Sunday Morning Open Thread

There are football games today. Should be fun to watch some snow games.

This is an Open Thread.

< Fighting For The Policy Or The Pols? | More Guantanamo Detainees Sent Home >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    No predictions today? (none / 0) (#1)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:31:47 AM EST
    That thrashing you took yesterday on the college bowls must have hurt a bit.

    No snow here--a beautiful day for football.  Sunny and in the upper 40's.  

    Go Donkeys!

    Haven't looked at the games (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:34:38 AM EST
    in that way. This is my first playoff game in my FFL so I spend an inordinate amount of time evaluating my player choices.

    But just for fun - I'll pick against the Broncos. I have no idea what the line is, but there, I pick against the Broncos.


    Denver (-14) (none / 0) (#4)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:48:07 AM EST
    Probably about right--Denver at back at home after a tough loss to the Colts, Raiders are starting Charlie Frye (!) at QB instead of JaMarBust.  But, it is Raiders/Broncos, so you just never know.  

    Actual ESPN Headline... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 02:44:35 PM EST
    "NFL to ask players to donate brains for study"

    Zombie football!  Now we're talking.


    another actual headline: (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 03:03:07 PM EST
    and then there was one........................ (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:47:26 AM EST
    considering the saints only just barely beat the redskins, it's no surprise at all that another nfc east team them from the ranks of the unbeaten, though only by a td.

    with the play of the (much improved) skins offense, over the past few weeks, tomorrow night's game now appears interesting.

    Dont be suprised if Arizona (none / 0) (#5)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:00:43 AM EST
    is the dark horse that comes on strong again.

    They're a very schizoid team, but when they're on, they can play with anybody; how well they're playing seems to depend upon what phase the moon is in -- or something.


    The God's are trying to make me feel (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:38:13 AM EST
    better today.  There was a rerun of my favorite Sopranos episode 'Nights in White Satin Armor', the one where Richie Aprile and Janice Soprano have their engagement party at Tony's while Richie is working behind the scenes to get Tony whacked.  Junior would like to whack Tony but he'd rather be stuck with Tony than stuck with Richie, so he tells Tony what Richie is up to.  Then Richie punches Janice in the face and then taunts her and she sends him to Jesus in momma Sopranos kitchen, then Tony gets rid of the body (has him chopped up at Satriales with Christopher saying it'll be a long time before he eats anything at Satriales again). Crazy evil momma Soprano had been slipped two nembutal making everything that went down in her house that night a strange dream with people coming and going.  For the rest of the Soprano saga, whenever Janice ever attempted to chastise Tony he always brought it up that she offed her own High School sweetheart :)  But Janice never knew that Tony had newly come to the decision that he was going to whack Richie ASAP before she phoned him hysterical needing his help to dispose of the Richie body.  What an episode!

    SCOTUS granted cert. on another case (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:53:05 AM EST
    where issue is whether crime lab tech. must testify to foundation of lab test results:  NYT

    Watch Sotomayor (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 12:08:07 PM EST
    Souter's vote was essential to the disposition of the previous case, and Amy Klobuchar was pressing her on the issue during the committee hearings, IIRC.

    The issue interests me because, (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 12:11:09 PM EST
    when I was a prosecutor, we always put on the lab tech, unless the defense stipulated to the report.

    That makes me feel better (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 12:14:30 PM EST
    With the CSI love affair this country has going on right now, it scares me.  The truth seems to be that many techniques are far from a perfected science, and sometimes I can't tell if science was even involved.

    And prosecutors (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jbindc on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 01:00:35 PM EST
    Hate shows like CSI because a lot of that technology is made up, and juries are now expecting all that stuff.  I know where I worked as a court clerk, it was very hard to get a CSC (criminal sexual conduct) conviction because juries were always looking for DNA, even though there isn't always DNA (i.e. in cases of a man improperly touching a little girl).

    Did you read (none / 0) (#14)
    by Zorba on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 12:49:31 PM EST
    The National Research Council report from last February on the forensic "science" system and its failings?  It won't make you feel any better, and it sure looks as if most labs are very, very far from what CSI has led everyone to believe.

    I think Jeralyn did put this up (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 01:14:20 PM EST
    Interesting (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 12:19:22 PM EST
    This is one of those cases with a strange coalition of Justices, and personally I don't know the issue well enough to say what's right. However, as a general matter, when Ginsburg and Breyer split, I tend to find myself in agreement with Ginsburg. Though I would even cabin that: I agree with Breyer on PEG requirements and must carry, but I agree with Ginsburg on the indecency cases. (I just took a telecom law class. . .).

    Reading between the lines (none / 0) (#12)
    by SOS on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 12:26:57 PM EST
    This bill is the equivalent of Bush's privatization of Social Security.

    It will take public funds and turn them over to corporations . Being private ,these entities are not required to account to the taxpayers-only to their investors ,for the decisions they make about OUR health . Their failures and misdeeds will be hidden behind their corporate doors . Their formulas will be trade secrets , just as Diebolds software was.

    Because they are for profit , these decisions will be based on profit returns, not healthcare excellence.
    Because they will receive billons in taxpayers monies they will have limitless funds to fight reform, as we have seen Wall St do, with the bail out..

    Investors will demand less hospital staffing and determine doctors decisions , yet insurance companies cannot be sued for malpractice .
    Since there is nothing that ensures competition in he healthcare insurance industry. they will soon become our next too- big -to-fail business whose CEOs will reap bonuses while they hand out death and disability and the government hands over more of our money for less and less actual coverage.

    Polanski is finishing his film at his (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 12:34:16 PM EST
    Swiss chalet:  CBS

    He (French philosopher)said Polanski told him Swiss officials were only doing their job in arresting him Sept. 26 and holding him in detention, but that all of them had treated him with kindness and appeared "extraordinarily embarrassed" by what he was going through.
    [Emphasis added.]

    Turns out Polanski is the first person Switzerland has ever granted house arrest while awaiting decision on extradition.

    And though I'm hardly a member of the (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 01:27:46 PM EST
    Kos fan club, I did like his clip addressing Chris Matthews assertion that the netroots is essentially not made up of real Democrats, or likely voters, or people who do much of anything outside of sit in the backseat and Biotch.  My fave part is when Kos talks about how the net has only been at this for a few years, and he brings up how much actual cash the net is responsible for infusing into elections.  Matthews on the other hand has been at "serious politics" for how long?  And he's personally individually taken how seriously?  Watching Matthews always makes me hungry for cocktail weenies though.