home

Monday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon May 11, 2009 at 10:25:25 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It's a shame that the press involves a "public trust." Otherwise, the Media could take its cues from American Idol:

Can a television show with a shrinking audience actually increase its revenue? In the case of “American Idol,” the answer is yes . . . Despite losing viewers in each of the last three years, “American Idol”. . . is generating ever-growing profits for its creators and, it appears, for Fox Broadcasting through brand extensions, marketing arrangements and licensing fees.

The New York Times could sell naming rights - The Federal Express NYTimes? Anyway, this is an Open Thread.

< If The Banks Are Fine, Why Do We Need The Geithner Plan? | Obama Administration To Release CIA IG Report On Torture? >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Morning Open Thread | 39 comments (39 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    if you didnt see Star Trek (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 11, 2009 at 10:28:45 AM EST
    you need to go.  today.

    So I guess you liked it. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Mon May 11, 2009 at 10:57:51 AM EST
    Either that or you work for Paramount and are trying to decrease the drop-off.

    ;)

    As a fan since the only Star Trek in existence was reruns of original show, I'm intrigued but skeptical.

    I plan on catching it this week.

    Parent

    you will not be dissappointed (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:03:09 AM EST
    I can almost guarantee it.
    the casting is inspired.  I think the person who did the casting should get some kind of special award.  and the story is brilliant.  I cant tell you why without a spoiler.  lets just say it is the most brilliant idea for a total reboot of a franchise I have ever seen.
    one complaint.  as usual in Star Trek movies.  the villain is a little weak.
    not enough to spoil much but if I had to pick something to criticize it would be that.

    Parent
    oh (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:03:41 AM EST
    and no connections to paramount whatsoever.
    in fact I was more skeptical probably than you.


    Parent
    Good Deal (none / 0) (#13)
    by Robot Porter on Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:11:27 AM EST
    Unfortunately, I already had the reboot concept spoiled and a couple of other things.

    But if the film is as good as people are saying, I doubt that will dampen my enjoyment.

    Parent

    I was very surprised (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:14:30 AM EST
    it only made 74 million (or whatever it was) the opening weekend.
    I expect it will have legs.


    Parent
    Some industry wags ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:28:08 AM EST
    are saying that the "Not Your Father's Star Trek" ad campaign may have been a miscalculation.

    But most are expecting this film to have legs.  We'll see.

    With ANGELS AND DEMONS its chief competition next week, it has a chance to win a second weekend.

    Parent

    yes (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:33:16 AM EST
    it will have very very good word of mouth

    Parent
    The trailer (none / 0) (#20)
    by eric on Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:41:36 AM EST
    did not appeal to me, at all.  And I am a big fan of Star Trek.  Sounds like the movie might be better than I was led to believe by that silly trailer.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 11, 2009 at 01:48:11 PM EST
    it was probably hard to do a good trailer without giving away some key plot points.
    I was not that crazy about the trailers either.


    Parent
    Since I read Angels and Demons (none / 0) (#23)
    by Fabian on Mon May 11, 2009 at 12:02:00 PM EST
    I'll just say that I hope it makes a better movie than a book.

    It ought to - the book was big on cliffhangers, suspense and James Bond (movie) style outlandish stunts and short on character development.  Pretty much written for Hollywood.

    Parent

    Mothers Day and college graduations (none / 0) (#17)
    by coast on Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:33:58 AM EST
    probably didn't help.

    Parent
    The Star Trek movie (none / 0) (#22)
    by sj on Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:51:15 AM EST
    was a Mother's Day event in my family. :)

    Parent
    Also, don't forget the fishing opener (none / 0) (#24)
    by DFLer on Mon May 11, 2009 at 12:03:50 PM EST
    at least around here (MN)

    Parent
    "Brilliant" (none / 0) (#26)
    by sj on Mon May 11, 2009 at 12:14:57 PM EST
    is exactly the word we used when we left the theatre.  It's brilliant on so many levels.  There is no Academy Award for casting, but for this movie, there ought to be.  As perfect as Zachary Quinto is as Spock, Chris Pine is as Kirk.  He kept the essence while making the character his own.  I was really afraid of either a caricature or something unrecognizable.  But nope, it was all good.

    Parent
    Saw a photo of the "young Spock" (none / 0) (#11)
    by Cream City on Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:07:16 AM EST
    from the film, in a review this morning, and it looks like such campy fun.  Brings back fond memories of watching Star Trek, en masse in my college student union, between classes.  

    Parent
    Spock (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:07:53 AM EST
    is really the best casting of all.
    he is perfect.

    Parent
    Yeah, but in the new incarnation... (none / 0) (#39)
    by EL seattle on Mon May 11, 2009 at 10:43:47 PM EST
    ... does the Vulcan "Mind Meld" involve slicing peoples head's open to get at their mushy thinkin' parts?  

    Parent
    American journalist Roxana Saberi Freed in Iran (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by daring grace on Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:36:10 AM EST
    Here's good news.


    Saleh Nikbakht, one of Saberi's attorneys, said the appellate court had ruled that the branch of Iran's Revolutionary Court that tried her had applied the wrong article of the penal code, according to an interview reported by the semi-official Iranian Students News Agency.

    Political and international considerations may have also influenced the court's decision. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, facing a tough election challenge next month, made an unusual public call for the appellate court to carefully review Saberi's case amid mounting public pressure for her release.
    Excellent news. Thanks (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cream City on Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:40:20 AM EST
    for the tip and the link, or I might have missed it today.  Re the link, reading between the lines, it looks like our State Department did its job, too.

    Parent
    Web site for free faxes to WH on Medicare for All- (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jawbone on Mon May 11, 2009 at 12:56:00 PM EST
    Congress as well, to get single payer reps to Senate hearing on healtcare reform. Well, we want healthcare reform; Big Corporatists want to limit any reform to ensure continued Big Profits.

    Still time today to send free faxes, via this website linked to by gob at Corrente.

    Just a couple clicks away--do it today. ASAP.

    There's even an 800 number where you can leave a message for the WH and Congress, with suggestions for how to make it clear and simple.

    This really is an existential issue.

    Our current Dems will do something only when forced.

    Look for health care for all rallies in your area--there's one coming up May 30th in NYC.

    Just heard Peter Orzag tell Andrea Mitchell that the voluntary compliance by Big Insurers, Big Pharma to their "pledges," while there is no enforcement mechanism, would come about bcz people like Andrea (MCMers*, ya know) would keep the Big Corporatists in line by publicly shaming them.

    Which has worked so well with the Big Bankster Boiz. I mean, those MCMers have been on top of just about any Big Problems lately, right???

    *MCMers--Members of the Mainstream Corporate Media

    Three for three (none / 0) (#2)
    by CST on Mon May 11, 2009 at 10:34:54 AM EST
    good night last night for Boston sports teams.

    Although they really should have staggered the schedule better.  The last 3 playoff games for the Bruins and Celtics have been on the same night (and sox games too).

    But man, Big Baby chanelling Ray Allen.  What a finish.

    Big Baby (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 11, 2009 at 10:36:54 AM EST
    grow up (pun intended.)

    Did any Boston paper use that headline?

    Parent

    grows up rather (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 11, 2009 at 10:37:09 AM EST


    Parent
    Channeling... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Mon May 11, 2009 at 10:41:05 AM EST
    Double Down Trent are we?

    Parent
    didn't see it (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Mon May 11, 2009 at 10:44:34 AM EST
    on boston.com

    I don't read the Herald.

    Would be a good one though.

    Parent

    Which headline? (none / 0) (#5)
    by CST on Mon May 11, 2009 at 10:38:31 AM EST
    Grow up?  I doubt it.  Although I usually don't see the paper till I go home.  Not a morning person.

    Parent
    Shadyness averted... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:48:39 AM EST
    for Saturday's Preakness...the connections of Derby winner Mine That Bird were trying to enter a maiden to lock out the competition of super-filly Rachel Alexandra, as well to keep Borel from jumping ship to ride the filly.  Link  Looks like Rachel Alexandra will run, and thats where my wagering dollar is going...she's the real deal I think and will smoke the boys.

    That would be impressive (none / 0) (#25)
    by Steve M on Mon May 11, 2009 at 12:04:00 PM EST
    No filly, not even my personal favorite Winning Colors, has won the Preakness since 1924.

    Parent
    Thanks for the link... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Mon May 11, 2009 at 12:21:22 PM EST
    I love watching old races on youtube...especially the other-worldly closing powers of Silky Sullivan...I could watch it 100 times.

