Friday Morning Open Thread

Yanks are still on the brink as they return to Texas tonight for Game 6 of the ALCS. If they find a way to win tonight, Cliff Lee will be waiting in Game 7. It will be a spectacular comeback if they can do it. The Phillies go home for Games 6 and 7 after Halladay beat Lincecum. I think the Phillies have the better chance of the comeback, with Oswalt and Hamels lined up. But the Giants just need one.

Speaking of baseball, Marvin Miller is not in the Hall of Fame. That's a disgrace. As Red Barber said, Miller is one of the 3 most important figures in the last century of baseball, with Ruth and Robinson. Here's a cool site, ThanksMarvin.com:

The election of [Bowie] Kuhn [to the Hall of Fame] and the rejection of Marvin was absurd. Fay Vincent, Commissioner of Major League Baseball, '89-'92

I did not remember Kuhn was voted into the Hall of Fame. What a joke.

Open Thread.

< Has NPR Been Thrown Into The Briar Patch? | The Real First Amendment Threat Regarding NPR >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Anita Hill and Lillian McEwen (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 02:45:39 PM EST
    Ever since the story appeared about the recent and early morning call left on Anita Hill's answering machine by the spouse of Justice Clarence Thomas, in which she indicated that Ms Hill should apologize to her, I have wondered about more than the backstory. Now, the Washington Post carries a major story about Lillian McEwen and her statements/claims that Clarence Thomas acted in a manner with her that is quite similar to Ms. Hill's claims in 1991 during the Thomas SCt confirmation hearings. Ms. McEwen, a retired Administrative Law Judge for the SEC, states that her silence was necessitated by her career situation but that the recent reported action by Ms. Thomas pushed her decision to disclose. (Note two factoids: McEwen is shopping her memoirs; and, McEwen appears to be a respected & longtime ALJ, law asst. professor, and AUSA.)
    Normally, these triangle stories are just that. Yet.... I wonder about this one in view of the circumstances both then and now.  Its hard to forget those scenes of Anita Hill before the Senate Judiciary Committee re-affirming her claims about Thomas' behavior; and, Clarence Thomas denying directly her claims; and, some particularly harsh language (almost accusation) by a few questioning Senators to Anita Hill.

    So much has transpired since then in life...and, in law. E.g., Bush v. Gore back when, a number of cases about citizens v corporate access, and the stunner of United Citizens in the past year.  Then, I got to thinking and thinking about how one person on the Supreme Court can change the course of American history for a period of time.  About the side drama connected with one of those Justices--Thomas-- and about how the conservative activist, Ms Thomas, acted in a way to spotlight again the story of Anita Hill and, today, Lillian McEwen.  All of a sudden, it is more than the almost-usual torrid triangle. I keep wondering about the words of the confirmation hearing back then--about truth telling and about the 5 to 4 split on the Court as I write about my meandering thoughts.

    It is indeed fascinating to (none / 0) (#36)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 05:16:49 PM EST
    consider how one person can change the course of history, as with Uncle Thomas on the Court.  Also I wonder whether Ms McEwan herself, had she summoned the courage to do so and taken a career risk, could have changed history, maybe been the person to prevent Clarence from making history, by coming forward to buttress Prof Hill's credibility and insisting the committee take her testimony in public.

    I'm not sure however how the comm'ee chair and fellow Dems on Judiciary (all men of course) would have reacted.  Iirc, Biden et al wanted to severely circumscribe the testimony involving Hill, and basically get it over with and get to the vote and not get into additional tales that might support Hill's allegations.  The libs back then were definitely not organized around blocking Thomas -- a day late and a dollar short and often confused about how to react to a black nominee -- or certainly not to the extent the GOP and Poppy admin were in aggressively pushing him through.

    It was an ugly time, and as usual our side wasn't adequately prepared to do battle -- not the pols, not the liberal org's, not the grassroot foot soldiers.  Quite a sneaky and cynical move by Poppy and his team -- "the most qualified person" he could find (heheh).  And we've been stuck with this unqualified idiot for 20 yrs, with 20 more possibly to come.


    Clarence Thomas "unqualified" for sure, (none / 0) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 07:24:52 PM EST
    but that might be the floor and not the ceiling.  In an article in the NYT (Kate Zernike, Oct 19) it was reported that the Koch Brothers host a semi-anual soiree with some of the wealthiest people in the country, such as Steve Bechtel (of Bechtel Industries, that like Haliburton is a military contractor, but unlike Haliburton is not traded), Steve Schwartzman (Obama tax increases are like when Hitler invaded Poland), right wing clown Glenn Beck and  wacko politicians like Senator Demint.

