Memorial Day Open Thread

Today we justly honor the many men and women who died while serving in our Armed Forces.

This year, more than most, I'm struck by the fact that war is not a distant memory, or an occasional event, but an ever-present condition.

In war news, Iraqi forces stormed Fallujah early this morning, backed by U.S. aircraft, to retake the city from ISIS. In Baghdad yesterday, ISIS suicide bombings claimed the lives of more than 20 people.

Meanwhile more than 700 migrants, including children, may have died in sea crossings this week.

Hopefully, some of you have something cheerful to write about, even if it's just how you spent your weekend. This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "Feel the Math." (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 30, 2016 at 10:50:42 AM EST
    Paul Krugman, NYTimes, May 30,2016, offers numerate therapy: Why Hillary will be the nominee and why she is ahead of Trump.

    The strange thing about this column (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 30, 2016 at 06:45:45 PM EST
    Is how excited people seem to be about it.   It's everywhere.  Like, OMG someone is actually talking RATIONALLY about this election.    

    And he's sure right about one thing.  Political reporting is often the worst of the worst but this year they have out done themselves.  They have literally become self parody.   Its sad and scary.


    There was a good Amy Davidson piece (none / 0) (#25)
    by Mr Natural on Mon May 30, 2016 at 07:33:55 PM EST
    last night, I think, on newyorker radio.  Quite a contrast with the usual frantic projectile-regurgitation of polling data.   She discussed choices made at a couple of past conventions, 1924 and 1982.

    I've been watching House of Cards (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 30, 2016 at 08:43:44 PM EST
    Im not saying I disapprove of actual news people doing the show.  i don't.  but its just a little weird.  and i think it adds to the growing feeling that politics is show business.  a little around the edges.

    i totally get the idea of peeking behind the curtain.   i just think there's more than one curtain and the idea of peeking behind "it" is itself sort of dishonest.

    i love House of Cards.


    Yes, good piece/reminder (none / 0) (#44)
    by Nemi on Tue May 31, 2016 at 06:40:12 AM EST
    But, sadly, he isn't the only one experiencing this:

    I know this isn't scientific, but based on conversations I've had recently, many people -- smart people, who read newspapers and try to keep track of events -- have been given a fundamentally wrong impression of the current state of play.

    By a good friend and former (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon May 30, 2016 at 11:30:13 AM EST
    I have always been moved... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by desertswine on Mon May 30, 2016 at 11:43:59 AM EST
    While it's true (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 30, 2016 at 12:52:57 PM EST
    War is not a distant memory but a continuing condition, I think  it sometimes tends to seem  distant to most of the country because so small a percentage of the country has loved ones fighting them.

    While being the (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by BTAL on Mon May 30, 2016 at 03:58:26 PM EST
    hard-hearted, cold-blooded, every man for himself, selfish conservative bastard Republican voter that those on the left stereotype my type.

    I shed actual tears on this day when remembering my fellow service mates and especially those whose sacrifices were 1000% more than the years I spend in the military.

    A firm but kind rebuff is given to friends and family who make a point of thanking me for my service with the reminder of those who we memorialize with this day.

    God bless them all.

    P.S. An thank each of you here, regardless of political bent for your thoughts and remembrances today.

    I was (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 30, 2016 at 04:07:59 PM EST
    told by someone who works with PSTD veterans to not say "thank you for your service" but to say I appreciate your sacrifices.

    Something cheerful: Cubs currently (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 30, 2016 at 06:01:46 PM EST
    have the best record in all of major league baseball. And at this very moment, in the bottom of the 6th, the Cubs lead the Dodgers 2-0.

    I know, i know, it is only May, still a lot of baseball left to play. And it is the Cubs. Still, this team seems pretty tight. So far, not given to bumbling mistakes.

    So, right now, I am a very happy Cubs fan. Very happy.

    GO, CUBS!!!!!

    Though rarely acknowledged (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Mon May 30, 2016 at 09:36:47 PM EST
    a win in May = a win in September.

    Take them anytime you can get them.


    Very good point!!!! (none / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Mon May 30, 2016 at 09:41:04 PM EST
    I looked at the standings over the weekend in awe (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Mon May 30, 2016 at 09:34:50 PM EST
    too. .702. Unbelievable. Yes, it is is only May -almost June! - but we are allowed to savor the success.

    What could go wrong? :-)


    Just so you know--the Dodger (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Mon May 30, 2016 at 10:57:23 PM EST
    aren't doing very well this season (yet).  

    The Dodgers also weren't doing too well ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 30, 2016 at 11:31:03 PM EST
    ... a few years ago, until they went on that mid-season tear and won 43 out of 50. There's still another four months to go. But that said, the law of averages suggests that 108 years after their last World Series title, this may finally be the Cubbies' year.

    Of course, I thought that same thing about the Cubs back in 2008, when they finished the season with the best record in the National League, and drew for their first-round NLDS matchup what appeared to be a mediocre Dodgers team that finished only six games above .500.

    But much to my surprise -- as well as everyone else's, no doubt -- the Cubs' bats went limp and my Dodgers put them away in three games. A lot of hearts were broken in Chicago that season, perhaps more so than any other year.



    A big day for endorsements for Clinton today (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 31, 2016 at 09:10:26 AM EST
    Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, a major environmental group, endorsed a presidential candidate for its first time ever.

    "Hillary Clinton is an environmental champion with the passion, experience and savvy to build on President Obama's environmental legacy. More than any other candidate running, Hillary Clinton understands the environmental challenges America faces, and her approach to solving them is grounded in the possibility and promise our democracy affords us."

    It got bigger and better for Clinton after that when California Governor Jerry Brown endorsed her leading into next Tuesday's California primary.

    I can see him continuing his "movement" (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Cashmere on Tue May 31, 2016 at 10:14:48 AM EST
    post the general and be a big pain to Hillary's presidency.  I understand your reasoning Capt., but it would mostly be to ensure she is elected in the general.  Beyond this, I think Bernie would be a problem.  He would be a rogue VP IMHO.  And they are truly fighting for the same things, mostly, but the stubborn side of Bernie I have seen leads me to believe if Hillary does not do things exactly as Bernie wants, there would be issues vocalized by Bernie and the media will continue to cover him and hype any discord.  I would prefer Warren to Biden.  Just my take.

    I prefer Warren too (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 10:31:06 AM EST
    "Mostly to insure she is elected in the general"

    I would would say it's entirely to insure she is elected in the general.

    "A rogue VP"

    What can he do?  Refuse to attend funerals?  Sure the media will cover him.  You know what?  It might not be an entirely bad thing to have a big mouth with a media following pushing progressive ideas.  It might just make Hillary look more moderate.  The VP has no real power unless the senate is tied.  

    Let me be clear, afaiac Bernie can dissappear forever.  Not about him.  It's about winning.  We have all known for a long time we have demographics on our side.  All we need to win is a united enthusiastic party.  
    This is hardly a new idea.  Teams of rivals to unite the party is old school.


    Strongly agree. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 31, 2016 at 11:06:01 AM EST
    First things first. Insure the election of Mrs. Clinton to the presidency. Toward that end, my thinking for vice president, expressed previously, was (1) Senator Warren, and (2) Senator Sanders. While I still like that ordering, I believe it may be better in light of circumstances, to reverse that order. It is essential that Democrats be conciliatory for the sake of the national interest. Clinton and Sanders are the two contenders in the primary process, and Sanders, while not being able to gain the needed delegates, has proved he is an able politician with a strong and enthusiastic following.

    Mrs. Clinton, as president, will be able to optimize Sander's contributions; he was a team player while in the Democratic caucus and he is likely to be a good and influential vice president.  He is not a rogue senator, he will not be so as part of the executive branch.

    In his NYT column, Weimar Republic, Jochen Bittner of Die Zeit, brings some scary thoughts from the past to the present in the failure of the mainstream to respond to the serious challenges of the 1930s.

    A ticket of Clinton/Kaine, for example, would be helpful if the electorate was looking to contrast the Republican frolic with Democratic staidness. A non-starter.  Trump is likely to select Rubio, who has apologizes for saying Trump has little hands and things.  But, they would work well together: Rubio is physically smaller and mentally duller than Trump, but both have a penchant for making easy money, Rubio just handicapped by a poorer father. Trump likes all of these contrasts, and probably thinks, a Cuban American will solve his Hispanic problems.


