Sunday Afternoon Open Thread

If you haven't been watching the Bulls-Celtics game, you have been missing a classic. Now going into double OT.

The Bulls pull it out. Ben Gordon is a modern day Boston Strangler.

This is an Open Thread.

< CA Fights to Keep Adult Labeled Psycopathic Killer in Juvenile Custody | Fashion Police Foiled in Florida >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The Celts are sacrificing Bulls today? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 03:13:19 PM EST
    Who knew?  I'm Buddhist

    Poor MT... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 03:29:06 PM EST
    ...you just can't catch a break from the sports stuff!  Did you pick your brain off the floor yet?

    It looks like the Bulls are going to gore the Celts this time around.


    BTD is just full of it lately (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 03:30:53 PM EST
    Sports stuff that is :)

    Just for giggles I made an attempt to look (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 04:27:34 PM EST
    up something about Celts sacrificing bulls.  I found a description of Celts sacrificing animals after their dogs ran them down.  Then the dogs were feasted (not feasted upon) and crowned with flowers.  I'm probably a reformed Druid.

    You obviously missed today's (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 04:29:06 PM EST
    AP article about a bull losse inside a store in Ireland.  

    I'll have to go check it out (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 04:29:42 PM EST
    BBC link: (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 04:31:24 PM EST
    Ok, so I looked (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 03:31:02 PM EST
    ABC New York is clearly applying too much compression, and there are digital artifacts everywhere.

    Probably they are experimenting with multicasting. . .

    If I have to understand how (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 03:45:41 PM EST
    digital artifacts and compression may or may not have to do with watching a sporting event (as this is an open thread) or maybe you're talking techie........jes f'getaboutit.......I'm outta here for some meditation.

    Right behind you (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Jen M on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 04:08:27 PM EST
    but I'm not meditating, just trying not to overheat.

    Better that I not explain it to you (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 03:49:05 PM EST
    If you understand what I'm talking about, TV might become intolerable for you.

    You sure it's ABC (none / 0) (#16)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 05:10:38 PM EST
    not TWC? I do get it on ABC, cut also on other channels. I always wrote it off as TWC issues {grin}

    TWC doesn't recompress the locals (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 05:17:59 PM EST
    I looked into it, and it is ABC's problem. Apparently they launched a second HD channel on their digital multiplex. (It's called "Live Well," and it's mostly infomercials. . .)

    OTA broadcasters have about 19.4 MB/s, and trying to run two HD streams at the same time is asking for trouble. (MPEG-2 just isn't up to it).

    Now, TWC is responsible for problems on the cable nets. They have about 38.8 MB/s per digital multiplex, and frequently try to run 3 HD channels per. It often doesn't look so good.

    Just be glad you don't have Cablevision, which sometimes squeezes 4 HDs per multiplex, which is more or less what ABC is doing now.


    Thanks! (none / 0) (#18)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 05:35:19 PM EST
    When I first started noticing it, I was crawling around checking cords. Figured one of the pets had chomped on one. I had a cat that could severe a phone cord so quick it was ridiculous. Often found myself talking on the phone holding the cord together.

    When I did an antenna scan, I thought I came up with 3 or 4 for ABC? Oh, well, now I know who to complain to :) Drives me nuts some days.


    Send your complaints straight to Mickey Mouse (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 05:41:22 PM EST
    It's an ABC/Disney corporate decision.

    Wiil do! (none / 0) (#26)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 05:57:20 PM EST
    Like I said, it drives me batty some days, and that's usually the best time for me to complain  ;)

    Huh! I do have Cablevision and lately NJ PBS has (none / 0) (#24)
    by jawbone on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 05:54:53 PM EST
    just gone completely black for a long enough time for me to wonder whether it had gone off the air. Except the audio continued --iirc;need to pay attention. Weird. Happened last during broadcast of Mystery (Inspecter Lewis follow-on to Inspector Morse), but I've been noticing it for awhile.

    And sometimes the image has digital cubes, etc., (none / 0) (#25)
    by jawbone on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 05:56:55 PM EST
    before becoming clear again.

    The cube thing is what gets me (none / 0) (#28)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 06:01:14 PM EST
    also tends to jumble the audio. I've had it happen long enough that I give up on what I'm watching.

    NJN has been on a shoestring for a while (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 05:57:31 PM EST
    so it wouldn't surprise me if it had intermittent problems.

    Pads are up 2 to zip on the Pirates. (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 03:40:40 PM EST
    Of course it is only 2nd inning!

    Ouch... (none / 0) (#29)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 06:50:48 PM EST
    ...that didn't end well, now did it?  

    Need the D'Backs to beat the Giants now--all tied in the 12th inning.


    Definitely not. (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 07:00:24 PM EST
    At least... (none / 0) (#31)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 07:56:10 PM EST
    ...we finally beat the Manny and the Dodgers, so you didn't lose any ground in the standings.

    Partially True (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 09:34:34 PM EST
    You beat the Dodgers but Manny took the day off thereby improving your chances tremendously.

    And the Marlins' excuse is . . . ? (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 10:36:41 PM EST
    Hush (none / 0) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 10:53:56 PM EST
    I've already made multiple copies of my living will for everyone I know and am considering moving to Oregon where a doctor can end my suffering legally.

    My brother has been strangely silent (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 11:13:09 PM EST
    of late re the Marlins. Don't do anything drastic though--it's only April!

    Much appreciated. Next up: Rockies (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 08:11:03 PM EST
    in Denver.

    Yeppers... (none / 0) (#33)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 08:23:36 PM EST
    ...although it's raining now and yes,--wait for it--snow on the way tonight/tomorrow.  

    They should have beat the Dodgers on Friday too, but the Baseball Gods decided not to reward my suffering through a four hour game in the cold with a win.


    Raw Story: DC Crt of Appeals-Gitmo detainees not (none / 0) (#13)
    by jawbone on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 04:33:08 PM EST
    "persons." Say wha'?? Input from the legal types here would be greatly appreciated. Corporations can be "persons," but not people? There's something Soylent Greenish about this. Well, in a reverse sort of way.... "Soylent Green is people!" And the corporation making it is a person! But living people in certain conditions??

    From Raw Story:

    A Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C. Circuit ruled Friday that detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are not "persons" according to it's interpretation of a statute involving religious freedom.

    The ruling sprang from an appeal of Rasul v. Rumsfeld, which was thrown out in Jan. 2008. "The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the constitutional and international law claims, and reversed the district court's decision that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) applied to Guantanamo detainees, dismissing those claims as well," the Center for Constitutional Rights said.

    After the Supreme Court recognized, over objections from the Bush administration, that terror war prisoners have the right to habeas corpus petitions, it also directed the D.C. court of appeals to reexamine the case.

    The SCOTUS says they're persons concerning habeas corpus, right? And the Court of Appeals says, well, not concerning religious freedom or something like that?

    Oh, and there's this treat for Constitutional scholars from our Constitutional law prof prez:

    "In its first filing on detention and torture under the Obama administration, the Department of Justice filed briefs in March urging the Court of Appeals to reject any constitutional or statutory rights for detainees," says a release. "The Obama Justice Department further argued that even if such rights were recognized, the Court should rule that the previous administration's officials who ordered and approved torture and abuse of the plaintiffs should be immune from liability for their actions."


    Link to federal statute: (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 04:54:15 PM EST

    and here is link to U.S. Constitution, Article III:  Article III

    Missing info:  how have the court's defined "person" for purposes of the statute and/or Article III?


    More info: (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 05:06:38 PM EST

    Remanded by SCOTUS to Court of Appeals, which previously held the Brits held at Gitmo are not "persons" under Article III.  


    OK, so the SCOTUS is the schiozo decision making (none / 0) (#21)
    by jawbone on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 05:45:58 PM EST
    court? Or what?

    This is also interesting:

    Last year, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a member of the Court of Appeals panel who issued the decision today, referred to the Court's holding that detainees are not "persons" as "a most regrettable holding in a case where plaintiffs have alleged high-level U.S. government officials treated them as less than human." This statement is noticeably absent from Judge Brown's substantively identical concurring opinion issued today.

    Are we returning to our roots, where the Consti- (none / 0) (#22)
    by jawbone on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 05:49:58 PM EST
    tution can declare a human to be 3/5th's of a person for a particular purpose? Thus, a person is a person in some cases, yet not a person in others?

    How would that work should the SCOTUS declare a fertilized egg to be a person?


    No. SCOTUS remanded for (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 05:50:26 PM EST
    Court of Appeals to reconsider in light of habeaus ruling.  It is surprising Janice Rogers Brown sd. what she sd., although she was a bit of a maverick on California Supreme Court.

