home

Monday Evening Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon May 31, 2010 at 08:37:27 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Hearing tomorrow. No time.

Hope your weekend was good.

Open Thread.

< The Greatest Casualty | Al and Tipper Gore Announce Separation >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Evening Open Thread | 200 comments (200 topical)
    Watching Vertigo for the umpteenth time (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon May 31, 2010 at 09:39:51 PM EST
    It's really intense.

    great movie (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Peter G on Mon May 31, 2010 at 10:02:11 PM EST
    Yay, Hitch!

    Parent
    I have to say: I don't think it's perfect (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon May 31, 2010 at 10:12:29 PM EST
    Paramount forced him to include the flashback/dream sequence that gives away the secret of the movie. Hitch also made other more entertaining movies (North by Northwest being the prime example). And Kim Novak is no Grace Kelly (though Kelly wouldn't have been right for the part). But I still think Vertigo is a work of art.

    Parent
    I like Vertigo, but never loved it, (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 08:47:14 AM EST
    Last time I watched it was a few years ago and it just seemed phony and a little gimmicky to me. Not even in my top 5 Hitchcock.

    Rear Window and Notorious though...I could watch those 100 times

    Parent

    Psycho (none / 0) (#145)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:33:23 PM EST
    The Thirty Nine Steps, Shadow of Doubt, Rope.

    etc etc

    Parent

    North by Northwest (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 03:08:53 PM EST
    I love watching the classic films of the 50s and 60s--not so much for their plots, as how they depict society of that time in the little things.....

    In North by Northwest, the opening scenes involve Cary Grant drinking and driving in a comic way.  He is forced to drink a fifth and then he drives drunk, almost crashing many times....and it is really, really funny, including the scene of him standing before the judge.....My how things have changed....

    Better yet, look at women's roles in 60s films....We have truly changed lightyears....  Look at any John Wayne movie and just try not to cringe at how women are depicted....

    Parent

    Perfect (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Mon May 31, 2010 at 10:40:28 PM EST
    As compared to what?  Have to say Vertigo is, among others, a film that set a standard, IOW it is a classic.

    To say it could have been better... well, most are in awe as it is.

    Parent

    There are different standards of perfect, I think (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon May 31, 2010 at 10:53:34 PM EST
    I can't think of just about any other movie from 1958 that I'd care to watch again. I just looked up the best picture from that year: Gigi. I've never seen it. (But it's hard to see a color movie form 1953-1961--they're often quite faded).

    Still, I think even Vertigo can stand criticism.

    Parent

    Gigi can stand some criticism too ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 08:52:28 AM EST
    Leslie Caron is adorable, but the premise is a little creepy.

    Seemed like Lerner and Loewe just Frenchified their My Fair Lady Broadway score (pre-movie).

    Parent

    Creepy? (none / 0) (#37)
    by itscookin on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 10:36:06 AM EST
    It was a period film. Little girl being raised by her mother and grandmother to become a courtesan for a wealthy and powerful man. It had been their life choice, and they were passing down the family business. Not much different than mom's encouraging their little girls to become pole dancers today.

    Parent
    Well, then, nothing creepy about that! (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 10:41:19 AM EST
    The creepy part to me was that the Louis Jordan character basically helped raise his own courtesan. If she had met him after she had been raised as the courtesan I would not have batted an eye.

    Parent
    Paths of Glory (none / 0) (#10)
    by shoephone on Mon May 31, 2010 at 11:06:22 PM EST
    and Touch of Evil are both from 1958. I've watched both of them numerous times.

    Parent
    That's fair (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon May 31, 2010 at 11:18:33 PM EST
    I've seen neither.

    Parent
    You should see "Touch of Evil" (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:08:18 AM EST
    Orson Welles noir, corrupt-police thriller set in Mexico.  Be sure it's the restored 1998 re-release version.

    Parent
    OMG (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:25:45 AM EST
    One of the greatest opening scenes ever". And one of my favorite films.

    Parent
    I'll put it on the list (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:16:06 AM EST
    I'm a little picky about "restored" movies. Vertigo, of course, was restored by the master of the craft (in color, anyway).

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:04:16 AM EST
    One can talk and write about Vertigo, if that is what you mean by criticism, but it a classic, and will always be considered important.

    Sort of like you can talk about the lower left hand corner of a Rembrandt by it is still an extraordinary lower left hand corner. Something to be copied in fact, classic.

    Parent

    Bernard Herrmann was never satisfied with it (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:09:31 AM EST
    and his score was (is) excellent.

    A movie is inanimate. It doesn't find it strange that I can tear it apart and still love it at the end of the day.

    Parent

    For what it's worth.... (none / 0) (#18)
    by EL seattle on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:23:41 AM EST
    Occasionally there are film screenings of a restored low-fade 70mm color print of Vertigo (from the mid-1990s) projected at top-end cinemas, usually in larger cities like SF, LA, etc..  I think that the experience is well worth a long trip if the opportunity arises, if only for the chance to see the redwood forest scene on a BIG screen.  (But that's just me.)  

    Here's a link to an article about the 1990s Vertigo restoration: Vertigo

    Parent

    Yup, that's the Harris restoration (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:32:07 AM EST
    Good luck trying to see a 70mm print of anything not IMAX, though.

    For example, the last I checked, there isn't a single movie theater in Philadelphia capable of projecting a 70mm movie. It's been something like 20 years.

    In New York, it's pretty much just the Ziegfeld right now. And they're currently showing schlock.

    I'm waiting on my next chance to see Lawrence of Arabia. I missed the last window anywhere near me--in 2002.

    Parent

    I would travel to see that (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 08:53:47 AM EST
    I was going to remark that the California locations were the best thing about the movie for me.

    Parent
    Interesting that Vertigo (none / 0) (#33)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 09:52:12 AM EST
    wasn't even nominated for BP, but not surprising.  The Academy® could create an annual Most Glaring Academy Omissions award and start with probably dozens of excellent candidates when the matter is examined. Psycho for instance in 1960, also not up for BP.

    Vertigo I saw for the first time in the mid-70s on the big screen at my university, after it (and Rear Window and NxNW) had been out of circulation for years.  Impressive visually and artistically for a mainstream pic, it still had an emotional distance about it.  I might have preferred a few more character development scenes between Stewart and Barbara Bel Geddes, the only two people in this one who were in a position to warm up the picture.

    Over the years, The Birds has edged ahead of Vertigo on my all-time Hitch List.  Characters a little more human and believable, great story, and with most of the SF/NoCal visual feast that we got in Vertigo.  

    Parent

    Hitch (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 10:35:57 AM EST
    never won an oscar for a film

    Parent
    And Rocky beat (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 10:58:54 AM EST
    Network, Taxi Driver, and All the President's Men.

    Though that might have simply been a voting methods quirk.

    It's hard to see how Vertigo wasn't nominated. But I've read that the original reviews were not good.