    I disagree. The larger voting bloc, the (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 31, 2016 at 12:31:48 PM EST
    IMO, more important voting bloc, for Clinton is latina/o voter, not Bernie Sanders diehards. Clinton will get the vast majority of Sanders supporters once the primaries are over. The most virulent Bernie or Busters will never vote for her regardless of her VP choice.

    Latina/o voters are a huge and growing group. They are the key to several states turning from red to at least purple, if not a pale blue. This is the future of the Party and the country, not a bunch a angry young white dudes.

    One of the biggest mistakes the Democratic Party and its liberal wing made over the last 30 years was to neglect the farm teams. We have had a ridiculously weak bench for decades. Our chronic neglect of state and local races, our carelessness with the House of Representatives, these were all self-inflicted wounds from which the Dems have yet to recover. Let's not compound that by putting yet another older white guy on the ticket.

    Let's think long-term. Let's think of the future, not just of the Party, but of the country. Winning the House means winning state legislatures in 2016, 2018, 2020 and beyond. Bernie Sanders as Veep contributes nothing to that.

    And neither does putting Elizabeth Warren on the ticket.


    You think Latinis (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 12:58:17 PM EST
    Will vote for Trump?

    Yes, if Rubio is his VP choice. (none / 0) (#112)
    by oculus on Tue May 31, 2016 at 04:05:42 PM EST
    Not all. Some.

    Well (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 04:10:33 PM EST
    Define some.  1%? 2%?

    IMO he can pick whoever he wants he won't get close to the number of Hispanics Romney got.  There has never been a candidate more hated by that demographic.


    Well (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 31, 2016 at 04:37:08 PM EST
    right now Trump gets 17% of the Hispanic vote. Rubio might move that number to 20% or he might not move it at all.

    Romney got 27 (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 04:40:20 PM EST
    Had to look

    Miles (none / 0) (#123)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 31, 2016 at 04:56:34 PM EST
    of tape with Rubio attacking Trump would probably mute any bounce(the campaign ads write themselves). In any case I don't think Trump would pick anybody who has attacked him in the past, no matter what the advantage may be, that's the way he rolls.



    Hard for me to imagine VP Marco (none / 0) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 05:00:17 PM EST
    I think he will want someone who has always been with like Gingrich, Christie etc.  

    Really, I am like (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 31, 2016 at 05:40:08 PM EST
    Trump: I don't know.  I just think Little Marco fits the unfavorable contrast that Trump would be comfortable with. He fits like a glove.  I used to believe Trump would go for Kasich because (a) Ohio, and (b)cover for establishment to vote for Trump, since they can deceive themselves that Kasich will provide governance input.  And, of course, Kasich could be persuaded, despite any protests to the contrary. But, Towering Trump/Little Marco 2016 is an update.

    I (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 31, 2016 at 07:02:47 PM EST
    just think that having your running mate on tape calling you a conman is just too much ammo to give the Dem's. Anyway Trump does not care about balancing the ticket or any such conventional thinking, I am leaning towards Gingrich, a perfect hatchetman to run the government while he plays golf and threatens people on twitter.

    Gingrich (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 31, 2016 at 07:09:51 PM EST
    is actually a perfect match for Trump. Same conspiracy theory belting personality.

    I predicted Rubio as the GOP VP for a long time - (none / 0) (#145)
    by ruffian on Tue May 31, 2016 at 06:46:28 PM EST
    no matter who was at the top of the ticket. He just seems so perfect for a GLOP VP.  But then I thought the break with Trump was too bitter for it to happen.  I underestimate both mens ambition!

    Really? (none / 0) (#160)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 31, 2016 at 07:58:19 PM EST
    Speaking as someone who's married to a Latina from Texas, I don't think Latino-Americans are that superficial and shallow. I certainly can't imagine any of my in-laws appreciating Trump's racist attack last Friday in San Diego on "Mexican" Federal Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, who's currently presiding over two of the three lawsuits regarding the alleged fraud of the now-defunct Trump University -- and who so happens to have been born in East Chicago, IN.

    Nor can I see Latinos shrugging their shoulders at the comments offered by Trump's spokeswoman Katrina Pierson, who basically doubled down on stupid by defending her boss's unfortunate remarks. (She reminds me of a Scientologist I know, in a very creepy sort of way.)

    Judge Curiel ought to smack Trump with a contempt of court citation for his conduct and accusations.



    Pretty hard to cite a guy for contempt (none / 0) (#172)
    by oculus on Tue May 31, 2016 at 10:28:26 PM EST
    of court when he wasn't in court b

    No, I do not think Latina/os (none / 0) (#146)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 31, 2016 at 06:47:13 PM EST
    will come out for Trump in any great number. I do think a latina/o on the ticket with Clinton will get more people who would perhaps not bother to vote out to vote for Clinton. Turnout is the key to electoral success.

    In addition to my general antipathy to the very idea of yet another boring so-called moderate white guy on the ticket, I do not see Tim Kaine or Ted Strickland or any of that ilk bringing anything of value to the Democratic ticket. i cannot think of a single significant demographic that would turn out to vote because of the excitement of Tim Kaine on the ticket.


    I completely agree with the last paragraph (none / 0) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 06:52:04 PM EST
    and I fully expect one of those to be the choice.

    Strongly agree with caseyOR (none / 0) (#125)
    by christinep on Tue May 31, 2016 at 05:05:06 PM EST
    Although forming a coalition with the runner-up for the national Democratic ticket is an approach that naturally would be considered, there may be more downsides down the road that would suggest looking elsewhere.  Yes, the first order of business has to be electing HRC and soundly defeating Trump .. but, my gut says that there are much stronger tickets than the default to the runner-up.  

    We all know about the power of the rivals ticket ... see Kennedy/Johnson.  Here is where I diverge from that approach.  IMO, it will be very important to have one (or both) of two qualities on the ticket: A dynamism & energy unmistakably associated with youth OR a partner who can reliably support, deliver results in specially designated areas.  In Kennedy/Johnson, JFK had the outward dynamics and Johnson could have been anyone's strong-armed operations manager. (Yes, as life turned out, the harsher side of LBJ became all too apparent later.)

    I think that Sanders has served an important role to date ... and, now, as the primary winds down (and apart from the acrimony engendered by campaign life) I also sense that this year may have represented his "prime" in robust energy and drive.  Maybe it is only my tired eyes, but Sanders projects these days as angry, somewhat bitter, and occasionally run down ....  The general election is going to be tough, trying--an election where either side might suffer a big setback should the bristles show too much, where strength starts to look like churlishness.  I am concerned that certain arguments against Sanders could be expected to produce a churlish, sour attitude that would be counterproductive for HRC's campaign.  'Just my feeling.

    Others? I still have my Julian Castro bent for the very reason that the Latino/a vote is central--under any demographic analysis--to a Democratic victory.  In this case, his personality & positive energy is an asset as well.  OTOH ... every so often, I'm tempted by the pragmatic safe-white-guy appeal of Kaine .. then, I recall the non-impressive short stint for his run ... that leads me round in circles. Next ... there is the Senator Pool; but Minority Leader Reid cautioned against that if we are trying to take back control of the Senate ... if that were practical, my vote would be for Sen. Sherrod Brown for his leanings as well as for the State of Ohio.  The, Governors ... but our party doesn't have many contenders in that area, I don't think .. my state's Governor Hickenlooper? ... I don't know (he is more center than centrist, at times.)  

    At least, the Democratic Convention follows the Repub gathering, so HRC can adjust the options if need be.


    Tim Kaine....ew....I don't see him as safe really (none / 0) (#154)
    by ruffian on Tue May 31, 2016 at 07:10:15 PM EST
    More like dangerously middle of the road.  I think she needs a little more zing than that.

    And If we're going oldish Vermont white dude (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by ruffian on Tue May 31, 2016 at 07:12:29 PM EST
    I much prefer Howard Dean

    Because gun control works so well (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 31, 2016 at 11:07:32 AM EST
    An incredible 66 people were shot, although just six were killed, over Chicago's Memorial Day weekend. The carnage pushed the number of gunshot victims well above 1,500 this year in this Democratic-run city.


    And yes we all know the guns are coming from someplace else...I mean it is always someone else's fault...

    But don't you think that it is time to admit that something is wrong? I mean, maybe if we spent as much time trying to reform our drug laws as we do controlling guns the market would go away?

    Of course that would be sooooooo against the meme of the mainstream Demos and Repubs....

    Dems on guns = GOP on abortion (none / 0) (#133)
    by pitachips on Tue May 31, 2016 at 06:00:47 PM EST
    Equally quixotic.

    Hello Uncle Benjen (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 30, 2016 at 07:28:20 AM EST
    Probably best not to think to much about what Drogo has been eating to get so big.

    I'm beginning to miss Joffrey.

    And (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 30, 2016 at 06:49:49 PM EST
    I can't wait to see Arya use Needle on  that b!tch that's been smacking her in the head with a club for 2 seasons.

    Hello, I'm Arya.  SAY HELLO TO MY LEETLE FRIN!


    I am glad about it too but curious (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Mon May 30, 2016 at 09:31:00 PM EST
    about what it was about the conversation with the actress that turned her around? Was it that the actress really looked at her and saw something in her face?  First time anyone has done that since she left Winterfell.

    Yes, let Needle loose on stick girl.


    `i think she has been (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 30, 2016 at 09:52:06 PM EST
    having doubts about the whole deal for a while.   she got all kinds of hell for killing someone who clearly deserved to die because, why?  no one paid to have him killed?  then she is supposed to kill this woman because a jealous coworker wanted her dead and paid for it?  what bullsh!t.  the faceless god is full of it.  but what if this is all still just testing?  the faceless god has a pretty big reach and a pretty deep history to be a BS murder for hire racket.  maybe it was to see if she would really do it?

    also, you will like this.

    Brandon Stark Theories after The Door

    was he Brandon the Builder 5000 years ago?  did he drive the Mad King mad?  is he The Lord of Light?


    the Unified Theory of Bran (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Tue May 31, 2016 at 10:39:45 AM EST
    It could all be true...I have to remember this is all a fantasy world...he can just make sh** up....my least favorite aspect of the show!

    I guess it's more interesting than any reasons more 'reality based' shows would have for the Mad King going mad. I just assumed it was the inbreeding and did not even look for another reason.

    True, we are probably not done with the faceless god - seems like a battle of the gods is part of the end game. So far the Lord of Light has my vote - I think Melisandre just made an interpretation mistake with the child burning at the stake thing.


    Yes (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 10:54:39 AM EST
    Suppose the Mad King thing is true, I agree with the piece the flashback thing supports it, and suppose the NEW red woman was telling Varys the truth and she really does know "who the voice was" and suppose she really is all in for the Mother of Dragons and she tells her why he ancestor lost it?

    I so love this show.  

    Are you up on Penny Dreadful?


    Not up with Penny Dreadful yet! (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Tue May 31, 2016 at 12:00:28 PM EST
    I chose the Bloodline oath over the weekend...maybe this week I'll catch up on PD.

    It is a dark and stormy night (none / 0) (#161)
    by ruffian on Tue May 31, 2016 at 07:58:40 PM EST
    I've started Penny Dreadful.  Thrilled to have Patti LuPone as my alienist. I'm going to do everything she says.

    Riddle me this (none / 0) (#66)
    by ragebot on Tue May 31, 2016 at 10:58:41 AM EST
    Margaery always seemed like a level headed character, and while some what controlled by others Tommen as well; so how did the High Sparrow get his claws into both of them.

    Margaery said the High Sparrow was responsible for her seeing she was really playing like she was a good person helping the poor for PR sake, not some one who was doing it because it was the right thing to do.  Something I agree with and think it has merit in the bigger picture.

    Not saying the Lord of Light or Faceless God don't have chops, just that until episode six I may have underestimated the High Sparrow.


    I think (hope) Margaery is just faking it (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ruffian on Tue May 31, 2016 at 11:58:03 AM EST
    It did get her what she wanted - out of jail and in charge as queen, Tommen choosing her over Cercei and Jaime. Maybe she thinks she can manage the High Sparrow and his minnions until she gets Loras out of the slammer.

    Would not be the first double cross in (none / 0) (#79)
    by ragebot on Tue May 31, 2016 at 12:43:55 PM EST
    GOT.  The thing is Tommen seems to have bought in hook, line, and sinker.  He seems to be getting more independent of Jamie and Cercie. It may only be a matter of time before he becomes his own man with Margaery as well.

    Both Tommen and Margaery seem to think there is more to the High Sparrow than they initially thought.

    Last week lots of folks, me included, thought Jamie would ride in on a white horse and end both the High Sparrow and the power of his followers.  Instead Jamie is banished to leading an army in far off lands, something that has not worked out well for him in the past.

    He does seem headed in the same direction as Brianne so maybe he will hook up with her again as they both seemed to have mutual attraction; but that is speculation on my part.

    I still give an up arrow to the High Sparrow after this week's show.


    Nope (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 01:10:52 PM EST
    Its Breinne and Tormund now.  Made for each other.

    Pretty much everyone is going to end up at Riverrun by seasons end.  There's talk of C.B. DeMille cast of thousands stuff.

    IMO Tommen is a born pawn.  It's all about who is playing him.  She will eat him alive.

    The High Sparrow won a battle but the queen may use him to best the Lannisters and then deal with him.  He too is outclasses I think.  Watch out for the Queen.    She is not asleep at the wheel.


    Remember when the queen (none / 0) (#86)
    by ragebot on Tue May 31, 2016 at 01:21:35 PM EST
     played Joffery, until she did not play him.  Tommen is harder to play than he was in earlier seasons.  My bet is he will grow out of being easy to play.

    Yeah, I can't see Jaime duelling Tormund for her (none / 0) (#88)
    by ruffian on Tue May 31, 2016 at 01:51:01 PM EST
    hand. Not with his sister issues.

    I agree on Tommen - also, IMO his is the rare case on this show where the child actors they picked years ago did not quite grow into good actors...I don't think this kid is very good, even at playing a pawn. I don't even want to see him try to grow a spine.


    Not just child actors (none / 0) (#93)
    by ragebot on Tue May 31, 2016 at 02:25:47 PM EST
    Two different actors have played the Mountain, and so far the current one has always had his face hidden. Same for two different actors playing Daario Naharis.  I have to say even if he was kinda pretty boy I liked the original Daario better than the current one.

    As for Tommen he is played by Callum Wharry in seasons 1 and 2 and by Dean-Charles Chapman in seasons 4, 5 and 6. So don't lose hope that he could be replaced by a better actor.  


    thanks, I did not catch they had replaced (none / 0) (#96)
    by ruffian on Tue May 31, 2016 at 02:39:22 PM EST
    the original, who was a very small child when it started.  

    Maybe Tommen is not long for this world and there will be no need to replace him.

    I kind of liked the original Daario better too. They haven't made much more of the character than to be an over-confident pretty boy, so I think the original guy  did just fine.  I expected more out of the character development when they casted Huisman....but so far it has not been forthcoming.


    speaking of the Mountain (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 02:40:23 PM EST
    have to pass on one of my favorite theories.  

    Cersi's trial is coming up.  definitely since last week.  she has said a couple of times not to worry she would demand a trial by combat and with the mountain she cant lose.
    this is where it gets interesting.  
    its long been thought the Hound is not dead and would return.  several quotes from people involved suggest this season.   in the books its discussed that he was found and cared for by a guy encountered by Brienne on The Quiet Isles. and even probably even seen by Brienne there.  The Quiet Isles is a retreat for folks involved with The Sparrows religion.  so imagine we have a trial by combat.  Cersi picks the Mountain and the Sparrow sends to the Quiet Isle for his brother who hates him, the Hound.

    they fight.  the Hound wins.  Cersi must be put to death and by doing so fulfills the prophecy she got as a girl that "the younger brother" would be responsible for her death.

    one problem.  the prophecy also said all three of her children would die before her.  meaning Tommens days are numbered.
    im ok with that.


    next weeks episode is (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 02:47:08 PM EST
    The Broken Man

    the other three episode titles (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 02:57:57 PM EST
    have been released.  or leaked.

    No One
    (Aryas story)

    The Battle of the Bastards
    (Jon vs Ramsay)

    Winter Is Coming
    (and so is the Night King I expect)


    Adding (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 04:00:50 PM EST
    This is not a spoiler it's a theory.  And there are 1001 others.  Including one based on hints from Johnathan Price that he meets a bad end in the trial episode.

    Btw (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 04:15:43 PM EST
    We still don't know what terrible thing the Sparrow told Tommen.  We were cut off before he told Cersi.  We know Cersi told Lady Olenna about the upcoming walk of shame
    It's speculated
    That Lorus confessed to the Tyrrell involvement in the murder of Joffery.

    I doubt that Loras knew about it (none / 0) (#117)
    by CST on Tue May 31, 2016 at 04:21:42 PM EST
    considering that Margery wasn't told until after the fact and she's the "smart" one and I'm pretty sure Granny has always known/considered her the "smart" one.  Why would she have told Loras?

    I dunno (none / 0) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 04:25:02 PM EST
    It's a theory.  I can probably imagine him being told.  At some point.  By someone.

    My theory is that Loras fights The Mountain (none / 0) (#141)
    by ruffian on Tue May 31, 2016 at 06:42:30 PM EST
    in the trial. It will be Loras' chance to redeem himself.  Is Loras younger than Maergary - maybe he is the younger brother in the prophecy.

    I'm not ready to lose Cersei yet. I have a soft spot for the bitter twisted wine-sodden ....queen mother.


    Not to dis the Mountain but (none / 0) (#165)
    by ragebot on Tue May 31, 2016 at 08:19:54 PM EST
    Loras beat him using an old but established trick.  Oberyn wounded him and if instead of blabbing about what a bad guys the Mountain and Tywin are the Red Viper could have easily killed the Mountain.  I would give Bronn a better than even chance against the Mountain since reaction to a quick opponent seems to be the Mountain's weakness.

    that was before (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 08:56:33 PM EST
    he was reanimated by Qyburn the Creepy

    And I have not seen his face (none / 0) (#170)
    by ragebot on Tue May 31, 2016 at 09:25:57 PM EST
    or heard him speak since.  Not sure if he is a better fighter or worse since the Red Viper poisoned him.

    Also (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 11:02:18 AM EST
    When she saw her brother she was clearly not yet "converted".  I agree she may have other plans.  As Lady Olenna said to her "I was good.  I was very very good.  YOU are better"

    Glad Uncle Benjen is back... (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Mon May 30, 2016 at 09:40:08 PM EST
    He is in a lot better shape then Uncle Edmuir Tully!

    Is this season the gathering of the uncles? we also have uncle whatshisface on the loose going after Theon and Vara... and uncle-dad Jaime spoiling for a fight.

    Nice dragon scene!


    if previously TV still wrote about (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 30, 2016 at 09:59:54 PM EST
    shows anyone cared about they would have one of those things they used to do like "Who's Father is a Bigger A$$hole --  Randay Tarley or Jared Talbot"

    Looks like the speculation of the (none / 0) (#48)
    by ragebot on Tue May 31, 2016 at 09:22:29 AM EST
    High Sparrow's demise is premature.  In fact he (and his followers) seem more powerful than ever with the King and Queen now supporting him.  Even if Jamie and Cerci are plotting; but they are always plotting.

    No updates on what is going on with the Lord of Light's minions but clearly they are a force.  Looks like the Mother of Dragons is moving up but she still needs a thousand ships; something she may have to pay the iron price for since the Greyjoys are suppose to be building a thousand ships if last weeks show is correct.

    No mention of Jon Snow this week (except a blurb from Sam about being his bud who hunts rabbits) but speculation about just who Jon Snow's real parents are.  Last week Ned was at some out of the way castle defending something inside; was it Jon's real mother giving birth and is his real mother a Targaryen?

    So who seems to be the most powerful faction now.  I am betting it is Bran.  Kinda reminds me of a protest sign I saw "what do we want, time travel; when do we want it, it's irrelevant".


    Answer to this I believe... (none / 0) (#59)
    by ruffian on Tue May 31, 2016 at 10:41:34 AM EST
    Last week Ned was at some out of the way castle defending something inside; was it Jon's real mother giving birth and is his real mother a Targaryen?

    Jon's mother is Ned's sister and his father is a Targaryen.


    Who sent (none / 0) (#63)
    by ragebot on Tue May 31, 2016 at 10:46:13 AM EST
    Ned there and could he be Jon Snow's father.  Hint he was a king and a Targaryen.

    I do think they have (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 10:58:57 AM EST
    Toyed with and teased this for so long there almost has to be a surprise beyond the now rather tired R+L=J.

    Yeah, I was wondering about that. (none / 0) (#74)
    by ruffian on Tue May 31, 2016 at 11:59:17 AM EST
    Once I think I understand something, it usually turns out to be wrong.

    same for me (none / 0) (#80)
    by ragebot on Tue May 31, 2016 at 12:44:58 PM EST
    and not just in GOT

    haha - yeah, me too! (none / 0) (#98)
    by ruffian on Tue May 31, 2016 at 02:40:20 PM EST
    as readers here well know.

    One theorized surprise (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 02:18:26 PM EST
    Is that Meera is Jons twin sister

    wow, that would be cool. (none / 0) (#100)
    by ruffian on Tue May 31, 2016 at 02:40:54 PM EST
    She has the hair for it!

    Enjoyed (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 30, 2016 at 08:06:57 AM EST
    the discussion on the other thread about Welcome to the Dollhouse but apparently more people know about the X rated movie with a similar name. LOL.

    Worth rememtioning (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 30, 2016 at 08:11:47 AM EST
    That the new movie "Weiner Dog" is sort of a sequel.  Tho the grown up WTTD character is only one of several (and not the original actor) encounter by the adventurous Weiner dog.

    I do love the idea of Danny DeVito in a Todd Solondz movie.  He was born to do it.


    We are doing (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 30, 2016 at 08:32:03 AM EST
    a "block" party sort of. My neighbors across the street are from NJ and NY. One of my best friends grew up in NJ and talked about block parties. However I am not too hopeful that this kind of thing is going to work here because my neighbors are strange and unfriendly except strangely the ones who supposedly come from the unfriendly states of NJ and NY. This is the worst neighborhood I have ever lived in and unfortunately it's the one I've lived in the longest.

    I have lived many places (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 30, 2016 at 08:45:44 AM EST
    Personally I found NY and NJ to be very friendly places.   But I understand why a southerner used to the smarmy bullsh!t "I'm so nice while I shiv you in the kidney" southern attitude  might find the brutaly direct NewYorker, who if they dislike you are happy to say so to your face, off putting.

    That's pretty (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 30, 2016 at 09:30:19 AM EST
    much been my observation. It's okay to slice someone up as long as you do it behind their back in the south. Tiresome!

    Why bless your heart! (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 30, 2016 at 11:13:39 AM EST

    It's been my experience that ... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 30, 2016 at 05:23:03 PM EST
    ... regardless of whatever region or locale from which they might hail, people are perfectly capable of saying and doing all sorts of things behind someone else's back. I think that's just human nature.

    We see it play out on a daily basis in personal behavior in online forums. Posters apparently have no problem being horrid, vile and cruel to others when they're commenting anonymously under a pseudonym, offering up the sort of wretched stuff that they'd otherwise never say if they actually had to sign off under their own name.

    And I think we're all guilty of that to a great extent, particularly when we gossip. I don't see southerners as any more prone to that than anybody else. Maybe that sort of behavior becomes more noticeable in southerners because at least from my perspective, they otherwise tend to be better-mannered in social interactions than, say, my fellow Southern Californians. To me anyway, southerners are more likely to say "please," "thank you" and "bless you" than others.

    While that may be superficial, good manners are something I notice. It might also be the case that when I interact with southerners out here or on the west coast, they're conscious of the fact that they're visitors who are on my turf, and so they seek to put me at ease. Maybe my perspective might be different were I to actually live in the South among them.



    They are so tolerant, too! (none / 0) (#40)
    by ExPatObserver on Tue May 31, 2016 at 12:41:23 AM EST
    I was in the South for a couple of years. I was singing in a choir at the Episcopal church.
    One day at coffee before the service, the organist, who was quite good and a professor at the local university, pulled close to me and said conspiratorially, "Expatobserver, do you see that guy?"
    "He LOOKS normal"
    I glanced across the parking lot and verified for myself that he looked normal.
    "But he wears an earring!"
    "By the way, why do you I call you Expatobserver? Don't you have a regular name?"

    It was on that day I vowed to start preparing comebacks and retorts BEFORE I need them.
    Of course I should have said "I dunno, TolerantChurchOrganist, I think any piercing above the navel is respectable".

    This was in 2008, by the way.


    Since we are sharing stories about (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 31, 2016 at 09:20:09 AM EST
    regions and peoples behavior...

    Back in the late 60's I was promoted and transferred to my corporation's facility in the Chicago area.

    I wanted to narrow down the selection of our new home before my wife arrived to do the actual selection. (She had some commitments that delayed her trip.) I would drive around after work and take notes and then call the listing number the next day for details.

    Strangely, almost every home had an offer pending..."Sorry we need to change the sign.."....."The seller has decided to keep it...."

    After about a week I went to see our Personnel dude (that's what we called HR) back in the day..

    He laughed and said...they're afraid you're black...


    Eric Holder: Snowden performed Public Service (none / 0) (#11)
    by Mr Natural on Mon May 30, 2016 at 12:10:00 PM EST
    In an interview with David Axelrod on "The Axe Files" podcast, Holder said, "We had the capacity to do a whole range of things under these listening programs, but after a while, I remember sending memos to the president and asking, `Do we really need to do this, given the way in which we are focusing on people's lives and given the return that we were getting?' Which was not, I think in any ways substantial."

    Eric Holder's statement that (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 30, 2016 at 01:54:07 PM EST
    Edward Snowden performed a public service coupled with the earlier statement by President Obama "that he welcomed the debate," deserves a new look at whether Snowden committed a crime or was a patriot who performed a useful act that informed the public of wrongdoing and sparked certain needed reforms.

    For Snowden to return to face the music involves  two charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 where he would not be able to bring up at trial an effective defense that shows he would not be guilty of violating that Act, i.e., to make a public interest defense.

    A public interest defense allows a defendant who disclosed classified or protected information to avoid criminality by establishing that the public interest in disclosure of the information outweighs the public interest in non-disclosure. This gives a defense to whistleblowers of government misconduct.  

    Snowden  would have the opportunity to prove that the information revealed was valuable for informing public debate.  The prosecution would have the burden of showing that the disclosures caused significant harm.  The judge or jury would decide if the benefit outweighs the harm.

    If they decided, yes, the benefit does outweigh the harm, Snowden would have an effective defense and would be found not guilty.  Even if they decided it does not, the punishment would have to be proportionate to the harm caused, weighed against the public interest in disclosure.  

    The Espionage Act means that Snowden faces a long prison sentence, 30 years or more. And, the Act does not provide for a public interest defense. Nor does it require the prosecution to prove that the accused intended to, or actually did, cause harm to national security.

    To provide a fair trial, the government should, at least, alter the charges to theft of government documents, so as to enable  a public interest defense.  

    Of course, as I have opined earlier, Snowden's actions should be treated as that of a whistleblower. But, with high ranking officials, such as John Kerry, calling him a traitor, that does not seem feasible. And, unfortunately, not any time soon.  A trial that permits a defense beyond that provided by an antique law plucked from obscurity by the Obama Administration would be the fair thing to do.


    Are you suggesting that federal criminal law (none / 0) (#14)
    by Peter G on Mon May 30, 2016 at 03:49:46 PM EST
    recognizes any such doctrine as a "public interest defense"? Because I have served as defense counsel for people charged with crimes that they considered "civil disobedience" or as justified (which is how your suggested "public interest" defense would be classified in criminal law doctrine) in many causes over the last 35+ years, and as far as I know the courts do not recognize any such defense. The government might (and should) decline to prosecute in such a case, but if they do prosecute, the defense would have to be grounded in some recognized legal doctrine or principle, not in wishful thinking.

    I believe the (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 30, 2016 at 04:25:43 PM EST
    Constitutionality of applying the Espionage Act of 1917 to leaks is overbroad and is a poor vehicle for prosecuting leaks and whistleblowers. I do not think that issue has every reached the S.S.

     As Holder says, Snowden provided a public service, but he must pay the penalty--he is guilty and all that is left is to dole out the punishment.  Snowden, if he is to face crowds and pitchforks, should be offered a defense.  Yes, the public interest defense is more of European and Canadian law, but a charge that permits Snowden a fair trial by his peers would seem to e a reasonable interpretation of American criminal justice.

    The Espionage Act of 1917 was in effect for over 35 years before "classified" entered the government's lexicon. How else do we fairly prosecute  a non-spy?  Fairly and justly?  If it were in charge (and many are sure glad I am not), I would pardon him in advance (cf. Nixon) and give him the Presidential Medal Of Honor. The Espionage Act of 1917 is misapplied and dangerously used to quell free speech.


    The full quote (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 30, 2016 at 03:52:55 PM EST
    Reads a bit differently

    Chicago (CNN)Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a "public service" by triggering a debate over surveillance techniques, but still must pay a penalty for illegally leaking a trove of classified intelligence documents.

    Captain, I know we (none / 0) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 30, 2016 at 05:07:48 PM EST
    have a difference on Snowden, but my concern is the use of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the limits of that Act for a defense.  Holder did seem to acknowledge that Snowden was not a spy, since, generally, the government does not view spying against our country as a "public service."  So how do we prosecute Snowden? Who leaked information, that included a denial under oath by Diredctor Clapper (who is still in his job) His actions seem more of whistleblowing, than civil disobedience.

    True, they are probably related, as, maybe, third cousins. But they are different. And, the defenses are, in my view, different as well. Inherent to civil disobedience is to accept the penalty as a part of the act and purpose.   Obstructing traffic for a cause does not necessarily mean a misdeed of the government for placing a stop sign in a particular location.

      Leaking information of government misdeeds for purposes of informing citizens is the act of a whistleblower.  Whistleblowers need protection. And, a defense different from that of civil disobedience.


    I have no legal opinions about Snowden (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 30, 2016 at 06:22:19 PM EST
    Or what he did.  It's not my area.  I defer to you and others for that.  Mine is a gut reaction.  I agree with Holder.   He, in some sense, performed a public service.  
    That said I don't believe that's why he did what he did.  And he along the way broke some very serious laws I happen to mostly agree with.  
    I think Smowden is a fraud and a poseur.  And if he was in fact, as you say, just an honorable whistle blower, like Daniel Ellsberg, would have the courage of his convictions and face the music for what he did.  Not hide behind Putins filthy evil skirts.

    Just my gut opinion.


    I do agree that Snowden performed (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Peter G on Mon May 30, 2016 at 09:12:56 PM EST
    a public service. As a result, I believe he should not be prosecuted. If prosecuted, I hope he prevails and is not punished. I was just pointing out that whether his actions were in the public interest is not a recognized legal defense, either presented to a judge or to the jury.

    Excerpt from the Cincinnati Enquirer: (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Mon May 30, 2016 at 10:59:42 PM EST
    A memorial vigil for Harambe was advertised on Facebook and drew about 50 people to the zoo Monday - the national holiday Memorial Day set aside to honor the country's war dead.

    The vigil was held outside the gates of the Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden at Vine Street and Erkenbrecher Avenue.

    Anthony Seta, 46, of Colerain Township is the self-described animal activist and vigil organizer.

    "People are organizing and blaming the zoo. People are organizing and blaming the mother," Seta said. "Harambe's being forgotten. We have lost a fellow Cincinnatian. He was a 400-pound person."

    Absolutely the correct decision. (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Tue May 31, 2016 at 02:01:20 PM EST
    I was struck by the animal rights advocate's description of the animal as "a fellow Cincinattian" and "a person."

    Anthropomorphism... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 31, 2016 at 02:31:06 PM EST
    ...not just a river in Egypt.

    A very good friend called me out (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Tue May 31, 2016 at 02:39:05 PM EST
    for posting the excerpt on FaceBook. Blame mom and/or the zoo. Some animals are more intelligent than humans. Unsoweiter.

    Do you remember the story of Tyke? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 31, 2016 at 09:12:21 PM EST
    She was an African elephant who had been captured in the wild as a baby, and was raised to be part of a circus act. During a matinee performance in Honolulu back in August 1994, she turned on her trainers and crushed one of them to death in front of the horrified audience, then broke out of the arena and proceeded to rampage angrily through city streets, going after every human she saw.

    It all played out live on the evening news, and watching her be put down by Honolulu police officers in a hail of gunfire was rather traumatic, to say the least. But the police had no choice that evening, just as the authorities in Cincinnati had no choice but to shoot that gorilla in order to save the child.

    (The documentary "Tyke: Elephant Outlaw" had its premiere out here last November, and can presently be seen on Netflix.)



    Final: Golden State 96, Oklahoma City 88. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 30, 2016 at 11:02:20 PM EST
    In 1979, with his Washington Bullets trailing the San Antonio Spurs in the NBA Eastern Conference Finals, 3 games to 1, Coach Dick Motta memorably quipped to the media, "The opera ain't over 'til the fat lady sings." The Bullets rallied to win three straight games and the series.

    38 years later in Oakland, the fat lady choked on a doughnut in one of the more spectacular fold-ups in recent NBA annals. As a result, the Thunder are now history, while the Warriors are still the defending champions until someone proves otherwise.


    It will be interesting to see what happens (none / 0) (#41)
    by McBain on Tue May 31, 2016 at 01:32:40 AM EST
    to the Thunder.  Does Durant stay in OKC?  I just watched a good ESPN 30 for 30 on the Orlando Magic in the 90s with Shaquille O'Neil and Anfernee Hardaway. They had a lot of talent but couldn't resign Shaq and that was pretty much it.

    It was a strange series, to say the least. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 31, 2016 at 02:39:38 AM EST
    The Thunder looked positively dominant in building a 3-1 series lead. I figured they'd likely lose Game 5 in Oakland, but then they'd take care on business in Game 6 at home in OKC, where they looked unbeatable in Games 3 and 4.

    Instead, they blew a big lead late and collapsed in front of the home folks. Then in Game 7, they started out really strong, only to turn listless in the second half. It's like their heart wasn't in it after halftime.

    Well, anyway, congratulations are certainly due to the Warriors. Great teams find a way to win.



    The fallout from Baylor University's ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 30, 2016 at 11:54:55 PM EST
    ... football scandal continues to exact its toll as athletic director Ian McCaw, who was placed on probation by the university but still retained to implement the recommendations of a school-requested outside inquiry, instead chose to resign his post today, effective immediately.

    Meanwhile, former Wake Forest coach Jim Grobe has been named the Bears' interim head coach in the wake of Art Briles' dismissal, and four players from Briles' much-lauded 2016 recruiting class have chosen to decommit from the Bears program as a direct result of his firing. Baylor President Kenneth Starr was also removed from his position last week by the Board of Regents, which kept him on as school chancellor.


    The Big 12 (none / 0) (#60)
    by ragebot on Tue May 31, 2016 at 10:43:57 AM EST
    seems to be on a downward spiral.  UT has the Longhorn Network which means no good TV deal for the rest of the teams.  No league championship game which means harder to get in the playoffs.  OU had a bad scandal a couple of years ago about their star running back clocking as female at a local ice cream parlor and breaking her face bones and getting off with light punishment.

    Lots of speculation the Big 12 will have to expand or wither on the vine.  This could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.  The Big 12 may go the way of the Big East.


    The Big 12 will be fine. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 31, 2016 at 02:40:06 PM EST
    Some schools simply need to clean up their acts, because as Baylor has discovered, a de facto policy of winning at all costs can come with a very steep price. But that can likely be said about a lot of other schools in the other so-called "Power 5" conferences, as well. They're being seduced by money, and that's having a corrupting influence.

    That's what happened at Baylor. School officials looked the other way as Coach Briles did his thing, and as the money started rolling in with a successful football program, they found a way to rationalize abhorrent student-athlete behavior which otherwise would never have been tolerated, had it been a chemistry or English major who'd been acting out like that. But given the university's Baptist grounding, eventually it all became too much for the Board of Regents to ignore, and they rightly brought the hammer down.

    Schools need always to remember that their primary mission is education. Athletics certainly have a place in that mission, but their emphasis and profile should not be so elevated and exclusive that sports teams, coaches and athletes cast a huge shadow over everything else the school does, which can eventually foster a corrosive on-campus atmosphere of envy, contempt and resentment.



    Yes, Baylor brought the (none / 0) (#104)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 31, 2016 at 02:59:00 PM EST
    hammer down.  Ken Starr lost his job  as president of the university, when the Board of Regents discovered and was "horrified by the extent of these acts of sexual violence on our campus." And, as you note, looking the other way when football players wee accused of sex crimes and sometimes convicted of them.

    However, Starr was not fully hammered; the Board of Regents retained him for his key strengths, Chancellor for development and religious liberty. And, he stays as professor of law.  He should be a continuing asset in those moral challenges to traditional marriage and the right to refuse to bake cakes for gays because firmly held beliefs.


    Yes, I noted that above. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 31, 2016 at 05:08:04 PM EST
    If Starr had any sense of personal honor, decency and responsibility, he'd emulate McCaw's example and depart Baylor altogether.

    Disagree the Big 12 will be fine (none / 0) (#116)
    by ragebot on Tue May 31, 2016 at 04:21:25 PM EST
    Ever since the first playoff two years ago ESPN has been running articles about how the Big 12 has to expand (so it really has at least 12 teams) and is able to split into two divisions and have a league championship game.  Problem is Mizzo and the Cornhuskers left the Big 12 and there are really not enough first rate programs who could join the Big 12.  

    Houston a possible choice, but word is Texas will veto that.  Memphis and Cincy are two other schools mentioned but they don't really bring anything in terms of football.  BYU is mentioned but it is in a different time zone and travel becomes an issue, same for San Diego State as a possible add.  Bottom like all the good schools are taken.  While some folks think ND is a possible add or raiding the ACC would work few take that seriously.

    There is also talk of OU bolting to the Pac 12 or SEC.  Not to mention the Longhorn network which UT will not give up; so no TV contract for the other Big 12 members which means they are behind other conference schools in terms of TV revenue.

    Basically the entire Big 12 page at ESPN for the last few weeks has been about how the Bit 12 needs to expand but no one sees good candidates to join.

    A quick google search turns up the same topic on all major college football web sites.


    I'm talking about the proper role of athletics in university life. The questions of whether or not Houston joins the Big 12 or Oklahoma bolts to the Big 10, Pac-12 or wherever is immaterial, and actually underscore my argument about how disproportionate that role has become. If people are more worried about the fate of the football team than the overall state and health of the institution itself, then I would suggest that their priorities are terribly askew.

    You are shifting grounds Donald (none / 0) (#171)
    by ragebot on Tue May 31, 2016 at 09:51:35 PM EST
    My post was a response to your post titled "The Big 12 will be fine".  Every sports web site that covers college football has had multiple stories about multiple problems facing the Big 12 which is an athletic conference.  First it no longer has 12 members from defections to other athletic conferences.  It has faced problems getting teams in the football playoff because due to lack of teams there is not a conference championship game.  To make matters worse one school, UT, is blocking possible TV revenue increase.

    As I pointed out several of the schools mentioned as possible new members of the Big 12 were former members of the Big East athletic conference.  No one I am aware of is saying the Big East will be fine, the reason being the Big East no longer exists.  There was some reason to thing the Big 12 would suffer the same fate even before one of the better teams in the Big 12, Baylor, seems to have turned a winning football program into a dumpster fire.

    I have no disagreement with the claim that universities should focus more on educating students than creating sports programs.  But whatever actions the schools currently in the Big 12 take to improve educating students there are a lot of reasons to think the Big 12 is not fine and realistically may go the way of the Big East.

    Just as an aside here is a blurb and link to a UCB paper:

    Applying these estimators we find robust evidence that football success increases athletic dona-
    tions, increases the number of applicants, lowers a school's acceptance rate, increases enrollment
    of in-state students, increases the average SAT score of incoming classes, and enhances a school's
    academic reputation.


    I'm shifting grounds? (none / 0) (#173)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 31, 2016 at 10:50:59 PM EST
    Do I need to give you a dollar so you can buy yourself a clue? I don't care what happens to the Big 12. My original post was about the fallout at Baylor University in the wake of the sexual assault scandal. If the Big 12 ultimately goes the way of the old Southwest Conference, so what? Is your world going to come crashing down around your ears if that happens?

    More to the point, what in the world does any of that have to do with the decision by the Baylor Board of Regents to fire Art Briles and demote Ken Starr? Go start your own sub-thread on the fate of the Big 12, if that's what you want to talk about. Don't hijack mine.



    We had (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 31, 2016 at 06:32:02 AM EST
    the block party and only two families came which did not surprise me. Like I said this neighborhood is full of unfriendly people. I tried a new recipe for potato salad which was just mediocre and tried a recipe for a bread salad which was just awesome.

    Vice President Bernie Sanders? (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 09:11:25 AM EST
    I'm risking another "1" by ever bringing this up but you know what,  she should consider it.  And I'm she she is.

    Bernie Sanders Doesn't Say No to Hypothetical Clinton VP Slot

    Sanders warns Clinton against moderate as VP

    If Hillary Wins the Nomination She Should Pick Sanders as VP

    I suspect zero chance of that happening (none / 0) (#49)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 31, 2016 at 09:22:37 AM EST
    I would not say zero (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 09:32:40 AM EST
    Hillary is about to be on (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 03:32:53 PM EST
    MSNBC.  it's a cinch she will be asked about this.

    Easily ignored question (none / 0) (#109)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 31, 2016 at 03:44:12 PM EST
    She won't be the nominee until the convention so no decision will be made before then.

    For myself (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 09:31:00 AM EST
    I am amazed by the reception Sanders has gotten.  I think the fact that there is a vast left out there starving for progressive ideas and positions is as much of a surprise as what has happened to the republicans.  And I think the two could be related.  Meaning it's in part a reaction to the lurch to the right on the right.
    I feel I understand politics as well as the next person.  I know all the reasons why, in a normal year, a 75 yo socialist would not be the best pick for VP.
    This is not a normal year.  Sanders has started something.  That is undeniable.  It really becoming a movement.  As a democrat I think we would be foolish to not do everything possble to nurture that movement.  To keep those people involved.  IMO anything short of the VP slot will result in many of those people tuning back out.  Why let that happen.  Biden has been VP fir eight years and he hasn't done any harm.   Some people even think his big mouth has had some positive effects.

    Don't knwo (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 31, 2016 at 09:37:07 AM EST
    if the upside outweighs the downside on that one. I can't believe Bernie said he should decide who her VP is.

    Spent the holiday (none / 0) (#56)
    by ragebot on Tue May 31, 2016 at 10:37:57 AM EST
    at my brothers house.  His family is much more conservative than I am and support Trump.  But his son is in the pipefitters union (makes $US40+ an hour and works 6/10 or 7/12 on most jobs).  He claims most of the union guys are for Sanders with the rest for Trump.  Hillary gets no support.

    My nephew is currently working in NJ at a power plant making $US48/hr and $US200 a day per diem.  According to him one of the biggest gripes his fellow union workers have is that union officials are ignoring the sentiment of rank and file union members in not supporting Sanders or Trump.

    I know this is just one person's view but I am wondering how wide spread it is.


    Question - did these people that do not (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by ruffian on Tue May 31, 2016 at 10:53:23 AM EST
    support Hillary support Obama over Hillary too?

    I've heard it before (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 10:40:59 AM EST
    I have no insight about the effect of a VP Sanders on these people.   You?

    See my post below (none / 0) (#85)
    by ragebot on Tue May 31, 2016 at 01:14:39 PM EST
    My nephew did not vote in the last election, too young, and most of his friends are in the same age cohort.  His brother, in the same union is a few years older, but also did not vote in the last election; did not like Obama or Romney.  Lets keep in mind if even half of the folks who have not voted in the last several elections vote in this election for either side it would be a landslide.

    By many accounts lots of Sanders and Trump supporters are getting involved in politics for the first time.

    One thing I am fairly sure of is almost all Trump supporters are anti globalization what ever other reasons they have to support him.  Not so sure about the Sanders supporters.  The free college thing attracts a lot and I really don't see them being a force no matter who the VP is.

    In any case I don't see a turn out like Obama was able to generate for Hillary.  Obama has never seemed to have long coat tails.

    All in all I am confused over what will happen to many of Bernie supporters in the general.


    Most of those supporters (none / 0) (#110)
    by christinep on Tue May 31, 2016 at 03:54:15 PM EST
    will go to the victor, the nominee.  A relatively small percentage will hold out & not vote or vote for Trump or vote third-party.  Seriously.  That traditional vote-migration seems to be evident in polls that have routinely shown a typically large percentage of Sanders' supporters will move to HRC.  IMO, it isn't so much the resolution at issue as the timing of the resolution.

    It is not at all surprising that the category of working-class voter to which you refer finds some early split.  Especially in the so-called Rust Belt, there is some indication of a small split among officials and members in a few unions ... the outcome of earlier job losses in manufacturing, etc.  I don't downplay that, of course ... as the daughter of a family with strong union ties & beliefs (International Mechanics for my Dad as well as UMW throughout my Pennsylvania-based background; and, natch, the Steelworkers) I have always strongly supported the union movement. I would hope all union members--including your nephew--come to understand the importance of solidarity in the workplace.  "I'm sticking with the union."

    There are going to be some shifts in this election.  That is obvious.  Yet, when all is said & done--and the pathetic history of Donald Trump becomes undeniably clear, especially as regards the working people of this country, I'd wager that HRC's union support in the halls, on the phones, in the neighborhoods, getting out the vote will be powerful.

    BTW, in terms of pattern shifts, the recent Purple Strategies battleground samplings show HRC's advantage growing in the suburbs even more so than the Democrats enjoyed in 2012.  The key: Women voters, in general ... and for the clincher, white women in the suburbs.  Check it out, ragebot ... the demographics do seem to be even more favorable for the Democratic nominee in the electoral vote combo than the past two general elections.  I wouldn't worry.


    Sounds like the rank and file (none / 0) (#68)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 31, 2016 at 11:01:30 AM EST
    are in total disagreement with each other. But they would need to support Trump or Clinton because in 2 weeks Sanders won't be on a ballot for 2 years.

    Third option (none / 0) (#72)
    by ragebot on Tue May 31, 2016 at 11:50:09 AM EST
    is for Bernie supporters to stay home, or same for establishment Republicans who cant support Trump.

    This is the big question I have not seen an answer for yet.  Lots of polls say many folks are voting against Trump or Hillary, not voting for them.  If that is the case not voting at all is also a real possibility.

    When Brady (hope I remembered that right) ran in CA polls were wrong about his support.  Many folks answered polls supporting him but either did not vote or voted against him.  The theory was peeps would not admit to pollsters they could not support a black man.  Does anyone really know how many folks on both sides will sit this one out.


    Tom Bradley. Defeated in 1982 and 1986 by (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Tue May 31, 2016 at 12:06:18 PM EST

    But in 1982, Tom Bradley's defeat ... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 31, 2016 at 03:08:44 PM EST
    ... was likely underscored by the unfortunate fact that far too many white people were simply uncomfortable with the idea of a black man being governor. While they'd never cop to it publicly, their latent racism played out in the privacy of the voting booth.

    In many ways, California was still a reliable GOP state in 1982. Since 1900, the state has had 19 governors, of whom 15 have been Republican. Over the course of these last 115 years, Democrats have only controlled the governor's office for 31 of them. Jerry Brown's four terms in office thus far account for nearly half that Democratic tenure, and his father's two terms account nearly half of the remainder.



    A strategy of the Repubs (none / 0) (#114)
    by christinep on Tue May 31, 2016 at 04:12:30 PM EST
    for 2016--among others--is to depress the vote.  So, I do look for a lot of negative/depressant & downcast "analyses" along the line of neither-candidate-is-any-good OR I'm-not-excited-about-anyone Or maybe-I'll-write-someone-in ETC. ETC.  While some of that sentiment is genuinely felt (and is not unusual in an age where complaining often is encouraged) and some people always opt out, there is also an indication--as noted by some Democratic strategists--that a depress-the-vote gambit from the Repubs is to be expected.  Why? Because a lower vote, historically, usually hurts the Democratic Party ... more ETC. ETC.

    To my knowledge, there are intense strategies to counter any orchestrated depressant effect via enhanced ground game.  And, HRC's ground game is organized, full, and practiced.  Insofar as Trump goes, he admittedly is running way behind on the essential ground game and functioning operation infrastructure.  Bragging, bravado, and TV appearances will only get you so far ... he & his people may be fighting uphill when it comes to delivering the vote ... because it is eventually about knowing where your voters are and delivering those votes.


    This just shows the complete stupidity (none / 0) (#77)
    by Chuck0 on Tue May 31, 2016 at 12:06:46 PM EST
    of most Americans.

    If union members think Donald Trump is their best choice for President, they are complete morons. Donald Trump is anti-labor, anti-labor laws, anti-regulation and probably as anti-union as a billionaire could get.


    Trump's appeal to union members (none / 0) (#83)
    by ragebot on Tue May 31, 2016 at 12:59:09 PM EST
    stems from his opposition to globalization; something he and Sanders agree on.  Hillary seems to be fighting a rear guard action.  Of late she has proclaimed opposition to TPP and renounced her support of NAFTA.

    The problem for Hillary is she already is viewed by many as changing her position with which ever way the wind blows.  Given Bill Clinton's support of NAFTA, the Clinton Foundation's globalization aspects, and Hillary's past support of NAFTA and TPP it is a hard sell for her to say to union members against globalization she is now against it as well.


    They should all read (none / 0) (#87)
    by Chuck0 on Tue May 31, 2016 at 01:46:03 PM EST
    What's the Matter With Kansas by Thomas Frank and stop voting against their self interest.  Globalization is a fact that is not going to change no matter how much they are against it. My own employer is a large defense company and even they realize they can't just depend on the US government as it's only customer. We have many foreign sales in the pipeline.

    Actually (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 31, 2016 at 01:55:36 PM EST
    some unions support TPP because they see sales coming from other countries with this kind of thing. Not all unions are of the same mind but you're pretty much making the point that Sanders and Trump supporters want a return to the past which is incredibly dishonest of both Sanders and Trump to be shopping this kind of thing because you can't ever turn back the clock.

    I think she will attempt to do (none / 0) (#90)
    by ruffian on Tue May 31, 2016 at 01:56:10 PM EST
    what may well be impossible, and that is explain to people that being 'against globalization' is a very broad slogan that does not work will in practice.

    I know, nuance is tough in today's politics and dumba** media environment, bit in this case it is the truth of the situation. If we want global markets for our products, we have to accept some degree of competition from global markets. the treaties attempt to strike a balance and they are nev3er going to get it perfectly right. Hillary should put forth a good explanation of the trade-offs.


    Ga6th makes a good point (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by christinep on Tue May 31, 2016 at 04:25:11 PM EST
    when she suggests that different locales have different degrees of responses to trade.  Also: The Unions most effected by manufacturing will/do have a greater opposition to talk of TPP.  One thing that became clearer, tho, in the Democratic primary has been that the opposition might be concentrated--more or less--in places like Ohio & Michigan while other locales where early expectations thought the response might be strongly opposed, actually proved to be more diffuse.  (Note also that the Ohio situation in the primary did not appear to hurt HRC in her win.)

    We may be going through a period where there are some strongly local work-related issues driven by the regional work structure & reality.  See, e.g., coal country losses and/or energy directions in CO & the west (fracking.)


    I'm glad she is being seen as considering it (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Tue May 31, 2016 at 10:44:20 AM EST
    I would bet with 99% certainty she is not seriously considering it. I hope not anyway.

    No. He has not just burned that bridge (none / 0) (#163)
    by Towanda on Tue May 31, 2016 at 08:07:01 PM EST
    . . . he has bombed it to smithereens.

    After all, he stated that he considers Clinton not qualified to be president.


    meh (none / 0) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 08:58:51 PM EST
    remember Voodoo Economics?

    Mr. Trump (none / 0) (#54)
    by Repack Rider on Tue May 31, 2016 at 10:17:26 AM EST
    ...scores the coveted North Korea endorsement, to go along with the one from Vlad the Inhaler.

    He's becoming a real threat.

    Kim is lonely (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 10:45:40 AM EST
    He just wants someone with a hair cut as ridiculous as his to talk to.

    Donald has said he would.  They could be Twitter pals.


    Time for Seth Rogen to make a sequel... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Mr Natural on Tue May 31, 2016 at 07:19:57 PM EST
    Breaking! (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Tue May 31, 2016 at 02:43:04 PM EST
    His attny: (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 31, 2016 at 03:19:00 PM EST
    "Should we consider this in terms of law? Or in terms of politics?"

    As has been stated many times before (none / 0) (#105)
    by McBain on Tue May 31, 2016 at 03:06:56 PM EST
    California had it's chance to punish Polanski and blew it.  I say, no do overs!

    Ah, so (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 31, 2016 at 04:52:53 PM EST
    Bill Kristol is seriously attempting to run a third party candidate it is being reported. More or less sounds like an attempt to placate aging evangelicals who can't stomach Trump. I don't see how any of that would help the GOP in anyway unless it's all for downticket races.

    It probably has nothing to do (none / 0) (#130)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 31, 2016 at 05:18:04 PM EST
    with helping Republicans or downticket races, and everything to do with clicks for the Weekly Standard.

    These days (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 31, 2016 at 05:51:30 PM EST
    who knows.

    Bill Kristol has found his candidate (none / 0) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 05:13:34 PM EST
    David French

    Oh, wait.  That's not him

    DAVID French

    Doesn't Bill know America will never vote for a candidate with a bear down?

    Oh man (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 05:16:48 PM EST
    What's a "bear down"


    With a BEARD


    Just needs enough votes (none / 0) (#134)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 31, 2016 at 06:04:03 PM EST
    to throw the election into the House of Representatives.                                                                    



    That (none / 0) (#135)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue May 31, 2016 at 06:07:16 PM EST
    is the intended goal

    Yes, (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 31, 2016 at 06:07:41 PM EST
    I think that is a thought in his mind too. The supreme court is probably not going to be in their favor this time. I can't imagine the candidate they are talking about doing much other than throwing some states to Hillary like maybe Texas. French and Trump can duke it out for TN.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 06:12:42 PM EST
    I've read that the idea.  Not really sure Mr French will manage it.  
    It watched an interview with Johnson and Weld, the libertarian ticket, earlier.   IMO they are likely to get a lot further than David French.  

    In other news

    watch Trumps insane press conference on the money raised for the veterans groups.

    It's a pretty amazing thing.  That's the whole over an hour thing.  Feel free to scrub.  Or just google highlights.   There was many.


    Ps (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 06:19:03 PM EST
    Trump doesn't even appear until 40 minutes into that.

    Scrubbing works.


    David French (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 31, 2016 at 06:21:14 PM EST
    is Ted Cruz as a veteran. The only voters he would get would be white evangelicals.

    The press is finally starting to vet Trump it seems.


    Neither French or Johnson (none / 0) (#140)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 31, 2016 at 06:40:23 PM EST
    or any other sideshow candidate for that matter will win a state, thus rendering them meaningless from the standpoint of the House.

    This statement being true of course (none / 0) (#142)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 31, 2016 at 06:43:06 PM EST
    only if you don't view Trump as a sideshow.

    Running someone (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 31, 2016 at 06:44:13 PM EST
    like David French comes across as a desperate last minute suicide mission. I'm not even sure he could get on the ballot in a lot of states at this late date. And I'm not sure Kristol has the wherewithal to get him on a ballot. It takes signatures to do it.

    i agree its unlikely they win states (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 06:57:24 PM EST
    however its a crazy year.  and I think they could very possibly tip a state one way or another.

    in that interview they were talking very much like republicans.  vouchers for healthcare.  vouchers for veteran care.  vouchers for vouchers.  except for the social stuff which i really think fewer and fewer republicans care about.   they are clearly going after republican votes.


    I can see (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 31, 2016 at 07:08:33 PM EST
    GA flipping to Hillary with French running. The evangelical types that are holding their nose for Trump would go with French. All french would have to do is pull around 10% of the GOP vote to make it flip. Kristol might be too clever by half with this kind of thing and frankly it probably would blow up in his face but I would rather have the GOP split in half than have another repeat like with Perot where they can "pretend" all his votes would have gone to a republican.

    Oh gees (none / 0) (#143)
    by ruffian on Tue May 31, 2016 at 06:43:49 PM EST
    I think even the GOP House might pick Hillary over this guy.

    how many do you think (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 06:58:24 PM EST
    got the Mr French joke?

    hahaha...not many! (none / 0) (#151)
    by ruffian on Tue May 31, 2016 at 07:07:42 PM EST
    lucky for them!  I would have been happy to be spared that part of TV history.

    Buffie and Jody and Brian Keith (none / 0) (#157)
    by Mr Natural on Tue May 31, 2016 at 07:18:37 PM EST
    an unbelievably boring half hour.  down there with Captain Kangaroo.

    i never saw the show (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 07:23:56 PM EST
    but a MAD satire sticks in my mind.  Boffy, Jokey and Mr Greek.

    Here, knock yourself out. (none / 0) (#164)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 31, 2016 at 08:10:48 PM EST
    ha (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 31, 2016 at 08:54:44 PM EST
    Mr Stench.   of course.

    I think my dad hated that show more (none / 0) (#162)
    by ruffian on Tue May 31, 2016 at 08:02:02 PM EST
    than any other show he would happen to walk in and find us watching. He would get quite irate about it. So you see my tv issues go way back.

    Haha (none / 0) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 31, 2016 at 07:12:11 PM EST
    Just saw a joke. David French the Rick Santorum candidacy you never had.