grades, etc.  Frankly, I begin to think that endless battle is a deliberate trap to boost campus revenue by having some students pay again and again for the same courses, and each time at higher tuition.

    It is so sad.  But this is not the solution.  The solution is somewhere in the K-12 years.

    Parent

    Pre K-12 is key (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Manuel on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 11:14:19 AM EST
    The K-12 years are absolutely the key.  I commend the stimulus package for savig education jobs but there is so much more we should be doing.

    Long term, I think this trend (women doing better academically) should have a positive effect on society.  I don't see why the following shoud cotinue to be true.

    At the same levels of education, women remain less inclined to roll the dice on risky business start-ups or to grind out careers in isolated tech labs. Revenue generated by women-owned businesses remains less than 5% of all revenue.


    Parent
    You bet it doesn't need to be true (none / 0) (#29)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 11:20:09 AM EST
    as I have witnessed what happens when resources are there for women entrepreneurs, in a program in my state started by our (woman) lieutenant governor.

    Sadly, the program now will die, because she will be leaving office.  She has withdrawn as the only Dem candidate for governor, after being pushed out by the current Dem governor and the White House.

    Parent

    Tuesday Night TV and Open Thread | 40 comments (40 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment