Sunday Night TV and Open Thread

The season finale of Pacific, Survivor, and Desperate Housewives all air tonight, while Celebrity Apprentice gets down to the final two. As if that's not enough, there's a new Breaking Bad and Brothers and Sisters.

What are you watching?

Here's an interesting op-ed from 2000 on why we need to maintain Miranda by former prosecutor and author Scott Turow. I like this part:

Catching bad guys is important, but it is not the only thing this society values; we also care about certain minimal standards of decency in the government's treatment of citizens and limits on the authority of the state.

The requirement to recite Miranda is an important reminder to the police that the war on lawlessness is always subject to the guidance of the law.

Turow has a new book out, the sequel to "Presumed Innooent" called Innocent, in which former prosecutor Rusty Sabich is back in the defendant's chair, charged with murdering his wife.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Bernie Kerik Reports to Prison Monday | Supreme Court Restricts LWOP For Juveniles >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I pulled my copy of Lawrence of Arabia (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun May 16, 2010 at 08:58:50 PM EST
    off the shelf the other day. It's magnetic, and I regret never having been able to see it properly: projected from a 70mm print on the big screen.

    Some day. . .

    My favorite snippet of dialogue:

              Lawrence, sir.

              Send him in!

              Good morning, sir.

              Salute! If you're insubordinate of me,
              Lawrence, I shall put you under arrest.

              It's my manner, sir.

              Your what?

              My manner, sir. It looks insubordinate,
              but it isn't really.

              No, I can't make out whether you're
              bloody bad-mannered, or just half-witted.

              I have the same problem, sir.

    I saw it on the big screen when it first (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 16, 2010 at 09:55:58 PM EST
    was released and I have never forgotten the movie, or where I saw it....

    I watch it again about every 3-5 years, now on DVD..


    I saw it (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Zorba on Mon May 17, 2010 at 09:02:55 AM EST
    on the big screen when I was in high school.  I loved it, and had a huge crush on Peter O'Toole for years after.

    I'm saving my saliva for (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 17, 2010 at 08:15:56 AM EST
    the Prince of Persia and Jake Gyllenhaal.  I'll do my motherly duty and take my ten year old son to it and try not to drool into the popcorn :)

    huge crush on (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by CST on Mon May 17, 2010 at 09:38:24 AM EST
    Jake Gyllenhaal ever since I saw Donnie Darko.  For some reason the "troubled soul" gets me every time.  Also, unrelated, the mom in that movie is wonderful.

    Wouldn't want to get (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 17, 2010 at 09:04:49 AM EST
    in the way of any drooling but I'd guess that the movies aren't in the same category...

    But watch that drooling... As I discovered in my teens watching the Vamps of Hollywood.... wet popcorn is not good.


    Where's Waldo (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sun May 16, 2010 at 09:12:04 PM EST
    this weekend I pulled up YouTubes (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by desmoinesdem on Sun May 16, 2010 at 09:22:56 PM EST
    of some Electric Company skits and songs from the 1970s. My kids watch the show now, and I'd been trying to explain to them that I watched the show when I was little, but it had different people and different music on it.

    Fun to watch some of those old scenes with Rita Moreno, Bill Cosby and Morgan Freeman. Also, Tom Lehrer wrote some great music for the show.

    Arab-American is new Miss USA (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by caseyOR on Sun May 16, 2010 at 10:58:15 PM EST
    An Arab-American woman from Michigan won tonight's Miss USA contest. In answering her question from the judges the new Miss USA said that birth control should be covered by health insurance just like other medications.

    Good luck to her. The Muslim haters and the forced prenancy crowd won't like her representing the USA.

    From Stupak's state, yet. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cream City on Sun May 16, 2010 at 11:05:48 PM EST
    There is a lovely symmetry to him losing his crown while she gains hers.

    Does the job come with security? (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Sun May 16, 2010 at 11:06:50 PM EST
    Trump's Moronic Comment (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Sun May 16, 2010 at 11:13:24 PM EST
    "She's a great girl," said Trump, who owns the pageant with NBC in a joint venture.

    why is that moronic? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 16, 2010 at 11:58:56 PM EST
    I don't get it.

    This may be what it's about... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:31:56 AM EST
    Rima Fakih, a 24-year-old Arab American from Michigan beat out 50 other women to take the 2010 Miss USA title Sunday night.

    I can't speak for Squeaky, who called Trump "moronic" for calling Fakih a "great girl".

    However, there are people (me included) who would find it more accurate and more respectful to refer to a woman in her mid twenties as a "woman" -- "great" or otherwise.


    I might agree with you (none / 0) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 17, 2010 at 08:11:07 AM EST
    if we weren't talking about a beauty pageant, which is by definition profoundly sexist and moronic anyway.

    If he said that about a female colleague or employee, I'd want his head on a platter.  A beauty pageant not so much.


    I have sympathy for those in past (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Cream City on Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:16:23 PM EST
    beauty pageants, when some offered the few ways for women to win college scholarships.  I knew some of those then-girls-now-women -- one, for example, used her winnings to go to law school and now is a high-level and respected judge in our state!

    However, in more recent times, smart and/or talented women (in sports, for example, thanks to Title IX) have many other routes to scholarships.

    All that said, I do applaud this young woman for her honest answer re birth control -- and thank heavens that these judges asked better questions than in past.  I have a tape of the 1959 Miss America contest (the first one televised, I think), and every question by Bert Parks, blecch, blecch, began with "when you are married" or "when you have children."  

    We haven't come a long way, but we have come a way, anyway. :-)


    Gyrfalcon, about your line of reasoning... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 17, 2010 at 05:30:37 PM EST
    You said that you would want Donald Trump's "head on a platter" if he called an adult "female colleague or employee" a girl. But, you've indicated that you don't have much of a problem with beauty pageant contestants being trivialized as girls because, as you say, "beauty pageants are, by definition, profoundly sexist and moronic anyway".

    Perhaps you haven't thought this all the way through. For example, others have soundly criticized the Miss America Pageant for its  history of racist conduct. Now, if the Donald made a racially insensitive comment about a contestant, I doubt that you would go any easier on him because "beauty pageants are, by definition, profoundly racist and moronic anyway".

    Here's a little pageant background regarding race/ethnicity, LINK, PBS:

    The pageant's long history of excluding women of color dates from its beginnings [1921]...the notorious rule number seven of the Miss America rule book, says: "contestants must be of good health and of the white race." As late as 1940, all contestants were required to file a formal biological data sheet... In 1941 a Native American [competed], there would not be another for 30 years. [A Puerto Rican and an Asian contestant competed in 1948.] The first Jewish Miss America won in 1945, the only one ever to be crowned [stats 2001]...The first African Americans to appear in the Miss America Pageant came onstage as 'slaves' for a musical number in 1923. It was not until 1970 that a black woman won a state title and made it to Atlantic City as a contestant. In 1984 Vanessa Williams became the first black Miss America...her reign ended mid-year amidst scandal.

    Today we have Rima Fakih, a 24 year old Lebaneses-American woman who won a pageant that is, demonstrably, steeped in sexism, etnophobia and racism. And although it wouldn't come as a surprise if the pageant winner were to be diminished, or otherwise insulted, on the basis of her gender and/or her ethnicity, none of it is in any way excusable.


    You make good points, but (none / 0) (#122)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 18, 2010 at 12:44:51 AM EST
    I seriously can't gin up any outrage about Donald Trump calling beauty pageant (beauty pageant!) contestants "girls."  Also, racism is not inherent to beauty pageants by definition.  Horrendous sexism and objectification of women is.

    Alrighty. But there are some men we would (none / 0) (#125)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 19, 2010 at 02:30:07 AM EST
    NEVER call "boys" -- and rightfully so.

    Really? (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 10:22:23 AM EST
    Miss America contest Sexist and moronic?

    I have little problem with women showing off their power, through their beauty, sexuality, athleticism, intelligence, and competitive instincts. There is nothiong victorian about my sensibilities

    I do have a big problem with Donald Trump diminishing the winner of Miss USA, Lebanese immigrant Rima Fakih, by referring to her as a girl. I find that far more offensive than any aspect of the contest he runs.


    Women parading around a stage (none / 0) (#106)
    by Anne on Mon May 17, 2010 at 03:56:16 PM EST
    like prize cattle at the state fair are not "exercising their power," not when they are seeking a meaningless title from a panel of mostly-men in order to collect a big check, and then be beholden to a pageant that requires a year's worth of "proper" behavior and complete control over their schedules, having to be where they want you, when they want you, and looking the way they want you to.

    That doesn't sound like power to me, it sounds like something else.

    And that's not victorian sensibility speaking, by the way, that's just believing that beauty pageants, or whatever nomenclature they've come up with that tries to make us believe it's not about what these women look like, should have long since faded into oblivion.


    Women "parade around" (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Spamlet on Mon May 17, 2010 at 06:48:04 PM EST
    on beaches all the time, wearing less than the contestants in a beauty pageant.

    Others on this thread have noted that beauty pageants have long been a route to education and upward mobility for women of the working and lower middle classes.

    I'll just add that to harumph about "women parading around" in beauty pageants but say nothing about all the women doing the same thing for free--as everyone, in fact, is virtually compelled to do in this hypersexualized age of what Herbert Marcuse called "repressive desublimation"--is to sound more than a little like a Victorian wife tsk-tsking about prostitutes.

    Sorry to disagree with you on this.


    It isn't about what they're wearing (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Anne on Mon May 17, 2010 at 07:29:03 PM EST
    at all, it's about having to wear a bathing suit or an evening gown to get the scholarship or the big check.  

    Sure, everyone who goes to the beach generally wears a bathing suit, and I know there are a fair number of people who like to watch the women in their bikinis.  Or the men in their Speedos.  But it isn't a parade that involves judges, no one hands out crowns, no one wears a sash that says where they are from.

    If it's all about scholarship, why the need to wear a bathing suit?  What does how one looks in an evening gown have to do with anything?

    If memory serves, a lot of these contestants are already in college or have graduated - so obviously, it isn't a matter of this-is-the-only-way someone is going to get an education.

    If you've done any reading at all about the pageant world, it is all about how one looks - and the lengths these women go to to be the "best" is far beyond what should be required of them if these pageants are about more than beauty.


    Oh, now, really -- high heels in the sand (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Cream City on Mon May 17, 2010 at 10:57:04 PM EST
    would be so funny to see that it might even distract the bikini-watchers, waiting to see what falls out of the bikini.

    Of course, if you put women at the beach in high heels, you can bet a lot would fall out of those bikinis, when the women fall over from frustration at trying to get even a foot ahead, with their feet in high heels.


    OK (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 04:06:59 PM EST
    You are entitled to your opinion. To me it sounds puritanical.

    I do not see this as much different from sports, acting, or taking the vows. And because you disapprove of Rima Fakih's career moves, ambition and the results it may have on your daughter's dreams, doesn't make her win any less of an accomplishment, in my book.


    It's not that I disagree with this woman's (none / 0) (#113)
    by Anne on Mon May 17, 2010 at 06:44:28 PM EST
    career moves, it's that I think we should have evolved past the point where women compete for a freakin' crown and an armload of roses by parading like cattle at the state fair.

    One of my daughters is very athletic; she competed for years on the horse show circuit, but wasn't one much for traditional sports.  When she got to high school, they asked her to try out for - wait for it...cheerleading.

    I wasn't too thrilled, to be honest, when she made the squad, but, the cheerleading of today is not what it used to be.  It's not the elite girls/cool girls club anymore; it's athletics and gymnastics and dance.  It's competition with stunting that I used to watch through my fingers.  Members of the football and lacrosse teams used to try out because it was such a good work out.  The uniforms weren't skimpy, the routines were not sexual, the girls did not look like they all came off the blonde bombshell assembly line.

    I'm sure there are people who would equate cheerleading with beauty pageants, would see it as the same kind of exploitation of young women, and I get that.

    So, if Rima Fakih were my daughter, I'm sure I would support her, would defend her; as I said, it isn't the women/girls I fault for taking the pageant route, but this culture we live in that hasn't just not been able to get past the cattle-call thing, but has continued to nurture it.


    Opposite Sides Of The Aisle Agree (none / 0) (#105)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 02:56:53 PM EST
    In a manner of speaking:

    Halima Nasr El-Shenawi is a masters journalism student at American University in Cairo. She also wears a veil, and she wasn't impressed with Fakih's title.

    "I feel that there are other important things people should consider rather than crowning and praising her, people who actually have done something beneficial to the society than being beautiful," she said.

    ''What she is doing is against Islamic habits and tradition, but I cannot judge her," El-Shenawi said. "I believe each person will be individually judged and as we know there are a lot of freedom going on in the world and her doing this is not surprising.''



    Sexism (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:40:51 AM EST
    It is a sexist comment.

    The whole premise of the thing is sexist, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Anne on Mon May 17, 2010 at 09:05:05 AM EST
    so Trump's reference to the "girl" is all of a piece.

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Elena Kagan is getting set to be the real Miss USA: a woman of great intelligence and accomplishment who managed to set precedents wherever she went - without having to parade in front of the cameras in a bathing suit or evening gown, wearing a sash of her home state.

    If someone can enlighten me as to why we still need to treat women like objects, and perpetuate the idea that being smart is nothing compared to being beautiful and thin, I would sure like to hear it.


    being beautiful and thin (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CST on Mon May 17, 2010 at 09:32:02 AM EST
    is not all it's cracked up to be for those girls either.  I'd much rather be smart and "average" looking.  At least then you know where you stand and why people like you.

    I forget where I heard this, but it's very true.  Too many beautiful girls end up with people who forget they have souls.  But I agree with kdog too.  It's up to them to realize they deserve better as well.


    I'm not saying we will ever (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Anne on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:01:29 AM EST
    get to a point where we don't objectify, but we live in a society where parents push their babies and toddlers into the pageant system, and it just makes my skin crawl; there is a "reality" series called "Little Miss Perfect" for which I have only now and again seem promos for - I can't bring myself to watch these little Jon-Benet Ramseys in overly-sexualized outfits and makeup strutting for the crowds - I find nothing "cute" about any of it.

    It's all about the money, as usual, which is why it likely will never end.



    I'm with ya there... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:05:09 AM EST
    the child pageant scene gives me the creeps...as does any activity where it is obvious the parents are trying to live through their kids and f*ckin' 'em up in the process...competitive sports, academics...anything where they push it so far that it is obvious the kid is just a pawn for their parent(s).  It's sad.

    agree (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:07:47 AM EST
    those promos are pretty much the creepiest thing I've ever seen on tv.

    Well Yeah (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:28:12 AM EST
    The selfish motives of parents are legendary, and the example of babies and toddlers pushed into the pageant system is relatively minor compared to the whole array of horrors kids with exploitive parents face.

    Many turn out OK, in the end, despite their parents flaws. Mozart, for one, wound up contributing quite a bit to society despite the daily abuse wreaked on him by his exploitive father. His fathers motivation for exploiting Mozart's talent was pretty much entirely about money too.


    Enlightenment... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Mon May 17, 2010 at 09:18:14 AM EST
    everybody gets treated like an object sometimes Anne....the trick is not to let yourself be objectified.  The day no women sign up for the Miss USA pageant is the day there is no pageant.

    I'm failing in this regard myself...I'm an object till around 5 today.  Mans gotta eat:)


    While I realize that we will always (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 17, 2010 at 10:04:51 AM EST
    objectify to some extent, I can't see why we still celebrate something so blatant and shallow.  But it is completely understandable how depth of a puddle Trump would and could and should come to be the owner of the enterprise.

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by mmc9431 on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:33:52 AM EST
    As a society we've always envied, celebrated and admired beauty and youth, whether it's male or female.

    If that wasn't the case we wouldn't be spending the billions of dollars a year on cosmetics, clothing. surgery and all the other trapping to try and look the way we do.


    Not very smart are we? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:41:02 AM EST
    Some of it has to do with our biological drive to procreate but I do expect myself to be able to function on more than one neuropathway.  I don't wear much makeup anymore, but I did when I was younger.  I wore makeup though to be the dogshow chair.  I felt it was expected of me to present myself very done up, and didn't have the nerve to challenge the status quo.  And when you start to get a few wrinkles, a base that doesn't gather in your wrinkles will run you at least $40 a bottle on up.  And that's a "base" :)

    Different strokes (none / 0) (#80)
    by mmc9431 on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:47:10 AM EST
    I have no problem with a woman or a guy that is wrapped up in their looks. If this is what makes them happy, go for it. I also don't care if someone wants to worship the sun gods. Just don't demand that the world march to your drum.

    Shallow? (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 10:35:13 AM EST
    Well given the career options many take up, I think the career path Rima Fakih has taken, is nowhere near the bottom of the list as far as shallowness goes.

    She wasn't crowned because of (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:23:56 AM EST
    career choices squeaky.  Gimme a break

    Objects (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 10:30:47 AM EST
    Sorry that bus left the station a long time ago. Once you are able to outlaw representation, advertising, and human sexuality you can start to dismantle your project to de objectify human beings.

    And obviously you are not paying attention, being smart is one of many traits values by our society, and as I see it, many more men are represented (objectified as you would have it) as being dumb than women in our society.

    I applaud Rima Fakih for her accomplishment, she is already starting to be a role model that would make me proud were my daughter to emulate her.

    That is not to say I would not also be proud if my daughter emulated Elena Kagan.


    I don't know what planet you live on, (none / 0) (#71)
    by Anne on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:24:04 AM EST
    but I am the mother of two daughters; I think I know a thing or two about what society values and the kinds of pressures young women feel.

    As for this year's winner of the pageant, I daresay she didn't need the title to be considered accomplished, or intelligent, although I'm sure it will be a good conversation starter as she makes her way through life.  It probably has not occurred to you that there are a lot of people who will see that title and her beauty, and nothing else.  There are a lot of impressionable girls who will see her title, the adulation and the beauty, and see nothing else - they will aspire to the superficial aspects of Miss USA and not see the underlying scholarship, intelligence or contributions to the community.

    As for your comment that objectification is more of a problem for men, or that men are viewed as dumb more often than women, all I can say is, you've got to be kidding.


    It Takes A Village (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:36:06 AM EST
    And as far as dumb men, and representation, I think you must have internalized the representation so deeply that you do not even notice it.

    Apart from the fact that there is no short supply of male talking heads on teevee, who you (and I) regularly call stupid, there are the relentless teevee shows depicting male idiots, cartoons, (I think you often use the beavis and butthead cartoon to put people down), sports morons, thugs, and general low lifes all providing male role models for the intellectually impaired.

    And as for Kagan being a role model, well that is great, although I would hate to have had that role model shoved down my throat by well meaning feminist parents, particularly if I did not have the brains Kagan has.


    You're slippin' squeaky... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Mon May 17, 2010 at 08:30:27 AM EST
    no scorn for the dude who wrote the yahoo article?

    A panel of eight judges, including NBA star Carmelo Anthony, Treasure Island casino-hotel owner Phil Ruffin and Olympic figure skater Johnny Weir, were judging the girls throughout the night.

    Since I see no intent to demean in either context, I say nothing to see here, boys and girls.  Except for the new Miss USA of course...Catholic School Girls Rule.


    Yeah "Up To" (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 10:37:12 AM EST
    I am slipping. My general dislike for Trump and his arrogant sexism, distracted me from fulling vetting the yahoo article for further sexism.

    "Up Too" (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 10:37:58 AM EST
    Edit that out, damn auto fill...

    Just busting your horns... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Mon May 17, 2010 at 10:44:34 AM EST
    good buddy...I call men "boys" and women "girls" all the time, it's all in the context whether it is meant to demean...I didn't sense any intent to demean from the small article myself, by the author or Trump...though I agree Trump is a d*ck:)

    OK (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 10:50:41 AM EST
    I think that Trump is sexist through and through. His use of girl, was reflexive, because he couldn't bear the idea of crediting Rima Fakih as being the powerful woman she is.

    You on the other hand, I believe, would have no problem with referring to someone like Rima Fakih as a woman.


    My first thought... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:01:09 AM EST
    when clicking your link was lady actually...as in Foxy Lady.

    It's not objectifying to acknowledge and appreciate physical beauty is it?  If it is, I'm not sure I wanna be right:)  And I'm sure she's beautiful on the inside too with a beautiful mind, if her views on birth control are any indication.


    My Link? (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:21:03 AM EST
    And beauty, sexuality and the power inherent in both, are nothing to sweep under the rug. Sometimes I think that some, in the name of feminism, would bury that power.  Seems rather victorian, puritanical and unwittingly supporting the misogynistic worship of  of woman as desexualized virgin brides.

    The Yahoo Story.. (none / 0) (#82)
    by kdog on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:52:30 AM EST
    you linked us up to...you own it Boss:)

    And I tend to agree...there was a certain anti-sex component to old-school feminism (anti-pron crusades, for example), confusing appreciation with objectification...while new school feminists seem to embrace sexuality more.


    Credit Where Credit is Due (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:54:32 AM EST
    Can't take the glory here, it was caseyOR's link... lol

    My bad.... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:59:16 AM EST
    must fetch more coffee:)

    Oh (none / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:04:37 PM EST
    And love the Hendrix link, not sexist imo, about love and lust...

    Also I do not think that the puritanical strains of some feminists have come close to ebbing.

    Same as it ever was, imo.


    I'm the furthest thing from an expert... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:09:17 PM EST
    on feminism...but isn't this a bone of contention between the old school foremothers and today's young feminists?  Like take exotic dancing for example...old-school says it demeans and objectifies every time, new school says it can be empowering for women.

    No (none / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:16:14 PM EST
    Early feminism was split, just as it is now. The good thing is that it is a much larger project... the bad thing is that there are still many that believe sex is disempowering and should be closeted.

    Thanks... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:19:42 PM EST
    I'll add this topic to the list of thousands of things I'd like to learn a little more about.

    Hardly the issue but whatever (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:05:17 PM EST
    Snap judgment? (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:06:46 AM EST
    How can you speak of sexism (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 17, 2010 at 09:09:45 AM EST
    When you fail to condemn the utter lack of women's rights in the Islamic Theocracies?

    Hear hear Jim! (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 17, 2010 at 10:05:34 AM EST
    Again (none / 0) (#116)
    by jondee on Mon May 17, 2010 at 08:09:50 PM EST
    the only places in the world where gross human rights violations occur.

    Spare me the chickenhawk propagandizing.


    Yeah, cuz I'm a chickenhawk (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 17, 2010 at 08:47:00 PM EST
    You want to (none / 0) (#119)
    by jondee on Mon May 17, 2010 at 09:02:39 PM EST
    borrow another 500 billion from the Chinese, so we can establish some sort of world wide police force to intervene anywhere women are treated like chattel?

    Btw, I was responding more to Jim's, imo, insincere and propagandistic concern for the treatment of women in "Islamic theocracies". But, if you want to expand your horizons a little, you should read up on the way untouchable women are treated in India: to give one example that never shows up on the outrage meter..


    India did not attack me though (none / 0) (#120)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 17, 2010 at 09:22:38 PM EST
    because they hate me.

    So it's not REALLY (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by jondee on Tue May 18, 2010 at 01:51:17 PM EST
    about how anyone treats their women or spreading freedom and democracy..

    Im glad we at least got THAT out of the way.


    Yup (none / 0) (#124)
    by squeaky on Tue May 18, 2010 at 01:55:54 PM EST
    Vengeance, the all purpose motivation, for many. Progress and civilization is waaaay overrated, imo.

    Easily (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 10:45:18 AM EST
    As I do not spare my abhorence for sexism anywhere in the world. But, unlike you, I do not make believe that because of the sexist way an extremely small percentage of people in other countries act is cause to generalize that 1.3 billion adherents of Islamic faith, are also sexist and lower life forms that should be eliminated.

    And for someone who is ok with torture, shooting suspected criminals on site, raping and killing hundred of thousands because they are communist, supporting McCarthism in its original form and the latest promulgated by AZ and Sheriff Arpaio, I think your hands are far from clean.


    The treatment of women (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 17, 2010 at 02:14:32 PM EST
    within the Islamic theocracies is well known and well documented.

    That you cannot condemn them and make their cessation a requirement for any support of the Muslim positions demonstrates that your so-called support is merely a hypocritical position designed to try and make your ideological positions acceptable in America.

    You know, condemning both sides is not forbidden.

    As for your other blathering charges, how about providing some proof? I mean those 1000s of links and all....



    English? (none / 0) (#102)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 02:17:11 PM EST
    No doubt your muddled brain is so confused from looking under your bed so much...  I have no idea what you are moaning about.

    Transparent (none / 0) (#117)
    by jondee on Mon May 17, 2010 at 08:14:30 PM EST
    (if it weren't for the excess fecal material) faux concern for Human Rights..

    Face it Jim, if Richard Perle and Pat Robertson wanted regime change in Borneo, you'd be blathering about the way women were treated there.


    I wonder if Al Qaeda will feel the need (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 17, 2010 at 10:27:53 AM EST
    to issue more theatrical threats?

    Mozart's "Cosi Fan Tutti" (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by oculus on Sun May 16, 2010 at 11:11:28 PM EST
    streaming on KUSC FM with Renee Fleming, Ann Sophie von Otter, and Sir George Solti.  

    Is this compatible for finishing Paul Theroux's new novel "A Dead Hand"?

    How can NY State... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by kdog on Mon May 17, 2010 at 09:35:24 AM EST
    lock us out of so many of our parks and public lands?

    Our beautiful parks are about all we get outta for our high taxes that has actual value...how dare the man padlock the gates. The lands aren't theirs to lock up...they're ours.

    I would think that THIS is the time (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:15:16 AM EST
    for a fed government work program to man the parks and maintain and repair the parks, very FDR too.  But I'm stoopid.

    Oh yeah, and the Wall Street (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:17:57 AM EST
    really needs for any sort of notion of entitlements to go eff off or else their theater of smoke and mirrors will crash.  Such a jobs program screams entitled to a job and entitled to the use of your parks...you and I are entitled to NOTHING unless they say so!

    Illinois (none / 0) (#68)
    by mmc9431 on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:20:38 AM EST
    They've stripped sections of bark off the trees in the forest preserve by me to kill the trees and restore the prairie. Now when I drive by it looks like a disaster scene from a movie. All these dead bare tree standing in water and mud. It's very depressing.

    I also don't know what they did about the animals and birds that were living in the forest.

    I think they're just getting the land cleared to sell when the next real estate boom comes along.


    Interesting twist (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by CST on Mon May 17, 2010 at 09:46:52 AM EST
    on the "gay marriage" front.  Straight couples in Austria fighting for right to have civil-partnership that is currently available for gay couples.  They think marriage laws are too confining and want a looser legal arrangement.  Link

    Don't watch anything (none / 0) (#1)
    by kenosharick on Sun May 16, 2010 at 08:50:44 PM EST
    you mentioned- but there are new episodes of The Simpsons, Family Guy, and Treme on HBO, which I am liking more and more each week.

    Just finished reading Turow's new (none / 0) (#3)
    by caseyOR on Sun May 16, 2010 at 08:59:30 PM EST
    book, Innocent.It is every bit as suspenseful as Presumed Innocent. I haven't liked all of Turow's novels, but these two are standouts in the courtroom drama genre.

    The last tribal council (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Sun May 16, 2010 at 09:23:18 PM EST
    on Survivor, where the jury addresses the final 2 or 3,  always makes me hate myself for watching the show. Something in the water the jury drinks makes them all forget they were playing the same game too.

    Sunday night baseball. Phillies are (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sun May 16, 2010 at 09:33:06 PM EST
    beating the Brewers--barely.

    BTW, Tovah Feldschuh in "Golda's Balcony" is a don't miss theatrical experience.  A tad one-sided, but--still.  

    Wish I could have seen Feldschuh (none / 0) (#10)
    by Cream City on Sun May 16, 2010 at 10:13:45 PM EST
    but liked it a lot with the road cast, too. :-)

    I talked to her after the play. She sd. (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Sun May 16, 2010 at 10:16:49 PM EST
    the play I saw her in in New York, "Irena's Vow," is being reworked for her as a single actor piece.  Critics didn't like it but I found it quite interesting.  

    Trevor Hoffman has a 12+ ERA? (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Sun May 16, 2010 at 10:18:38 PM EST

    The Tudors (none / 0) (#9)
    by byteb on Sun May 16, 2010 at 10:09:52 PM EST
    Henry VIII is about to take his last wife.
    Unfortunately, he has to wait until her husband dies.

    And she's scared to death (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 17, 2010 at 08:17:31 AM EST
    to marry that murderer.  My husband watched it with me and when Henry sent his Seymour rival to the Netherlands my husband said that it was good to be the king.

    celtics won today (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Sun May 16, 2010 at 10:31:41 PM EST
    they have been on fire lately.

    although the bruins had an epic collapse fri night.

    Can't win em all I guess.

    AMAZING questions on the Miss USA pagant. (none / 0) (#14)
    by EL seattle on Sun May 16, 2010 at 10:44:51 PM EST
    Contestants asked their opinions about:

    • Arizona law and states rights

    • BP responsibility for spill disaster

    • Availability of birth control

    • Social network site and government control.

    These were short questions with beauty-contestant answers, but, I mean, daaaamn.  Compare and contrast with the Sunday AM talk shows.

    Wasn't there (none / 0) (#98)
    by jbindc on Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:28:00 PM EST
    An issue a couple of years ago about the way Carrie Prejean answered a question about gay marriage and people kept asking why were the contestants asked questions like these?  Seems if someone doesn't give a politically correct answer, it could spell trouble for their chances to win.

    I expected Trump and Co. to drop... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by EL seattle on Mon May 17, 2010 at 04:13:37 PM EST
    ... this sort of mega-awkward moment from the award program's format and have the concept vanish forever into the memory sinkhole.  Instead they seemed to embace the concept in a somewhat-controlled format.  As near as I can tell, the contestants knew what all of the questions could be, but they were chosen at random.  (Not unlike a few live public political debates that I've watched.)  

    I think that the judges were grading the responses, but I'm not sure what sort of scale they used.  (Were they judged on the number of 'uhs' and 'ahs' in their answer?  Or were the contestants judged in any way on the controversiality of their answer?)

    One way or another, just to have these contestants address real issues like immigration, birth control, and online privacy in a live broadcast setting was a really, really positive thing, I think.  


    Interesting (none / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 04:19:04 PM EST
    I thought that perhaps the questions were to see whether or not the contestant read the newspapers. But since the questions were all known, I think the judging was about acting. IOW to see if they could be a teevee news caster, or something like that.

    Or any politician.... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by EL seattle on Mon May 17, 2010 at 05:01:44 PM EST
    ...at the local, national, or international level.  I think that this was not too different from the way most political folks train with an assortment of "likely questions" that they might be asked when they're out in public.  It's like preparing for likely questions at a job interview.  

    The question is, just how many possible questions were there?  The birth control question that Ms. Rima Fakih answered wasn't exactly a this-week-current-news topic (unlike the oil disaster).  How many different questions did the contestants have to prepare for? This seems like a perfectly valid quick exercise of the contestant's debate-skill reflexes.  


    Yup (none / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 05:11:26 PM EST
    And no doubt that the winner will be pimping for Trump and NBC..  bless her heart.. the american dream

    Breaking Bad! (none / 0) (#17)
    by otherlisa on Sun May 16, 2010 at 11:06:25 PM EST
    Best show on TV (though I will admit, I'm behind on the pay channel stuff(.

    Agree, it's the best (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 16, 2010 at 11:58:09 PM EST
    I watched the last four episodes of season two last night (via Netflix) in one sitting. Is AMC a pay channel? I thought it was just regular cable.

    I'm going to watch tonight's episode now and call it a night.


    AMC is cable (none / 0) (#28)
    by otherlisa on Mon May 17, 2010 at 02:43:54 AM EST
    But not a pay channel like HBO and Showtime (neither of which I have right now).

    I just love Breaking Bad. It's such an amazing commentary on where we are in the US today.


    Movie night.... (none / 0) (#21)
    by desertswine on Sun May 16, 2010 at 11:57:30 PM EST
    Went to see Polanski's "Ghost Writer." Very good flick. Needed a break after the d*mn washer ran over.

    OY! (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sun May 16, 2010 at 11:58:59 PM EST
    Hope you did not have too much damage... downstairs neighbors?

    Laura Bush (none / 0) (#25)
    by Natal on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:19:27 AM EST
    likes Kagan -- link And she's pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. Go Laura, be true to thy self and be free from the stifling political consciousness of the country.

    I recorded the Pacific (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 17, 2010 at 08:11:47 AM EST
    and I watched the Tudors.  I have recorded the last three episodes of the Pacific and will watch them when I have some down time.  In the past three weeks I had to chair two different dogshows and no previous experience so I was pretty distracted for over a month. I watched the grandgirls last night and they stayed over, the Pacific is hard for me to get into so I'm not even going to attempt it today.  I need a block of zero distractions time.

    I like Turow's words too... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Mon May 17, 2010 at 08:35:13 AM EST
    But I don't think he can find our pulse...

    Catching bad guys is important, but it is not the only thing this society values; we also care about certain minimal standards of decency in the government's treatment of citizens and limits on the authority of the state.

    Maybe we used to value limited authority and common decency...but not no more man.  We value "catching bad guys", at any cost.  We value the false sense of security authoritarianism provides.  Look no further at how popular the idea of scrapping Miranda is.

    Scott Turow is a former federal (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:25:31 AM EST

    After earning his Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree in 1978, Turow became an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Chicago, serving in that position until 1986.

    I was aware... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:35:49 AM EST
    and he got outta that racket just as it started to get real ugly...1986.  Crack-Cocaine got big and civil liberties went to sh*t as pols,  prosecutors, and law enforcement went batsh*t to "catch the bad guys" at any cost.

    But, according to many here, once-a- (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:39:53 AM EST
    prosecutor, always a prosecutor.

    Well (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:47:27 AM EST
    If you are referring to your rehabilitation, it has not been an easy process...  still a long way to go, imo.  

    I am now #518 in the queue of (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:05:05 PM EST
    518 for library copy of "Innocent."  Part of my continuing rehabilitation.

    Not A High Priority, It Would Seem (none / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:08:04 PM EST
    $15.11 at Amazon

    Unless there are 300+ copies at the library..  


    Easy on our pal... (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by kdog on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:17:53 PM EST
    I'm glad somebody is still using the library besides me...otherwise there are leaders who would love nothing more than to close every branch of the public library to close budget gaps caused by out of control "tough on crime and pocketbooks" politicians,law enforcement & prosecutors:)

    Just About Priorities (none / 0) (#92)
    by squeaky on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:24:13 PM EST
    Nothing about using the library....  Although, quelling desire and waiting in line in order to stick to a principal is admirable, if that is the case.  

    I tis. Plus it saves trees. (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:50:00 PM EST
    In addition, I am now #64 in the queue for "Wolf Hall," which is a long read.

    Hmm - "Wolf Hall" has been readily (none / 0) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:41:09 PM EST
    available in my library on a walk in basis for at least two months. So hopefully, I will be able to access "Innocent" soon without queuing for it.

    California libraries have fallen on (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:42:50 PM EST
    harder times.  

    "Innocent" got a great review in the (none / 0) (#42)
    by esmense on Mon May 17, 2010 at 09:27:59 AM EST
    NY Times Book Review this Sunday.

    We never watch anything when it actually airs. Sunday night is a little wine, homemade pizza, "Modern Family" and, now that its back on NBC, "Friday Night Lights." I also caught up on some back episodes of "Chopped" and "Say Yes to the Dress" this weekend -- my favorite reality shows. Tastes I seem to share, among all my family and friends, only with my 9 year old niece.

    I like watching things on my schedule too (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 17, 2010 at 09:58:29 AM EST
    OFA pulling out all the stops for (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Mon May 17, 2010 at 10:56:08 AM EST

    Jake tapper has this posted this morning:

    Organizing for America, the former grass-roots campaign arm for President Obama's 2008 campaign, is trying to rally supporters to phone bank and get out the vote in Pennsylvania for Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Penn., the former Republican locked in a tight primary race with a far more progressive Democrat, Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Penn.

    Chris Bolling, the national volunteer coordinator for OFA, writes in an email that the "stakes of this election are high: ensuring that allies of the President are elected in the House and Senate to fight for change. So starting this weekend, through Tuesday's election, there will be phone banks for OFA volunteers in D.C. We'll call into Pennsylvania and encourage voters to support leaders who will fight for President Obama's vision for change."

    More power for indefinite detention (none / 0) (#73)
    by mmc9431 on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:25:33 AM EST
    S.C. rules it's legal to keep sex offenders in jail after they've served their time.

    I'm not advocating sex offenders. But if they've served their time, why should a state be able to ignore that and keep them forever? Why not make it life without parole? This ruling even applies to people that have not actually committed a crime other that veiwing pornography on their computers.

    Today's opinion addresses federal, (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:42:16 PM EST
    not state law.  

    Protest slated at Staples Center (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:41:27 PM EST
    re Phil Jackson's statements re AZ immigration law:  LAT

    "The way we look at it, Phil Jackson is supporting the Arizona law," said Mario Gonzalez, a longtime Lakers fan and rally organizer. "That's surprising. It caught us off guard. We want to find out where the team stands on the law."
    . . . .

    Gonzalez, the protest organizer, said Monday's rally was not meant as a call to boycott the Lakers or root against the L.A. squad in its push to repeat as league champions. Rather, he said, the action is aimed at condemning Jackson's apparent support for the Arizona law and clarifying Lakers management's opinion on the matter.
     [Italics added.]

    Why should the team take (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 17, 2010 at 02:24:47 PM EST
    a stand.

    It is a basketball team.

    It makes money by providing entertainemnt for fans. Some of who may like the law, others who hate the law and the many who don't really care.

    "We want to give Phil Jackson the benefit of the doubt," said Nativo Lopez, head of the Mexican American Political Assn. "There are nuances here that Phil Jackson perhaps is not familiar with. He's an expert at basketball but not at immigration law."

    Sounds like Jackson has read the law. Lopez obviously has not.


    I thought it was funny the organizer (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Mon May 17, 2010 at 02:46:29 PM EST
    wants a protest but not a boycott and that he is a die hard Lakers fan.