    The article also reports that guests have included Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Scalia.  While they must make fascinating guests, it does cause pause, what with Citizens United and all.  And, then there is the appearance of Thomas' conflict in the funding of Ginni's Liberty Central.  Of course, the phone call to Professor Hill remains curious. Perhaps, Ginni is promoting her husband as the tea party's candidate for president in 2012.  I like the idea from the perspective that he would resign SC to run (although he probably would not nor would the Court note the precedent of Charles Evans Hughes.


    The Koch Bros. keep showing up (none / 0) (#41)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 09:45:10 PM EST
    don't they? I wonder what they feel about the 17th Amendment??? I ask what appears to be a non sequitor because, perhaps, so much may really be intertwined. E.g., my favorite is the apparent simultaneous discovery that several now Republican candidates (closely associated with the Tea Party, as the Koch Bros appear to be) wanted the repeal or disappearance of the 17th Amendment. Here in Colorado, Senate candidate Ken Buck announced that it should be repealed (before walking that one back a bit) and I also understand that other Repub Senatorial candidates Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, and Joe Miller wanted to see the 17th's disappearance as well. That would certainly make it easier for the Koch Bros to buy directly rather than through undisclosed funding.

    On the Thomas matter: What do you think should be the next steps if further coverage of this current story suggests his lack of truthfulness--under oath--at the 1991 confirmation hearings?


    To: brodie (none / 0) (#42)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 09:55:46 PM EST
    I read your "reminiscence."  That time was a nasty chapter. A memory of mine was the piercing questioning by Sen. Arlen Specter. As this latest iteration plays out, I'd certainly be interested in his thoughts.  What if--lets just say--additional corroboration of Anita Hill's story becomes obvious? Yes, it has been 19 years; and, yes, truth isn't time-dependent. Would Senator Specter make any comment?  Would he have felt differently?  All the "what ifs."  And, of course, the biggest "what if" of all: What if it looks more openly like the nominee veered from the truth? Consequences?

    What I would like to know (none / 0) (#43)
    by NYShooter on Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 03:28:06 AM EST
    does Sen. Danforth (ret.) have any sense of "buyers remorse" for promoting Thomas to the Court?

    Danforth, for a Republican, seems decent enough, a lay minister I think.

    Has anyone heard anything about Danforth's current feelings regarding probably the most unforgiveable action he's ever done?


    The Hall must be anti-labor... (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 11:19:51 AM EST
    Curt Flood ain't in there either.

    quack (none / 0) (#2)
    by Turkana on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 11:22:52 AM EST

    Something that happened yesterday (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 11:34:36 AM EST
    The post General is interested in making some positive changes in the organization that is Army Avaition.  He is attracted to some of the ideas and dynamics outlined by John Kotter.  So there was a meeting yesterday of officers, and a CEO from a consulting firm was there that espouses the Kotter processes.  During the meeting the CEO is asked about their credentials and the person has says that they have an MBA from Harvard.

    Not kidding, one of the officers says that Harvard has managed to make an MBA literally worthless and after what Harvard did to Wall Street and the economy why would the military want a damn thing to do with any of them?  How can they have an idea that the military should even consider?  This CEO says that the past dean of Harvard Business School was very unethical and has been replaced with someone who has ethics.  No names used.  Hilarious hearing about this.  Now will Harvard please fire Larry Summers for his complete lack of ethics too?  I really don't want Larry Summers inspiring anyone that will have sway over my life again.

    Maybe when (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 11:50:13 AM EST
    Boalt Hall/U.C. Berkeley School of Law fires John Yoo, Harvard will fire Larry Summers.  (And Stanford can fire Condoleeza Rice, too, while we're at it.)

    I don't think Condi (none / 0) (#30)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 03:21:25 PM EST
    works for Stanford, but instead for the right-wing think tank Hoover Institute?

    Condi Rice (none / 0) (#35)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 04:45:55 PM EST
    In March 2009, Rice returned to Stanford University as a political science professor and the Thomas and Barbara Stephenson Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution.[2][3] In September 2010, Rice became a faculty member of the Stanford Graduate School of Business and a director of its Global Center for Business and the Economy.[4]

    She's a Stanford faculty member.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#44)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 10:55:36 AM EST
    Guess its (none / 0) (#45)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 08:05:19 PM EST
    Rumsfeld who joined the Hoover Institute in 2007 as special fellow...

    I really don't want Larry Summers (none / 0) (#21)
    by Amiss on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 01:45:15 PM EST
    " inspiring anyone that will have sway over my life again."

    So true!