    I had this Friday, in my comment (none / 0) (#43)
    by scribe on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 03:28:36 AM EST
    titled "A Dred Scott for the 21st Century."

    Not for nuthin', but it seems I'm getting to be faster than Raw Story lately....


    To add to the Jane Harman mystery, Laura Rosen (none / 0) (#19)
    by jawbone on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 05:39:50 PM EST
    post from Friday. Just what did Porter Goss have to do with having Jane wiretapped? Was it Goss who instigated investigation into Harman? Jane, who pushed the investigation of Duke Cunningham?

    Interesting read.

    Read carefully (none / 0) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 10:34:57 PM EST
    Harman was not the target of the wiretap, the Israeli supposed agent was.  Harman was sort of collateral damage picked up when the guy called her on his tapped phone.  It was only after Goss read through some of the transcripts of the taps of the Israeli guy that he decided maybe Harman should be investigated, which never actually happened.

    If you think single payer shld be on the table, (none / 0) (#38)
    by jawbone on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 10:49:05 PM EST
    this post gives a link for having your message sent by fax.

    Pelosi aide asked where the faxes are to make the Speaker know single payer must be "on the table."

    Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to contribute to a blizzard of faxes to our Dems who think single payer should not be on the table.

    Gob, at Corrente, has posted about an organization, 1payer.net, which will fax your messages to Baucus, Pelosi, the WH, etc.

    It appears that Congressional leaders are being deliberately dismissive of single-payer to the point of ludicrous statements. It's like they have put their fingers in their ears and are yelling "I can't hear you, I can't hear you." Here they are in all their Congressional member glory:

    Baucus a few days ago: "Everything BUT single payer is on the table. Single payer is off the table."

    Pelosi: "In our caucus, over and over again, we hear single payer, single payer, single payer. Well, it's not going to be a single payer."

    Pelosi's aide: "Where are the phone calls, e-mails and faxes in support of single-payer? Speaker Pelosi has been in favor of single-payer for a long time. Now make us do it."

    OK. We are up to the challenge. He wants to see the faxes. Let's break their damn fax machines with the faxes.

    You can send a fax right now to Pelosi, Baucus, the aide and the White House.

    Send one now and send another in a few minutes. Give them enough faxes that they have to run get more paper (or electronic ink, as the case may be.) Then when they have received all of these, we will do it again. And again. And we will print them out and dump them on Pelosi's office desk.

    So let them see what happens when they ask for faxes. Then maybe they will have to take their fingers out of their ears.

    Thank You

    Clark Newhall MD JD
    Physician & Attorney
    Law Office at
    57 W. 200 South, Suite 101
    Salt Lake City, UT 84101

    We can't afford to not have single payer. Next best, we must have a real public plan: like Medicare, an Everybody In, Nobody Out plan. If Big Insurance wants to go up against a public plan, to keep sucking up "rents," well, let them try...if Congress wants them around.

    We cannot allow nibbling around the edges, with the "reform" being a mandatory purchase of crap insurance offered by Big Insurance. And never, ever let Big Insurance prevent the states from offering public plans...if we can't get a Federal public plan.

    Great game (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 11:13:53 PM EST
    sucks about the ending.  I thought Ray Allen saved the day again, but turns out he just extended it.

    At least the sox won today.  Gotta love a yankees sweep.  In other news, I have decided to have Jacoby Ellsbury's children.  He just doesn't know it yet.

    NYT article about Geithner's (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 11:14:39 PM EST
    background re Wall St.  Doubtless BDT will address this Monday.

    Moderate Susan Collins: No swine flu money! (none / 0) (#44)
    by scribe on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 03:36:54 AM EST
    And proud of it, too.

    Here she is, on video, boasting about cutting swine flu money from the stimulus.

    And here's her own website (sure to be scrubbed later today...), pitching the same thing.

    Do tell, oh Lady From The County(*), how is it serving the people of Maine if they all die from flu which could have been alleviated or ameliorated if you hadn't demanded that the money for doing so be spent elsewhere.  Your constituents can't be harvesting potatoes or getting clean water grants to any productive use, when they're sick and/or dying from flu.

    *  A little play on some of her campaign ads, which titled her as "the lady from The County" and put her in a canoe, highlighting her coming from Aroostook County in far northern Maine, a place Mainers call "The County".