    And sometimes the competition was what did it. I mean, Rear Window was a very good picture. But it's hard to argue with people who liked On the Waterfront better.

    Parent

    Right, AH never won an Oscar® (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 11:56:59 AM EST
    for BD nor did any of his pix win for BP.  But what's even more interesting is the number of times an outstanding Hitch pic never got nominated:  Vertigo.  Psycho.  Notorious.

    All 3 of these have for a long time now been considered certifiably great classics of cinema.  Embarrassing omissions by the Academy.

    As for the wildly overhyped Rocky (which I've never seen of course, not being a huge fan of organized fisticuffs nor of Sylvester Stallone), I was channel surfing the other day and came upon 3 boxing experts, all of whom liked the film, picking it apart for some of its glaring errors of action in the ring, which one assumes might have been the one area the filmmakers would work hard to get right.  I wonder if it won because of its flag-waving cold war aspects?

    ATPM was a standout that year, even if we accept that the moviemakers somewhat exaggerated and romanticized Woodstein and Bradlee.  A rare realistic political conspiracy film that got Hollywood establishment support, just not quite enough.

    Taxi Driver probably was too violent a movie to win the top award.  Network too cynical, though it might have been the best of the lot.

    Parent

    Rocky was a good movie (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:59:49 PM EST
    The Cold War stuff came in later sequels....

    It was a swipe at Ali (Apollo Creed).

    But it was a classic, little guy, underdog movie....

    Cinderella Man with Russell Crowe was actually better (because Crowe was fighting to put food on the table for his family during the Great Depression where Rocky was fighting for his personal dignity)--and a true story to boot....

    The later Rocky movies were terrible--as were the Rambo movies....But the first one was very good.

    Parent

    Well, there you are. But I (none / 0) (#179)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 04:11:17 PM EST
    did try to warn that I haven't seen it.

    Not a fan of pugilist-themed movies.  And will stay twice as far away from the movie if it stars a supermacho knuckledragging type like Stallone, even if he's playing an underdog.  So, never seen any of the Rockies, nor Raging Bull, nor Requiem for a Heavyweight, nor the thousand other boxing pix that became contendas or those that coulda been contendas.

    Though I did once have an amusing encounter and chat with Sylvester's mother, in a bookstore, with Momma Stallone mistaking me for the author of the book she was holding ...

    Parent

    Makes sense (none / 0) (#182)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 04:20:13 PM EST
    But before Sly became, well... Sly, he was a sympathetic guy....

    If only he had stopped at the first Rocky....Now, caricature and botox take their toll.

    Parent

    brodie (none / 0) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:25:08 PM EST
    I always considered David Lynch the sort of boomer Hitchcock.  I remember when I was a child hearing my parents talk about Hitchcocks movies and I hear the same kinds of things being said about Lynch now.

    they both have a style of film making that is a few years ahead of the pack and so not usually recognized.

    Parent

    Titanic won Best Picture (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 11:57:37 AM EST
    Im sorry Titanic fans, but that had to be the worst slap in the face to cinematic art in the last fifty years.

    Parent
    Thank god Avatar or District 9 (none / 0) (#53)
    by observed on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:02:24 PM EST
    didn't win.

    Parent
    re: Titanic (none / 0) (#84)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:46:33 PM EST
    No kidding.  If James Cameron gets to win awards, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" should've won a boatload of them.  That would've made me happier anyway, I LOVE that movie.

    Parent
    That said, I thought Titanic was (none / 0) (#94)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:51:03 PM EST
    better than Avatar, FWIW.

    Parent
    There's a place for a well-crafted (none / 0) (#123)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:30:09 PM EST
    straight-forward mass entertainment like Titanic which largely avoids making glaring blunders in character or plot development that usually happen with general appeal movies.  

    The expensive f/x paid off handsomely on the big screen, while the romantic understory was, thanks to the lively and lovely Kate Winslet, more than adequate for this soft-touch moviegoer.   Throwing in old-Hollywood movie actress Gloria Stuart for the contemporary Winslet character was a nifty touch that Cameron should be applauded for.

    Worthy of at least being in BP consideration, imo, and a worthier winner than some BP winners of recent vintage.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:27:43 PM EST
    that Titannic was not the worst movie to ever win.

    Parent
    Maybe not in the history (none / 0) (#155)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 03:07:16 PM EST
    of the Academy Awards, but it has to be in the top ten at least..

    What else was nominated that year?

    Parent

    1997 BP nominees (none / 0) (#174)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 03:59:45 PM EST
    "TITANIC", "L.A. Confidential", "As Good As It Gets", "Good Will Hunting", "The Full Monty"

    I liked all those movies fine, and I think at the time I favored 'As Good as it Gets', but in retrospect are any of them that much better than 'Titanic'? Maybe not.

    Probably my favorite film was not even nominated that year.

    Parent

    I think most critics (none / 0) (#176)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 04:03:31 PM EST
    give that distinction to 'Ordinary People' for beating 'Raging Bull' in 1980. At least in the last 30 years.

    Parent
    Flotilla attack (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Xclusionary Rule 4ever on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 10:08:43 AM EST
    After reading "The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy," I was pissed, but after this flotilla attack, I am mad as hell.
    PREFACE: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYBODY'S RELIGION!
    A country getting massive aid and military supplies from the USA with an extraordinary amount of influence in Washington is engaging in inhuman acts of aggression and is doing everything possible to distance us from Turkey and get us into a third unnecessary war in the middle east.
    The time is right to say enough is enough.
    Obama has to stand up to AIPAC and start distancing the US from Israel. Start treating Israel the same way we treat Canada, Mexico, Germany, England and the rest of our allies.  That's all I'm saying.

    I'm curious to see... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:40:50 PM EST
    if the Israeli commandos who boarded the ship will be charged with piracy...I seem to recall some kid just got 27 years cage time for pulling a similar stunt.

    Parent
    Unlikely (none / 0) (#172)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 03:56:50 PM EST
    The US has blocked a UN security council resolution to investigate the incident. The US has instead said that Israel own investigation of the event is all that is needed. Move along nothing to see here.

    Parent
    Well, Turkey could have not supported this (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 11:52:49 AM EST
    attempt to bring weapons and supplies to the terrorist organization Hamas.

    Turkey has been moving towards the radical Muslim for several years now. NATO will regret letting them in.

    Parent

    riiiiight (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CST on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 11:56:46 AM EST
    you know they didn't have any weapons on those ships right?

    It was humanitarian aid.

    But you know, those RADICALS trying to feed people must be stopped.

    Link

    "Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's prime minister, says the vessels were all carefully searched before they left Turkey.

    "These boats that left from Turkey and other countries were checked in a strict way under the framework of the rules of international navigation and were only loaded with humanitarian aid,""

    Parent

    Israel is losing her soul (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:08:53 PM EST
    with acts like this....

    Parent
    The old "fighting monsters (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:12:58 PM EST
    until you become one" syndrome..

    Parent
    Tragic (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:18:45 PM EST
    As Israel becomes stronger militarily, it beomces more authoritarian and right wing.

    Rabin's loss has cascaded across the years.  The assassin did in fact turn the tide of politics in Israel....Very ugly now....

    Parent

    Netanyahu (none / 0) (#135)
    by christinep on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:15:08 PM EST
    In this battle for the soul, as you suggest, how is Netanyahu's government faring. Wasn't his earlier stint as PM characterized by increased bellicosity? Am I dreaming, or is this the Netanyahu pattern? Any active parliamentary challengers in Tel Aviv?

    Parent
    I think so (none / 0) (#157)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 03:11:33 PM EST


    Parent
    When you attempt to run a (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:33:35 PM EST
    blockade... and when you refuse to be inspected...

    Then you can expect bad things to happen to you.

    Parent

    How do a group of (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:37:43 PM EST
    unarmed people "refuse to br inspected" by a gang of authoritarian thugs armed to the teeth?

    Parent
    Well, looking at the videos (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:40:54 PM EST
    it appears they tried using iron bars and knifes...

    Didn't work out too well for those killed and injured, eh?

    Bringing a knife to a gun fight is very bad planning.

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:51:21 PM EST
    Attacking a ship in international waters is piracy. We know how you feel about property rights and pirates: they should be shot and hanged. But evidentially you are fine with pirates as long as they have lilly white skin and pledge their allegiance to a right wing government.

    What principles, typical right wing hypocrisy.


    Parent

    Oh really? (none / 0) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:16:49 PM EST
    Attacking a ship that has announced its intention to run a blockage is what??????

    Look, you know and I know that your are anti-Israel and pro Hamas. Let us quit the dancing and hiding behind "pirates."

    You will feel better and look more honest.

    Parent

    Is this an attempt at humor (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:51:15 PM EST
    when you say:

    Bringing a knife to a gun fight is very bad planning.

    Clearly there was no planning of a military response to the Israelis.  That makes the raid even worse....


    Parent

    Somewhat (none / 0) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:19:35 PM EST
    but also a factual comment. The soldiers were attacked by (gag gag) peace activists using iron bars and knifes.

    One of them got unlucky and wrestled a weapon away from a soldier and things went bad in a hurry.

    Parent

    So peace activists make you gag? (none / 0) (#153)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:51:30 PM EST
    Nice.

    That they had bars or whatever and were protecting themselves from an armed invasion....

    If I were on that boat and some armed dudes were trying to rough up women and old men,.....

    I understand why the people onboard responded as they did.....It would be hard to stand idly by and see that happen.    

    Parent

    So the evileee Jews were attacking (none / 0) (#189)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 04:34:12 PM EST
    old women and old men....

    Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeee

    Surely you can do better.

    And yes, given the harm they did during Vietnam... gag gag is the nicest thing I can say.

    Parent

    I could say, "Oy" but this deserves (none / 0) (#191)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 04:40:46 PM EST
    the full "Oy Gevalt!"

    No use responding....

    A fact free zone is no place for discussion....

    Parent

    Evil Jews? (none / 0) (#192)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 04:41:59 PM EST
    Well there you go again with your anti-semitism. The savages who attacked the flotilla carrying humanitarian aid for Gaza prisoners, were attacked by agents of the Israeli state, aka soldiers.

    Did you determine that they are all jews because your x-ray vision saw through their undergarments?

    Or are you trying to make a case that these murderers acting on behalf of Israel are representative of the Jewish People.

    In any case, your anti-semitic remarks are really nasty, imo.

    Parent

    I see that you cannot appreciate (none / 0) (#194)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 06:04:07 PM EST
    sarcasm....

    No surprise there.

    When you gonna attack Rove and Bush? This must be there fault.

    lol

    Parent

    Sarcasm? (none / 0) (#198)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 06:14:34 PM EST
    At whose expense? Stereotyping millions of people for the sake of defending a right wing's regime seems about as absurd as your constant vilification of 1.3 people who consider themselves Muslims, because a statistically trivial few are criminals.

    Sounds to me like you would do well to review, and reflect on your anti-semitic statements, whether through sarcasm, jest, and whether they are jews or arabs.

    Parent

    So, you despise all peace activists (none / 0) (#205)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 06:27:44 PM EST
    across the board.  Really?  Just because?

    How is this consistent with the teachings of Jesus?  

    Parent

    You went from "there are no facts" (none / 0) (#180)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 04:15:42 PM EST
    to having all the intimate details, in a hurray.

    Parent
    iron bars and knives.. (none / 0) (#92)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:50:15 PM EST
    that would make perfect sense..

    You forgot the part about "hiding behind human shields"; or didnt your unimpeachable stand-in-for-Jesus use that term this time?

    Parent

    when you lie (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by CST on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:48:08 PM EST
    about weapons

    you can expect to be called out.

    Parent

    Sooo (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:51:42 PM EST
    Should all ships in international waters be subject to Israeli inspection, else risk having their passengers slaughtered?

    I'm thinking your answer will be yes?

    Parent

    If the destination has been announced (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:21:32 PM EST
    and statements made of intentions to run the blockade...... YES.  (didn't mean to hurt your ears)

    Parent
    Refuse to be Inspected? (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:39:33 PM EST
    Moving the goal post to more revisionist history? Where did you get that new bit of wingnut propaganda?

    Just like shooting looters, as long as they have dark skin, who cares? Nice one ppj.

    Parent

    Try wataching something besides MSNBC (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:42:45 PM EST
    and reading something besides KOS and MoveOn.

    Your hatred of Israel is well documented and well known.

    Parent

    Hatred Of Israel? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:53:17 PM EST
    Please stop your lies, or back up your slander.

    I do have contempt for right wing hypocrites though. And the current Israeli government policies are about as right wing as you can get.

    Parent

    Weapons? (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:06:40 PM EST
    Of course leave it to ppj, disseminator of right wing propaganda, to channel the wingnut echo chamber to TL. Why not quote your sources, David Horowitz?

    Parent
    Why are you surprised? (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:09:54 PM EST
    The real facts don't matter.....They invent reality....

    Parent
    Hahahahaha (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:11:09 PM EST
    Hardly surprised. Predictable, and right on cue. That's our ppj.

    Parent
    He judges things by his personal (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:15:13 PM EST
    b.s. meter.  In other words, if the facts don't fit his biases and predispositions, he ignores them......Much research by jury consultants shows this to often be the case....That is why jury selection is so important....

    Parent
    Well, Not Really (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:23:44 PM EST
    Never really heard anything from our friend that was original, maybe some musings about his garden. He get's his material from wingnut sites, and quotes them pretty much verbatim.

    IOW, he does not have any need for a b.s. meter, whatever BEck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Horowitz, et al. say, is fit to print.

    Parent

    Multiple attacks by (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:38:24 PM EST
    the hate Israel wing of the Democratic party has become rather standard and expected.

    As is the psycho babble from the usual babblers....

    But facts? Proof? There is none..

    Now IF (yes I'm yelling) the captain had agreed to inspection no troops would have been involved..

    Logic. Try it sometime.

    Parent

    "Facts? Proof? There is none." (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:08:36 PM EST
    Well, Turkey could have not supported this attempt to bring weapons and supplies to the terrorist organization Hamas.

    Haven't seen a single bit of evidence to suggest that this was an attempt to smuggle weapons.  Strangely enough, despite making such a strong accusation, you cite no "facts" or "proof".  Guess that means your accusation is nothing more than, ... what did you call it again? ... Oh, yeah, ...

    ... psycho babble.

    Parent

    Integrity and anti-psychotic (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:47:10 PM EST
    medication try them sometime..

    You were deseminating a lie about the ships carrying weapons above; wheres your evidence to substantiate that charge?


    Parent

    Jim, you are behind in this conversation (none / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:48:42 PM EST
    because you said that the humanitarian workers were trying to smuggle "weapons"...

    You were clearly wrong.  But rather than admit that mistake, you charge on with name calling etc.  

    Parent

    Speaking of name calling... (none / 0) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:28:58 PM EST
    check that mote in your left eye....

    Israel had every reason to suspect that an attempt to smuggle weapons was underway. Turkey could have refused to support the effort (there, feel better?) and the ship's captain could have accepted an inspection and capture by Israel.

    When you have an enemy who has vowed to destroy you and rejected all attempts at a settlement while launching rockets and suicide bombers you have every, repeat every, right to blockage and board and inspect and take control of all ships trying to get through.

    Parent

    Jim, there were no weapons (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:38:43 PM EST
    This is deja vu all over again.....

    You guys don't really care if there are weapons or not.   It doesn't matter to you.  Just the threat of weapons is enough....Just say, "abracadabra, weapons sesame!" and you can do all manner of horrid things....

    You guys didn't care that Saddam Hussein had no weapons, either.

    There was no attempt to smuggle weapons.  It was humanitarian aid.  Those are the facts--as everyone agrees.  At least accept those facts before charging on....Or, if you cannot accept those facts, at least don't invent the opposite as facts....

    Parent

    You just don't get it (none / 0) (#190)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 04:40:41 PM EST
    Israel has blockaded the port to keep all supplies out. They do this because all supplies aid their enemy and because they expect weapons to be tried to be smuggled in.

    That the cargo had no RPG's and/or AK14's is of no consequence.

    Parent

    Not "wrong"; it's his (none / 0) (#166)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 03:48:47 PM EST
    usual modus operandi of sliding in a bald faced lie -- then issuing the equivocations and semi-back tracking later.

    The idea is to sow doubt in people's minds about what COULD HAVE happened..Basic propagandizing 101.

    Parent

    Truly insidious (none / 0) (#185)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 04:27:33 PM EST
    and diabolically clever, if intentional.....

    I'll prefer to stay in Pollyanna land and believe it was accidental and caused by Conservative DNA syndrome--the knee-jerk and inveterate need to fill in with "favorable" facts before checking for the truth--for the time being until I am proven to be a fool for so believing....

    Parent

    Hate To Say It (none / 0) (#187)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 04:32:40 PM EST
    But you are a fool for believing. PPJ is on a mission. He believes we are at war, the left is one of the enemies, and that propaganda and bald face lies are absolutely justified.

    Why do you think that his people are called "wingnuts"? It is because they spin as a feature not a bug.

    Parent

    You think our intrepid commentator (none / 0) (#197)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 06:12:53 PM EST
    is that, uhm,....deliberately clever?  

    Parent
    Why (none / 0) (#97)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:52:16 PM EST
    didn't the captain simply cooperate with the Israeli commander? It's not like Israel doesn't have legitimate fears of what may be aboard. The captain was responsible for the safety of his passengers and, it seems to me, placed them in danger unnecessarily.

    And isn't it great that the cargo wasn't simply "supplies," it, of course, was "humanitarian" aid. No propaganda there.

    Parent

    two things (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by CST on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:55:28 PM EST
    #1 - they had not yet entered the "no boat zone" so to speak, so the Israeli commander had no right at that point.

    #2 - Supplies implies weapons.  There were no weapons.

    Parent

    Just saying (none / 0) (#116)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:18:38 PM EST
    "We were in International Waters" is the standard, first response to all the incidences on the water for as long as I can remember. Whether the boat was a few feet on this side, or that side, of a line is pretty thin gruel for a captain, whose first responsibility is the safety of his passengers, to use when confronted by Military forces. Just common sense.

    Look, there will be an investigation, and then we'll know what really transpired.


    Parent

    Just Sayin? (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:21:34 PM EST
    You obviously know nothing about the subject, considering your knee jerk response in support of Israel.

    Try googling first, it may make you look more informed than you are about the subject.

    Parent

    not a few feet (none / 0) (#118)
    by CST on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:24:26 PM EST
    more like 25 miles I believe.

    And yes, there will be an investigation.  The UN is calling for it, and so is Israel.  Because this is not good for them, not even on their home turf.  Turkey is their only Muslim ally and they have strained relations with the U.S. these days as well.  This is baaaad for Israel, and I think Israel knows it.

    Egypt opened up their border with Gaza today temporarily.  They would not have done that otherwise, and something tells me there will be things other than humanitarian aid going across that "line".

    Parent

    Egypt and Jordan have entered into (none / 0) (#159)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 03:33:04 PM EST
    pace agreements w/Israel.

    Parent
    pace? (none / 0) (#162)
    by CST on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 03:43:14 PM EST
    or do you mean peace?

    I am not suggesting that this means egypt will attack israel.  But this:

    "Tuesday, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak approved the opening of the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt for humanitarian purposes, state-owned television reported.

    The border crossing linking Egypt to Gaza will be kept open for only a few days, Palestinian officials said."

    Suggests that they do not support Israel's most recent action.  And they are a critical ally for Israel's blockage to function.

    Parent

    "Peace." Don't think that means (none / 0) (#168)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 03:50:12 PM EST
    either country's government must check its ability to evaluate at the door.

    Parent
    Calling Oculus (none / 0) (#196)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 06:11:09 PM EST
    The fundies try to oust Judges in San Diego County Superior Court in upcoming election and replace them with four fundie candidates.   See Big Orange diary currently on front page for details....

    Parent
    Will read. Thanks. (none / 0) (#200)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 06:16:17 PM EST


    Parent
    It was apparently an attempt (none / 0) (#201)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 06:16:42 PM EST
    at civil disobedience....

    What this whole mess has taught me is that the embargo of Gaza is entirely too tight.....Supposedly on the list of banned items--cement.  So, the Palestinians can't build anything at all?  Not schools, not apartments, not hospitals or clinics.....They are supposed to permanently live in rubble?

    Parent

    Agreed MKS, but it might be better to (none / 0) (#91)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:49:38 PM EST
    starve the troll, or at least put him on a diet.

    Parent
    As long as they don't become like tribbles (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:28:00 PM EST
    having one troll can be helpful to the discussion.....

    But, I generally do agree with you.

    Parent

    Troll? (none / 0) (#124)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:37:12 PM EST
    Well hate to break it to you FoxholeAtheist but ppj is standing on much firmer ground here as a regular commenter than you are, imo.

    IOW, despite the fact that you have loyal fans here at TL,  you are no arbiter of trollish behavior... considering some of the doosey's you have written.

    Parent

    Can't ... stop ..... laughing ... (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:50:47 PM EST
    ... must ........ breathe ......

    Worse than when Limbaugh climbs up for a (labored) ride on his high horse of morality.

    Makes you just feel sorry for the horse ...

    Parent

    Re: "you are no arbiter of trollish (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 03:35:14 PM EST
    behavior. . . ."  

    Who is?

    Parent

    Well TL For One (none / 0) (#161)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 03:41:58 PM EST
    And largely those who neither make provocative comments, nor are intolerant of those who make provocative comments.

    That leaves both of us out as arbiters, imo. Certainly not a job I would want. Of course you do seem to have strong opinions about who should be banned from this site, that disqualifies you, among other reasons, imo.

    Parent

    I have no opinion re who should or (none / 0) (#183)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 04:20:39 PM EST
    should not be banned from this site.  Not my blog.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#184)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 04:22:56 PM EST
    Shall I quote you. On several occasions you have expressed the opinion that I should be banned, and it was a mystery to you as to why I was not banned.

    Parent
    I am not of the opinion you should be (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 06:14:54 PM EST
    banned.  I am of the opinion the rules should be the same for you as for everyone else.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#203)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 06:19:10 PM EST
    You clearly stated an opinion, several times,  that you would be happy to see me banned. However much you want to dance atop a pinhead on that, is beside the point.

    Parent
    Flotilla in international waters. (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:37:22 PM EST
    Israeli government knows the ship will attempt to run that government's blockade of Gaza.  Israeli government has been informed what the ships are carrying--not arms shipments--but has not visually confirmed.  At what point, if any, does Israeli military have the right to peaceably board any of the ships in the flotilla?  Haven't seen this discussed anywhere yet.

    Parent
    here's one problem (none / 0) (#98)
    by CST on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:52:25 PM EST
    i see off the bat.

    They had "been informed" they would attempt to run the blockade - but I am not sure how it was "known" - there was no visual confirmation as they had not yet run the blockade.

    Similar to the language on aid shipments vs. non aid shipments, FWIW, with vastly different responses.

    If anything, they should have waited until the official blockade had been run, as it were, the turkish ships were still outside the official zone.

    Parent

    Savages (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:29:21 PM EST
    An American solidarity activist was shot in the face with a tear gas canister during a demonstration in Qalandiya, today. Emily Henochowicz is currently in Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem undergoing surgery to remove her left eye, following the demonstration that was held in protest to Israel's murder of at least 10 civilians aboard the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in international waters this morning.

    21-year old Emily Henochowicz was hit in the face with a tear gas projectile fired directly at her by an Israeli soldier during the demonstration at Qalandiya checkpoint today. Israeli occupation forces fired volleys of tear gas at unarmed Palestinian and international protesters, causing mass panic amongst the demonstrators and those queuing at the largest checkpoint separating the West Bank and Israel....

    Henochowicz is an art student at the prestigious Cooper Union, located in East Village, Manhattan.

    rawstory

    She has a blog. (none / 0) (#148)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:37:05 PM EST
    I think you will relate to her.

    Parent
    Sad Sad and bad (none / 0) (#204)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 06:19:15 PM EST
    But I wonder if the soldiers stopped firing volleys and one ran up and shot at her?????

    Gilding the lily so to speak really adds nothing and creates rightful doubts about the accuracy of the various press reports we see.

    I also wonder if she was ever advised that demonstrating against a country that has been under constant attack since the day it was founded is at least as dangerous as eating a pizza in Jerusalem.

    Parent

    I guess when I posted that comment (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 03:28:20 PM EST
    in the open thread the other day about criminal prosecution of BP, Obama listened, despite the naysayers, LOL.

    Had a very nice Memorial Day (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 31, 2010 at 09:07:34 PM EST
    And it is beginning to seem like BP is going to make perhaps some real clean up efforts, and even making an effort to keep the press informed on a few things.  Trying not to get my hopes up that they actually care.

    Memorial day (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by ZtoA on Mon May 31, 2010 at 10:28:52 PM EST
    a time to reconnect with.... ancestors and family, the earth (in the sense of dirt) and... whatever.

    Just to take a moment, since it is a holiday, to say thank you to everyone here. TL attracts a very smart set, but also real people. I just want to say kudos to Jeralyn for this. Not only is this a professional site and honor to her, it is beyond that. She admits she wants to create a community and she has. The "Bickersons" (is this a word from my family only?) will be back all too soon, but for now, here's a toast to you Jeralyn and BTD. You ROCK !!

    Parent

    The Bickersons... (none / 0) (#8)
    by desertswine on Mon May 31, 2010 at 10:53:33 PM EST
    were Don Ameche and Frances Langford. A very funny radio show.

    Parent
    Mets pitchers are walking in (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon May 31, 2010 at 10:53:15 PM EST
    Runs. Mets 4, Pads 10. Bottom of 5th. Love it.

    Hate It! (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 08:59:52 AM EST
    Man do we stink on the road this year...hopefully we get right tonight.

    Not used to that kinda offensive output are ya oculus?  Leave it to the Mets:(

    Parent

    It'a the (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 09:35:36 AM EST
    Little League syndrome.

    ;-)

    Parent

    The guy behind me kept talking about (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:02:35 PM EST
    the Mercy rule.

    When the Pads traded Ollie Perez, it was my opinion they were making a big mistake!

    Parent

    F*ckin' Ollie... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:49:10 PM EST
    million dollar arm, ten cent baseball brain.

    Glad they're finally sending him down...dead roster space.  If you can't trust him to start (and you certainly can't), how could you trust him in relief?

    We got Pelf going tonight...he's been nasty.

    Parent

    Quite surprising. Are the same guys (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:13:57 PM EST
    who leave the bases loaded through 0, 1, and 2 outs?

    BTW, the fireworks show kind of annoyed me.  Good fireworks, but with video interspersed, purportedly to honor veterans (quite a group of WWII veterans sitting together).  But the video seemed to equate veterans with Padres getting hits, sliding into home, pitching well.  I know the latter get pretty banged up, but--still. Also, I only saw one female in military uniform in the entire video.  

    Oh, and Miss America sang the national anthem AND America. the Beautiful.  But she was not the woman from Detroit.  Is she gone already?  Miss America

    Parent

    Google is my friend. We saw/heard (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:15:46 PM EST
    Miss America.  I was thinking of Miss USA.  Silly me.

    Parent
    Brooks (none / 0) (#22)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 06:49:25 AM EST
    Does anyone have any idea what David Brooks was trying to say in his column today?  I read it twice and could do no more than blink like a penguin.

    Seems like Brooks today (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 11:15:43 AM EST
    is saying what Bob Herbert said yesterday, namely that the Obama admin has fallen short in this oil spill disaster in terms of showing how gov't can solve difficult problems that need immediate solving.  Both of them use terms like "incompetent" and "impotent" to describe the admin's response.

    Not a good sign for the Obama admin when the resident conservative and liberal columnists for The Times are lining up against you on this important point.

    Parent

    I had a similar reaction reading (none / 0) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 10:22:40 AM EST
    Frank Rich's Sunday NYT op-ed. Somewhat incoherent.

    Parent
    Not surprising (none / 0) (#131)
    by christinep on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:01:43 PM EST
    given the overall confusion that has long described any American energy policy. That is why recent polls show majorities still wanting to drill and, at the same, time being angry/hurt/beleaguered over the fallout risks that sooner-or-later had to be the result of a decades-long partially close your eyes policy. As I've often mentioned (and even still say), I am an optimist about the progress of our society. But, the almost schizophrenic nature of the polity's approach to the mechanisms of energy--"Daddy, fix it...or I'll stomp my feet"--is sure frustrating. Usually, I find columnist Brooks too predictable in an apologeia role; but, his latest columns have shown his struggle with moving off a typical calcified position. I appreciate the movement he may be starting to show (but, I don't hold my breath.)


    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:05:43 PM EST
    Good one:

    But, the almost schizophrenic nature of the polity's approach to the mechanisms of energy--"Daddy, fix it...or I'll stomp my feet"--

    And a hilarious turn of events is that BP has just hired one of VP CHeneys top aides as their spokesperson:

    Under threat of receivership and criminal investigation for its destruction of the Gulf of Mexico, foreign oil giant BP has hired a former top aide for Vice President Dick Cheney to be their new spokeswoman. Anne Womack-Kolton has been hired to be "head of U.S. media relations." A rising star in the Bush-Cheney White House since the 2000 campaign, Womack-Kolton served as Cheney's press secretary during the 2004 election before running public affairs in the Bush Department of Energy.

    digby

    Parent

    Ha. Remember OTEC's? (none / 0) (#24)
    by observed on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 08:02:26 AM EST
    They were one of the new power sources debaters discussed that year.
    It's really 30 years too late for a crash energy independence program. Had we started in 1980, it's very likely we could  have had  a smooth transition to alternate energy sources. Now, we are probably at or near Peak Oil just as the demand for petroleum in India and China is ramping up.
    The modern population boom (from ca. 1850) was made possible by the use of fossil fuels. The earth has added about 5 billion in population since then. To come up with expectations for the next 30 years, just do the math.
    Not too late (none / 0) (#26)
    by Rojas on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 08:46:39 AM EST
    But it will take leadership.
    China and India are just building out their infrastructure. If they copy our mistakes, we've really waisted an opportunity.

    Parent
    MT, is this guy running in (none / 0) (#25)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 08:10:29 AM EST
    your district?  I'd vote for him twice.  Les Phillips.

    He's just north of my (none / 0) (#40)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 10:47:19 AM EST
    district. He's in the Huntsville area. Parker Griffith's seat. It's amazing how all of these candidates are trying to out-right each other... birthers, anti "illegals"  'liberals' 'conservative values'...I'll be glad when the primary ends and the field is weeded out.

    There's some serious right-wingness going on in north Alabama, much more than central alabama. And there's a lot in central alabama.

    Parent

    If this worked in a practical (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 08:52:40 AM EST
    application the start up money would be flooding the company. Something tells me the solar panel size required to power a car would be huge and not work in the dark. The batteries would run the price up to the $50K range and last about 50 miles...

    I say again, and not to be disagreeable but as a friendly challenge..

    Someone give me a practical replacement for oil/gasoline...

    And remember... I'm on your side. In fact, when I retired and we did the retirement home thing we redid one using all of the available energy saving ways... except for solar water heater which is on the list when the two units currently installed fail..

    Here's a few to start with (none / 0) (#93)
    by cenobite on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:50:46 PM EST
    1. Electricity.

    2. Ethanol from waste.

    3. Ammonia from midwest wind farms. Ammonia is the hydrogen fuel cycle that can actually work.

    4. Even compressed air.

    5. And the most obvious dirty one: synfuel from the fischer-tropsch process.

    There you go... none of these technologies are speculative or experimental, each of them is actually being used today.


    Parent
    In case you missed it (none / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:13:42 PM EST
    PRACTICAL is the key word.

    You are aware of the concept, aren't you?

    Parent

    This is all technology that is already in use (none / 0) (#188)
    by cenobite on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 04:33:49 PM EST
    No technological breakthroughs needed, completely practical.

    As I've said in the past, my education is in physics, not petroleum geology, so my notions of energy are somewhat more comprehensive than oilmen's.

    If you really mean "can they scale up" electricity can scale far more than gasoline ever can or will (e.g. the amount of electricity we can make is much greater than the energy in all the buried hydrocarbons we have).

    If you really mean "at a reasonable cost" in terms of efficiency (miles-per-dollar) electricity already beats gasoline even at California prices.

    If you really mean "convenience", well, charging your own car in your own garage and not making fuel stops sounds pretty convenient to me.


    Parent

    #3 Al Qaida official killed (again) (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 10:53:23 AM EST
    Looks like they might have really gotten Al-Masri/Al Yazid with a missile this time.

    The Egyptian-born al-Yazid, also known as Sheik Saeed al-Masri, was a founding member of al-Qaida and the group's prime conduit to Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri. He was key to day-to-day control, with a hand in everything from finances to operational planning, the U.S. official said.

    Al-Yazid has been reported killed before, in 2008, but this is the first time his death has been acknowledged by the militant group on the Internet.

    Let's hope this saves some lives.

    SCOTUS just turned Miranda Rights upside down. (none / 0) (#42)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 10:56:10 AM EST
    Supreme Court Miranda Ruling: Suspects Must Explicitly Tell Police They Want To Remain Silent; from the AP, on this day of our Lord Tuesday, June 1, 2010:
    A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.
     

    Lemme get this straight... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 11:15:55 AM EST
    to excercise your right to remain silent, you have to..umm..break your silence?

    I'm no brainiac SC justice or anything...but how does that make any sense at all?  You'd think 2 lips firmly pressed together would suffice to excercise the right.

    Parent

    You and Justice Sotomayor (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 11:59:52 AM EST
    think alike.  In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor noted that criminal suspects must unambiguously make their right to remain silent, which counterintuitively, requires them to speak.   A wise opinion in my view.

    Parent
    I am very happy with Sotomayor today (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:12:35 PM EST
    I was very concerned about her background as a Prosecutor--although she had apparently little interest in prosecuting misdemeanors....

    I thought we could have another tough on crime Justice.....And, she has not been shy about voicing her opinions.  Well done, Obama.

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:49:17 PM EST
    B: I am going to get a beer. You have the right to ask for a beer.

    A: (Says nothing)

    B: (Goes and gets a beer from the fridge.)

    A: You didn't bring me a beer! Why didn't you bring me a beer!?

    B: You didn't tell me.

    A: That's no excuse. You didn't bring me a beer.

    Parent

    Sitting in someone's livingroom (none / 0) (#130)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:53:37 PM EST
    is far different than being in a jail being physically controlled by people with guns.

    If you don't see a difference in the two scenarios, they you miss the whole point.....

    Parent

    So being in police custody (none / 0) (#146)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:33:45 PM EST
    prevents you from hearing and understanding Miranda? And saying you're not talking and asking for a lawyer?

    I learn something everyday.

    Parent

    No, the intimidation prevents (none / 0) (#151)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:47:18 PM EST
    you from believing that you really have a choice....

    Cops usually get the suspect to talk.  If you don't talk, cops can get real mad, real fast.

      One instance here a couple of years ago had the cops repeatedly tasering a man handcuffed and lying in the back of squad car because he would not talk.....The cops were acquitted of any criminal conduct--because cops who witnessed the torture and signed statements regarding the torture, changed their testimony at trial.  The DA, the head guy, said there was simply a code of silence that prevented a successful prosecution of cops for wrongdoing around here.  That's what the DA said.  Imagine what a critic might say.

    Parent

    "Heh" btw, (none / 0) (#177)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 04:04:02 PM EST
    is teabagger for: "I cant believe how clever I think I am.."  

    Parent
    And here I thought (none / 0) (#195)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 06:09:08 PM EST
    a teabagger worked for Lipton...

    More things learned.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Sotomayor's dissent: (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:14:49 PM EST
    Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

    "Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent - which counterintuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

    Here's hoping she is equally wise when it comes to all impending cases.

    Parent

    Wise (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:27:09 PM EST
    Sotomayor is a true liberal/progressive. I have a close friend who is close friend and a colleague to some of her her best buds. Sotomayor is 100% dependable.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 11:54:27 AM EST
    ya gotta say, "I aint gonna talk and I want a lawyer."

    Parent
    Memorize this, Dog (none / 0) (#72)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:34:33 PM EST
    (and I hope you never have to use it):  "I want a lawyer and I am invoking my right to remain silent as of right now."


    Parent
    I think all I need to memorize... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:45:41 PM EST
    is the little kid trick of turning the make-pretend key over my lips:)  

    The right to remain silent is one of those creator-endowed ones...they might cage ya for contempt or something, but they can never make you utter a peep.

    Parent

    lol. Don't forget to throw the key away! (none / 0) (#103)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:58:40 PM EST
    The pretend zipper would also work.

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#105)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:05:02 PM EST
    I like the pretend-key thing.  I wonder what the POTUS majority would have to say about that one?  And the guy in the Supreme Court case made the absolute wrong choice on even occasionally answering "yes" or "no."  (Not that I agree with the decision of the Court- too many of their decisions seem to be whittling away our rights and giving more power to the police and prosecutors.)  Clearly, there's a lesson to be learned.  Never tell them anything.  Even if you haven't (yet) been arrested- zippo, nada, rien, τίποτα, niente.  Don't try to lie or anything- just silence (have you learned that yet, Martha Stewart?).

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#106)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:06:06 PM EST
    I like the pretend-key thing.  I wonder what the POTUS majority would have to say about that one?  And the guy in the Supreme Court case made the absolute wrong choice on even occasionally answering "yes" or "no."  (Not that I agree with the decision of the Court- too many of their decisions seem to be whittling away our rights and giving more power to the police and prosecutors.)  Clearly, there's a lesson to be learned.  Never tell them anything.  Even if you haven't (yet) been arrested- zippo, nada, rien, niente.  Don't try to lie or anything- just silence (have you learned that yet, Martha Stewart?).

    Parent
    Our fine hostess... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:08:54 PM EST
    is always reminding us that the prisons are full of people who thought if only they could explain themselves to the authorities, all will be forgotten.

    Parent
    I'm at the point where (none / 0) (#122)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:29:05 PM EST
    if a cop comes knocking on my door to ask about buying tickets to the Policeman's Ball or Circus or whatever, I'm likely to just stare at him in silence.  ;-)

    Parent
    Tread carefully... (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:46:17 PM EST
    in my experience, nothing is more "suspect" than a citizen aware of their rights and ready to excercise 'em.

    Parent
    Sorry for the double post (none / 0) (#108)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:06:53 PM EST
    Don't know how that happened.

    Parent
    I don't know.... (none / 0) (#107)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:06:36 PM EST
    that might be a little "ambiguous" for the likes of Justice Kennedy. I would add at least a few words to the gesture.

    Parent
    How 'bout... (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:13:25 PM EST
    the lock and toss (Thanks Joan!), coupled with the bird...two hand gestures in lieu of a verbal claim to sacred rights...would that suffice?

    Knowing the police, "I ain't sayin' sh*t" could be "mistaken" for "I did that sh*t".

    Parent

    You still have (none / 0) (#171)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 03:55:24 PM EST
    to ask for a lawyer.  Zipping your lips won't help you there.

    Parent
    If you don't open your mouth... (none / 0) (#173)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 03:58:37 PM EST
    and breath through your nose, you really don't need a lawywer till you get to court.

    Or you can call yourself when you get your phone call, no need to ask your kidnappers...or is that the next thing the authoritarians will look to strip from suspects?

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#178)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 04:06:52 PM EST
    you don't ever HAVE to ask for a lawyer, but the law has been for many years, that unless you specifically ask for a lawyer, you don't get one. And the police don't have to stop and wait for one to come.

    So your best course of action after today, is probably to ask for an attorney and then affirmatively invoke your right to remain silent.  Two sentences, one long one - I want to speak to an attorney, and I invoke my right to remain silent.*

    * not meant as actual legal advice, but friendly advice.  More friendly advice - don't break laws.  :)

    Parent

    What Country Are You Living In (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 04:18:44 PM EST
    you don't ever HAVE to ask for a lawyer, but the law has been for many years, that unless you specifically ask for a lawyer, you don't get one.

    That is not the case, here in the US. If you do not ask for a lawyer the court appoints one, unless you request to represent yourself.