    Ah, Fay Vincent! (none / 0) (#4)
    by DFLer on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 11:39:42 AM EST
    One of the best baseball men ever, died too young.

    Um (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 11:43:42 AM EST
    He's alive. Giametti is who you are thinking of.

    oops (none / 0) (#18)
    by DFLer on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 12:13:04 PM EST
    that's right....when I was writing, I sez to myself...am I thinking of Giametti? Fay was good though, heh?

    thanks for the correction. I have to go off rescue myself from this shame spiral now.


    Vincent and Giametti (none / 0) (#32)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 03:32:36 PM EST
    were about the last good things that happened to baseball, since soon thereafter you had the no-WS 1994 season, and the confirmed onset of the PED/Steroid Era.  

    The last -- and only, afaik -- MLB Comm'rs who had a true respect for the players and fans to go with a strong sense of what was really good about the game, as opposed to all the other commishes -- Kuhn and Selig in particular -- basically corporate frontmen for the owners, who first and last were concerned about the bottom line for the greedy types who put them in their jobs.

    Liberals Giametti and Vincent were, you might say, in the baseball commish context.  Stood up to some of the greedy owners, and in the case of Vincent, got paid back by them, apparently, with a lot of smoke-filled backroom conspiring and a quick exit.


    Amen to all that (none / 0) (#37)
    by DFLer on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 05:43:30 PM EST
    I'm doing a little... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 11:41:28 AM EST
    cost-benefit analysis as I type, trying to figure if I have more than 200 clams worth of misplaced goodies misplaced in the house to make it cost effective to hire an outfit like this.

    I could see kids re-hiring them to find the stash mom and dad threw out down at the county dump...lots of repeat business potential for this outfit.

    I love my dogs (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 11:52:17 AM EST
    And dogs do have great noses, but dogs are IMO the least consistent method for finding drugs.  And when police officers say the dog gave a "tell", wow have I ever just flat seen bull$hit about that.  What is the tell?  They never tell you beforehand that I've seen except one time.  But wow could I rake in the dough from paranoid parents around here.  And I could pronounce a whole bunch of kids drug free, eventually the word would get around about how inaccurate I was but I clear you with your parents and I could probably even start getting some kickbacks from the kids by clearing them.  My dogs can very easily be all messed up though with some scattered Natural Balance Beef Stick or roll up some little pellets of those Pill Pockets for dogs.  Both items are loaded with some sort of added smell that drives dogs nuts.  We call the Natural Balance Beef Stick "puppy crack" when you are baiting dogs to stand alert in the showring :)

    A dime bag is cheaper right? Analysis done :) (none / 0) (#11)
    by republicratitarian on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 11:54:33 AM EST
    How would you know such things:)? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 11:56:00 AM EST
    I googled it, lol (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by republicratitarian on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 11:57:28 AM EST
    "The Google" (none / 0) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 12:00:20 PM EST
    is a magical thing. ;-)

    You've never been to my crib:) (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 11:58:17 AM EST
    There's an 1/8 in the couch cushions alone I'm sure.

    Can those hounds smell pharmies?  That might tip the scale:)


    lmao, he might be distracted by all of (none / 0) (#17)
    by republicratitarian on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 12:07:30 PM EST
    the munchies that fell in the cushions.

    That's funny ... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Raskolnikov on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 08:17:32 PM EST
    I had a pretty humorous but embarrassing moment when my dad was helping me move my couch a few years ago and when we turned it upside down out came a bunch of change and a couple nugs.  Whoops.

    By way of follow-up to the HRC (none / 0) (#8)
    by NJDem on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 11:51:02 AM EST
    video I posted the other day, the President also released an "it get's better" youtube.  There's lots I can gripe about policy-wise in terms of gay rights, but I'm very pleased about this video.  

    I really appreciate the heart-felt sincerity he projects.  In addition to being able to relate to the subject as a father, I remember reading how (allegedly, I guess) Obama was picked on as a kid in Indonesia, so maybe that also influenced him...

    Remember how Brazile and Axelrod (none / 0) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 11:53:09 AM EST
    stated that the "New Democratic Party" didn't need white working class people to win. Seems like maybe some in the party are rethinking that strategy. link

    West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin is taking a political battering, thanks to his support of Barack Obama, so he's uniquely qualified to offer counsel on what many think is the president's central political problem - his failure to connect with white working-class voters.

    His advice: Go to where they live and work. Listen. And don't talk down to them.

    "If I were him, I'd start going to the places where people don't like you that much," says Manchin, who is locked in a close race to replace Robert Byrd in the Senate and struggling mightily to shrug off his opponents' description of him as Obama's "rubber stamp."

    "You can't win if you only go where you are comfortable," added Manchin, who was speaking to POLITICO a day before Obama appeared in a place that was very much in his comfort zone - before a crowd of 35,000 admirers at Ohio State University.
    Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, arguably Obama's most effective 2008 surrogate with working-class voters, says it's a "tragedy" Obama hasn't been able to convince blue-collar families he's on their side, and her solution is the same as Manchin's.  

    I would take issue with the claim that my sweet Claire was Obama's most effective 2008 surrogate with working-class voters since he did lose MO. This little bit of McCaskil advise is rather amusing.

    Obama's shortcomings, friends say, are embedded in his strengths -- a searching intellect, a Roget's vocabulary and a lofty determination to elevate the public discourse -- and not dumb down his public utterances.

    Hence McCaskill's frustration when she learned Obama had apologized for the God-and-guns remark by blaming his own tortured "syntax."

    She got him on his cell phone and opened up on him: "The only time I want to hear you use that word is when you're talking about the tax people in Missouri pay on their beer!"  

    McCaskill Obama best surrogate (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 12:05:02 PM EST
    with working class voters? Heh. In the primary I suppose. But then again, Obama got creamed on that demographic. So it's faint praise.

    But she stinks and is a sure fire one termer imo.


    I agree she stinks (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 12:25:44 PM EST
    and I plan to help her become a one termer.

    As to my sweet Claire helping Obama with the working class people in the primary, don't think she was successful even then. Obama won the state by 10,000 votes.

    Clinton won 109 of the 115 counties in the state, while Obama carried St. Louis, Kansas City and the areas around the college towns of Columbia and Maryville. ...According to exit polls, 76 percent of voters in the Missouri Democratic Primary were Caucasians and they opted for Clinton by a margin of 57-39... wikepedia

    Exit polls indicate that Clinton won the white working class folks and all of the rulal counties.


    Claire (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 08:04:36 PM EST
    was a horrible advocate for Obama in every way and the fact that she helped him with working class voters is laughable to say the least.

    That "new" coalitions sure is working out well isn't it?

    At least Manchin has the right idea though Obama will never go places where he isn't a "rock star" who can speak to crowds and revel in their adulation.


    Penguins are not gay, they are just lonely (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 12:58:34 PM EST
    Wasn't it Churchill (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 02:42:08 PM EST
    who said that sodomy and the lash was what held the British Navy (and possibly the House of Lords) together for centuries?

    heh (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 03:17:16 PM EST
    full disclosure, I have been reading this:

    Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition: English Sea Rovers in the Seventeenth-Century Caribbean

    its more interesting than it sounds actually.
    someone here at work gave it to me as a joke (pfft)
    and I have actually been enjoying reading it.


    sounds like they put the rover (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 03:29:46 PM EST
    in sea-rover..

    Talk about your alternative life-style choices. I was reading about Bartholomew Roberts recently; it sounds like if he had wanted to, he could've retired to some remote place many times over, he picked Spanish, English, French and Dutch shipping clean so many times. Sounds like some of them just enjoyed the life a little too much..


    just noticed this at amazon (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 03:45:11 PM EST
    "A great . . . very interesting book."
    - Johnny Depp

    guess he was researching his Pirates role.


    Now, for some reason (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 04:12:14 PM EST
    I'm flashing on that unsettling Treasure Island motif that kept cropping up in the movie Crumb..

    The more witnesses and info... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 02:01:12 PM EST
    that comes out in the tragic shooting death of Pace University student Danroy Henry, the worse it looks for the police.

    It's becoming a troubling pattern...instead of difusing volatile situations, the police are pouring gasoline on fires with their cowboy tactics.  It's a shame to say, but you're better off letting a bar brawl run its course than calling 911.

    Yeah, except that no bar owner (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 02:32:52 PM EST
    is going to risk law suits from injuries incurred on the premises and their bar getting busted up to let a brawl run it's course..

    I think an idea whose time has finally come is for someone to develop an effective program to teach people how refrain from acting like an as*hole when they're drunk. It would be a great college elective, which would probably pay great dividends in the long run.


    Not 100% effective... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 02:52:28 PM EST
    but there is such a program, it's called Going Green:)

    But that would be illegal.


    the trouble is (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 03:14:19 PM EST
    going green won't make young men wanna drive their new pickups through the air and into burnin' buildin's and then head over to the nearest Marine recruitment office..

    And we can't have that.


    Cops indicted in fatal shooting in Colorado (none / 0) (#26)
    by republicratitarian on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 02:49:38 PM EST