    I think the winless streak for fillys will be broken...she's got 'em outclassed.

    Parent

    Borel will be on the filly - Mike Smith (none / 0) (#31)
    by Anne on Mon May 11, 2009 at 01:37:48 PM EST
    will take Mine That Bird.

    Prep time for Preakness:

    Mine That Bird worked at Churchill and will leave by van for Baltimore at 9 a.m. Tuesday. Co-owner Mark Allen has backed off a plan to block Rachel Alexandra from the Preakness by entering Indy Express.

    Veteran jockey Mike Smith, who won the 1993 Preakness on Prairie Bayou, will ride Mine That Bird, according to SI.com. He replaces Calvin Borel, who will ride Rachel Alexandra and become the first Kentucky Derby winner to switch mounts in the Preakness.

    I heard Cal Ripken on a local radio show last week; he did quite well betting on Mine That Bird...he picked him for the name of the horse, Mine That Bird, the horse's number - 8 - which was Cal's number, and the name of the jockey: Calvin Borel...

    Ripken's daughter is named Rachel...wonder if he will be putting a bet down on the filly?

    Parent

    Way to go Cal.... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Mon May 11, 2009 at 01:46:40 PM EST
    anybody who hit on the Derby did so because of the dumb luck connection quotient, and certainly not by handicapping.  

    Borel taking the first 2 legs on 2 different mounts would be wild...imagine a triple crown jock but no triple crown horse:)

    Parent

    For Lambert: (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Mon May 11, 2009 at 01:22:47 PM EST
    Afghanistan

    I don't know much... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Mon May 11, 2009 at 01:31:52 PM EST
    but where I'm from borrowing 50 cents for every dollar you spend is certain to get your kneecaps busted eventually.  Link

    Are we trying to bust our own kneecaps?  Can the alternative, pay as you go, really be a worse option than borrowing into oblivion?  

    Oh well...don't worry be happy I guess, with any luck we'll all be dead when the muscle knocks on the door.

    Git em while their hot..... (none / 0) (#34)
    by easilydistracted on Mon May 11, 2009 at 01:49:55 PM EST
    An ad in the sports section of today's Fort Worth Star Telegram advertised semi-automatic Thompson Sub Machine Guns, "Texas Rangers" limited edition model. I did't think the general public could own submachine guns. This from the website:
    The Texas Ranger Tribute is a working Thompson semi-automatic submachine gun; we will arrange delivery through a licensed firearms dealer of your choice. You do not need a special license to own the Tribute. Anyone who can own a standard hunting rifle can own this, in most communities.
     

    "semi-automatic " (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 11, 2009 at 02:58:49 PM EST
    A semi-automatic gun fires as quickly as you can pull the trigger.

    They've been around since the 1880's. Outside of military weapons, semi-auto's probably make up, I don't know, 70%?, 80%? 90%? of all pistols and rifles manufactured.

    The general public is restricted from owning automatic weapons, not semi-autos.

    "Semi-auto Thomson sub machine gun" is a marketing term of art, kind of like "vegetarian hamburger."

    Parent

    I think this is more than a marketing term (none / 0) (#36)
    by easilydistracted on Mon May 11, 2009 at 03:41:58 PM EST
    The photo looks like the real deal and its cost is 3500 bucks. Can a semi be converted to fully automatic by a purchaser? Not that I want it, I'm only curious.

    Parent
    "Looks" means nothing in this case. (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 11, 2009 at 04:25:05 PM EST
    Thompson SMG's are regulated because of what they are (automatic weapons) not because of what they look like, unlike many assault weapons.

    Sure, you can convert semi-auto TSMG's and, quite literally, just about any weapon ever made to be automatic if you really want to.

    You can even do it in your own garage if you have the right tools and metal fabrication and machining skills.

    Heck, you could build your own automatic weapon from scratch if you really wanted to.

    It's not rocket science.

    Parent

    Ok, I'll add this from wiki: (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 11, 2009 at 04:39:31 PM EST

    There are several U.S. made semi-automatic variants. These are less regulated at the federal level but are still banned in several states because of their resemblance to the fully-automatic version.

    So I guess it depends on the state regarding it's looks.

    Parent
    Monday Morning Open Thread | 39 comments (39 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment