Monday Night TV and Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 08:00:55 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Did anyone like "Treme" last night? It hasn't grabbed me yet. But "Breaking Bad" on AMC gets better and better. I watched all of Season Two this weekend (via Netflix) and am now hooked.

Tonight, there's Dancing With the Stars (it's really time for Jake to go now, don't you think? Are people really voting for Kate Gosselin just so they can continue to watch how uncomfortable and awful she is?)

There's also "24" and the finale of "Life Unexpected" (will Cate marry Ryan or does Baze pull a Mrs. Robinson move to stop the wedding), and the second to last episode of "Damages." This could be it for Damages, FX says it's too expensive, although Direct TV might pick it up next season. That means it would first on Direct TV and then on FX. I think the Madoff story line this season has been great. I could do without the recurrance of the Ted Danson storyline though, it's old and tired.

If there's more news to talk about, or if you want to talk about TV or what you're cooking for dinner, here's an open thread all topics welcome.

< New Forfeiture Report Blasts "Policing for Profit" | Teenage Somali Pirate to Plead Guilty >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Monday Night TV and Open Thread | 37 comments (37 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Obama Administration's Nuclear Posture Review (none / 0) (#1)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 08:44:53 PM EST

Greenwald provides a link to an external story from 4/11/10, IRAN REACTS TO BECOMING A U.S. NUCLEAR TARGET (caps and italics from original):

The Obama Administration's Nuclear Posture Review, issued last Monday, included a provision asserting a U.S. prerogative to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapons states that Washington deems not be in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty...both President Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates clearly stated that this new provision in America's declaratory posture regarding the use of nuclear weapons was aimed at Iran, along with North Korea and other potential "outlier" states. (Even though the International Atomic Energy Agency has never concluded that Tehran is in breach of its NPT obligations...)
If Iran, as a non-nuclear-weapons state, will face the threat of nuclear `first use' by the United States, why shouldn't Tehran proceed to the actual acquisition of nuclear weapons?
...There is no indication that Iran's leadership is preparing to depart from its longstanding position regarding the acquisition of nuclear weapons. But America's nuclear weapons policy should not incentivize nuclear proliferation--and that, unfortunately, is precisely what the Obama Administration has done.

As Greenwald suggested in his introduction, this pretty much epitomizes "counter-productive policies".

That's quite ironic. In August 2007, (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by observed on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 06:13:14 AM EST

this female political scientist from Harvard (not Susan Rice, but I can't remember her name---I remember this op-ed very well though) wrote an op-ed in Pravda or Izvestia (on the Potomac and Hudson) about how the "conventional foreign policy" establishment supported the Iraq war.
Obama of course was going to be different.
Main example of the "conventional " mindset was, of course, Hillary. One of the charges laid against Hillary was open to nuking terrorist training camps.
Now we see that Obama is different: he's open to preemptively nuking other entire countries.


This underscores a point I made when (none / 0) (#9)
by observed on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 06:36:49 AM EST

the announcement of this new policy was made a few days ago, which is that changing nuclear policy is by itself a destabilizing act.
That's not to say one should never change policy, but the moment you change it, new uncertainties emerge---and it's not good to have uncertainty about nuclear attack and defense policy.


US Propaganda (none / 0) (#20)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 01:04:34 PM EST

This about sums it up, imo:

These remarks indicate that countries like Iran and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea that had violated or renounced the treaty would remain on the potential target list of U.S. nuclear forces.
A day later, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki dismissed the new U.S. nuclear strategy as "propaganda" and urged Washington to fulfill its promise on nuclear disarmament.
Also, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the new U. S. nuclear policy was signed under the pressure of Israel. "Obama signed the new nuclear policy under the pressure of Israeli lobby groups."

But of course you knew that, and I think it is quite symptomatic of your position that you would focus on the hot air, as opposed to the full scope of the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review which is a serious reversal to BushCo policies.

And the great irony, although it will never be broached, is that not only Iran and N Korea but Israel, India, Pakistan now also targets preemptive nuclear attack... lol


Squeaky, why don't you go over to Greenwald's blog (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 02:08:36 PM EST

and "lol" to him about how you think he's got it all wrong about the Obama Administration's Nuclear Posture Review. Oh, I forgot..lol.


: No Thanks (none / 0) (#31)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 02:17:46 PM EST

I think that it is you who has it all wrong, but then again are you suggesting that you are just a parrot, and I should respond to your master only?

Ah yes, the old GW haha (none / 0) (#3)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 10:55:45 PM EST

Perhaps we can laugh at this by Phil Jones:

Another Jones' e-mail read, "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right."

"So the science could be proved right?" Uh, that means it hasn't yet.

So much for consensus.

"I would like to see climate change happen..." Uh, that means it hasn't happened.

But beyond that, if man made GW is the disaster that Jones and others claim, why wouldn't a rational person be saying, "I hope global warming doesn't happen.....?"

That is a huge ego speaking. A monster ego.

trabtiierb? hsirebbig hcum. hah. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 11:46:37 PM EST

Why are you in denial? (none / 0) (#8)
by observed on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 06:19:18 AM EST

What do you gain from this?
I understand it when righties make ludicrous claims about the worst President in the last 60 years ( Reagan), because discussing the past really is just a political game.
But what happens to the planet is not a game.
Furthermore, only a person uninformed of the history of ecological disasters from our past could fail to prudently consider that the never before seen scale of human influence on the environment could potentially have disastrous consequences.

As for discussing the emails---why bother?
You can take 10,000 out of context statements, but until there are peer-reviewed science publications coming to the oppposite conclusions, one must accept global warming as a fact.


What jim gains from this is attention (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 02:00:07 PM EST

and attention gives him the opportunity to continue using up reams of thread.


: It is called an Open thread (none / 0) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 03:37:45 PM EST

And I was unaware that you were a new table captain.

Heh - You folks are the ones in denial. (none / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 09:36:13 AM EST

And I am not discussing the Pentagon Papers... oopps the emails... I am merely showing that Jones himself says that the science has not been proven and man made GW has not happened.

And that is not out of context. There is no wiggle room.

And it isn't just "righties" who understand that a terrible hoax is being pulled on us, it is a broad spectrum of Joe and Jane Sixpack who are saying...

"Hold on there. I'm just getting over being told that Obama was going to fix health care and now you want to triple gas and utility prices on a theory?"


So you seriously (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by jbindc on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 10:15:39 AM EST

And honestly believe that 6 billion people on the planet, most using some methods of industrial and mechanized equipment, and producing both natural and artificial garbage, have no effect on the environment and the climate??


I seriously believe that (none / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:31:07 PM EST

the environment and the weather are not connected at the hip.

You can be for clean water, etc., etc., and not believe that man is capable of causing global climate change.

I see the global warmers as hoaxers dedicated to selling a falsehood in the name of acquiring political power and money. And no, there is no grand conspiracy, just a gathering of people who have the same objectives and who will work with each other to produce the desired results and destroy anyone who disagrees.

That is what the Pentagon Papers...ooppps.. East Anglia emails show.

I think it apparent that the science is not proven, the research data incomplete and unavailable and the methodology not acceptable.


No grand conspiracy (none / 0) (#18)
by jondee on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:49:47 PM EST

just a phenomenon that meets every single requirement necessary to be called a grand conspiracy.

Though, some might call it another delusional construct courtesy of the famous "Paranoid Style of the Right"


question (none / 0) (#19)
by CST on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 01:02:29 PM EST

even if you believ gw is not real (and I'm not going to waste my time arguing the finer points of science on that one with someone who's views are so firmly entrenched) - what is the purpose of arguing against it as a political tool?

If we listen to the scientists who believe in global warming, and work towards solving that potential crisis, there will be improvements to the environment regardless of whether or not global warming is caused by man. If we don't listen, the environment will continue to deteriorate.

In other words, even if you're right, we're still better off if we listen to environmentalists. If you're wrong, it's imperative that we listen to them. There is nothing be gained by the continued destruction of the natural earth.


Perhaps you can prove that the envornment (none / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 01:14:53 PM EST

will deteriorate unless we destroy our economy?

You know, if you look at the environment the worst polluters in history was the Soviet Union and the eastern European communist countries. The worst currently is the Chinese and parts of Africa.

Improvement in technology has reduced the carbon consumption in the west. Improvement in income allows people to pay more for cars with pollution control and power plants with scrubbers.

I say again, man made global warming is not tied at the hip to a clean environment.

And I doubt you have a viable argument to make else you would be making it.


So (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by jbindc on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 01:21:37 PM EST

Pouring chemicals down the drain and spouting pollution in the sir does nothing to affect the weather? You realize, if course, that every drop of water on earth has been here since the first day water was formed, right? We live in a closed system, so polluting the sit with toxins, which go into clouds, which travel and make rain, which falls on the ground and is consumed by animals and vegetation, which, if poisonous, can kill those same animals and planys, which then changes the ecosystem - you don't see the connection between weather and the environment?? They are TOTALLY related!!!!!


can you prove (none / 0) (#28)
by CST on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 01:34:34 PM EST

that the economy will be destroyed by helping the environment? I think not. I am really not sure what your point about China and Africa are. Especially considering the fact that both places are facing some pretty serious problems relating to the destruction of the environment with droughts and food shortages and air quality issues. Destroying the environment in Africa has been a huge hit to the economy as well. If you base your economy on natural resources and deplete all those resources faster than they can be replaced you are killing your economy in the long term. The Haitian economy was pretty much destroyed in the long term due in large part to short term gains from the destruction of the environment.

The environment is deteriorating every day, you can see that with your own eyes if you bother to look outside your house.

The viable argument I have is in front of my face and has been made repeatedly with rising global temperatures, diminishing ice, rising sea levels and extreme weather. I choose not to ignore the obvious. Have you ever lived in a place with smog? Have you ever noticed the difference in heat/humidity levels between a concrete jungle and just outside a concrete jungle? This stuff doesn't just happen.

Not to mention all the more obvious concrete relationships between weather and the environment that jbdinc brings up.


The largest (none / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 03:55:51 PM EST

polluters in the world is China which is turning on one coal fired electric generation plant per week. Deforestation in Africa, and South America continues unabated as the poverty stricken strip shrubs and trees for cooking fuel and farming.

And I again go back to what Phil Jones has said.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now - suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no `statistically significant' warming.

As for the economy, what do you think will happen when utility and energy prices go out of sight? Do you not understand what damage $4.50 gas did to the economy in 2008?


the largest polluters in the world (none / 0) (#36)
by CST on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 04:05:39 PM EST

are making things worse for themselves. Why would you want to advocate that type of behavior? It only hurts in the long run.

The economy in 2008 was killed by over-speculation in housing and banking.

But you know another way to deal with high utilities gas prices? Be more efficient. $4.50 gas hurts a lot less when you get more mi/gallon. If more people had bought cheaper, more efficient cars instead of gas guzzling suvs throughout the 2000s $4.50 for gas would have been mitigated by the fact that you get 30 mi/gallon instead of 15. And those cars were CHEAPER to buy.


: The problem the country has is that (none / 0) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 05:15:00 PM EST

millions of people drive 30-50 miles one way to work and they can not afford to chunk that 20MPG car or truck.
And "IF more people had...." is just wishful thinking. They did not.
And there are millions of people who live in places where no public transportation exists.
And millions of people cannot afford to have their utility bills double. And that is what will happen if we put a large carbon tax on coal, oil and natural gas.
And I am not advocating anything. Just pointing out that the Chinese won't destroy their economy and are actively bringing pollution sources on line.
And yes, the housing bubble hurt badly. But if you look back to the April 2008 time frame you will see that actions by the Feds had somewhat stabilized the market. Then when the Democrats kept on fighting any new drilling the psychological boost to the oil speculators drove the price to $145 by mid July, gasoline and diesel went out of sight, food prices jumped and the economy went into collapse.
Oil was the coup de grace.

On the deepest level (none / 0) (#26)
by jondee on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 01:28:06 PM EST

this is about the hysterical reaction of conservatives to being forced to deal with increases in knowledge that force them to modify their worldview..Including the view that basically everyone's just out for themselves in the competition for "funding and power", and that therefore it's inconceivable that anyone, including scientists, could put their political motives aside in the interests of taking a longer, larger view of things.

It's a classic case of people only seeing what they already know and then claiming that what they already know is all there is to know.


: The problem is that as far as (none / 0) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 03:44:40 PM EST

man made GW is concerned the science is unproven.
Go back and read the quote by Phil Jones.
The funny thing is that all of this is lapped up by those who like to talk about "critical thinking" while those who are supposedly narrow minded are the ones challenging the stuff being fed the world.

Heh (none / 0) (#17)
by jondee on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:38:59 PM EST

"On a theory.."

Unless it's a theory involving wmds that requires the allocation of tens-of-billions from the treasury and a hundred thousand lives - including a few Joe and Jane Sixpacks..then it's a theory we can live with.

Pure Beckian b.s: from the snip and paste and wishful thinking involved in falling-all-over-oneself to make a rw propaganda coup out of one incident, to the grandiose claims of special knowledge about whats important to the average American.

Just to be clear Jim, are you claiming that there's no such thing as a man-made greenhouse gas?


What an insulting question. (none / 0) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 01:16:05 PM EST

What a waste of time in even reading your comments.


Likewise Uncle Troll (none / 0) (#27)
by jondee on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 01:31:02 PM EST

But you should be able to answer that one simple, scientific question.


jondee, you are turning into a stalker (1.00 / 1) (#32)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 03:36:01 PM EST

of the Dark Avenger category.

You comment only to insult and/or play gotacha games with questions made foolish by context.

Please refrain from you snide attacks.

Thank you.


: Simple question (none / 0) (#37)
by jondee on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 04:06:19 PM EST

is there such a thing as a man-made greenhouse gas..
Im interested in what you and your scientific collaborator Dr Phil Jones have been been able to find out about this phenomenon.
Thank you.

A neighbor of ours won one (none / 0) (#5)
by Cream City on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:32:05 AM EST

so how cool is that? :-)

Deservedly so, too. Saved some kids and taxpayers, too. Investigative reporting at its riveting best -- for the reader. For the reporter, just slogging, slogging, slogging for months through records until that "aha!" moment. And then more slogging, slogging, slogging through edit checks.

Nebraska tips its hand (none / 0) (#6)
by shoephone on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:49:10 AM EST

with plans to eventually make abortion illegal. Seems the key is to declare women mentally unfit first.

I've never really cared for it (none / 0) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 07:58:42 AM EST

when reading liberal blogging to come across a commenter asking for someone to pass the popcorn during a liberal debate. What a cop out! Yesterday was full up busy, but I did get to start my day with news that Michael Steele is standing his ground to those who want to toss him out of his RNC chair. This is hilarious. The tea bag has all the momentum but you have that racist component so look, we can't have a black kid running the RNC or it'll split the Conservative vote. And Haley Barbour makes me puke. I hope a new dog whistle for him is on Santa's Christmas list cuz he's just wearing his out right now, but not announcing his candidacy for President. Of course he isn't. He has to get rid of Steele and sign over the RNC to the tea baggers or it will become obvious what racist scum he and his crew and his constituency is. Pass the popcorn please.

WaMU Executives are now in front of (none / 0) (#11)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 08:54:24 AM EST

congress answering for their role in the financial collapse. Anyone watching?

Why bother.... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by kdog on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 09:15:58 AM EST

Congress works for WAMU...what are they gonna do, threaten to quit being protection racketeers? Not likely...its a sham, all for show.


Yes, but it is helpful to know (none / 0) (#22)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 01:15:05 PM EST

just how stupid they think the people are, and we get to see more indepth reporting that the media is going to give us.


: Scary thing is... (none / 0) (#24)
by kdog on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 01:19:13 PM EST

we may well be as stupid as they think we are...I mean how many people are watching the hearings thinking congress is being serious with their populist outrage and scolding of their bosses, the bankers?
It's why I can't bother, I know after the spittle falls from the mic everybody meets in the lounge for a good laugh over brandy.

I liked Treme a lot. I was grabbed. (none / 0) (#15)
by ruffian on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:00:35 AM EST

Interesting characters, great music. I'm in for the duration.

I agree about Damages, though last night the Frobisher storyline took an interesting turn that might tie it back to the main story. But it was too much nonsense for so little payoff IMO. The Madoff story with Campbell Scott and Martin Short is a lot better than dredging up the old Frobisher stuff.

Glee returns tonight. I'm stoked.