    6th Amendment ( from a quaint document called the constitution)

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


    Parent
    Ahem (none / 0) (#186)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 04:28:49 PM EST
    You might want to tell Justice Kennedy that, since he wrote the opinion today:

    I quote:

    A suspect's Miranda right to counsel must be invoked "unambiguously." Davis v. United States, 512 U. S. 452,459. If the accused makes an "ambiguous or equivocal" statement or no statement, the police are not required to end the interrogation, ibid., or ask questions to clarify the accused's intent, id., at 461-462. There is no principled reason to adopt different standards for determining when an accused has invoked the Miranda right to remain si-lent and the Miranda right to counsel at issue in Davis. Both protect the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by requiring aninterrogation to cease when either right is invoked. The unambigu-ous invocation requirement results in an objective inquiry that "avoid[s] difficulties of proof and . . . provide[s] guidance to officers" on how to proceed in the face of ambiguity. Davis, supra, at 458-459. Had Thompkins said that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk, he would have invoked his right to end the question-ing. He did neither. Pp. 8-10

    Davis was decided in 1994 - majority opinion written by Justice O'Connor.

    But thanks for playing anyway.

    Parent

    Badly worded (none / 0) (#193)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 05:56:21 PM EST
    Of course, I was referring to the case re: Miranda rights.

    Yes, you will get a lawyer at court appearances, but that's not what we were talking about.

    Parent

    What Digby said (none / 0) (#44)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 11:08:30 AM EST
    on the Sestak 'scandal'

    She hits all the levels of absurdity on this one. You really could not make this stuff up. At the same time, entirely predictable.

    Sex in the City 2 (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:25:48 PM EST
    is the most insipid and laughably stoopid movie I have ever seen. No plot, stilted dialogue, forced acting, clumsy direction.

    After we saw it I googled some reviews, and the one that said the movie made the reviewer "vomit a little in my mouth" seemed pretty accurate...

    Not you choice, I gather. (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:31:42 PM EST


    Parent
    No, not my choice. (none / 0) (#77)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:38:49 PM EST
    However, the chooser feels even more strongly than I about how putrid the movie was. I expected little and got less, however she expected a lot and was played for a fool...

    Parent
    All the reviews I've read have (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:39:55 PM EST
    pretty much killed any desire I had to see it, but thanks for the confirmation! I liked the show a lot, and thought the first movie was pretty good. Would have gone to see this one too if anyone had asked me. I will pass now.

    Parent
    Wise decision. (none / 0) (#88)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:49:10 PM EST


    Parent
    It makes me sad (none / 0) (#101)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:56:43 PM EST
    that it's so bad...the show wasn't awful.

    Parent
    Brutal review.... (none / 0) (#164)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 03:47:40 PM EST
    in Rolling Stone.  Under a photo of the SITC girls was a caption "Justin Beiber's Grandma and three of her friends."

    Parent
    Rear Admiral Mary Landry, (none / 0) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:33:31 PM EST
    who I have likened to the Dana Perino of the BP blowout, has been replaced as federal-on-scene-coordinator by her deputy since April 23, Rear Admiral James Nash. The new Coast Guard commandant Admiral Robert Papp indicated that Admiral Landry will return to her previous post as was the plan all along.  BP will surely miss Admiral Landry.

    Make that Admiral James Watson. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:13:04 PM EST
    His deputy is Admiral Ray Nash. Seems the latest BP effort, Lower Marine Riser Package (LMRP) is not working. Work has resumed on the second relief well, according to Thad Allen. Relief well(s) appear to be the best and only answer for capping the well: presently scheduled for operation in mid-August.  Hopefully, there will be no hurricanes to delay the relief wells.  The Obama administration should insist on BP drilling a third relief well since, once again, this will be something not tried before at these depths. BP will balk, for sure, for it will cost another $100 million, but there is a reasonable chance that the relief wells can be re-purposed to production wells at a later point--if/when drilling resumes in the Gulf.

    Parent
    Hurricane Season Starts Today (none / 0) (#138)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:19:44 PM EST
    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released its 2010 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook and the 2010 Eastern Pacific Hurricane Outlook on May 27, 2010.

    They predict a very active season this time around.

    They link to an article from weatherunderground:

     "What would a Hurricane do to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill?"

    Parent

    The Gores are Separating (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:37:04 PM EST
    Al and Tipper Gore, whose playful romance enlivened Washington and the campaign trail for a quarter century, have decided to separate after 40 years of marriage, the couple told friends Tuesday.

    In an "Email from Al and Tipper Gore," the couple said: "We are announcing today that after a great deal of thought and discussion, we have decided to separate.

    "This is very much a mutual and mutually supportive decision that we have made together following a process of long and careful consideration. We ask for respect for our privacy and that of our family, and we do not intend to comment further."

    Read more:

    So, one of the people who received (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:58:12 PM EST
    the e mail sent it on to Politico.  Shameful.

    Parent
    Shameful? (none / 0) (#114)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:15:13 PM EST
    Why's that?

    Parent
    Because the e mail, sent to friends (none / 0) (#163)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 03:45:21 PM EST
    and supporters included:

    We ask for respect for our privacy and that of our family," they said.
    LAT

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#167)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 03:50:04 PM EST
    In other words this all the information we are providing, and don't ask any further questions. A mass email, in itself is hardly meant to be private. And, as far as I know the mass email did not ask for the email to be confidential. It was meant to be distributed.

    Parent
    How could you possibly know that. (none / 0) (#170)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 03:52:06 PM EST


    Parent
    From The Email (none / 0) (#175)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 04:00:44 PM EST
    And by the fact that every major paper has spoken to Gore's spokesperson, and the spokesperson has not said "no comment" but acknowledged the accuracy of the email.

    What planet are you from to imagine that a celebrity family like the Gores, would expect a mass email announcing their divorce, to be kept out of the press?

    Really, I am surprised by your outrage at this one.

    Parent

    Did not see that coming (none / 0) (#87)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 12:48:15 PM EST
    Hope it works out for the best for the family.

    We've had 2 big family divorces this year, as well as 2 close friends. My natural reaction is sadness, but I've come to see that I seem to be sadder than the people involved, so I've tried to suppress that natural reaction.

    Parent

    My fellow rock-n-rollers... (none / 0) (#104)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:01:34 PM EST
    y'all need to check out Peter Wolf's new record and see him if he comes to your town...really great stuff.

    Here's a taste..."Tragedy" with Shelby Lynn.

    I will have to listen now (none / 0) (#111)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:10:20 PM EST
    because you just planted a Bee-Gees 'Tragedy' ear worm in my brain....

    I like Peter Wolf though, so happy to give it a listen.

    Parent

    Like it! Thanks! (none / 0) (#112)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:12:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Sweet sounds right?... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:16:28 PM EST
    In a different less superficial era it would be a #1 smash.

    The whole record kicks arse...picked up a copy at the show...Peter told some great stories about hanging with Muddy and John Lee back in the day that had us rolling too.  Great start to the Memorial Day Weekend.

    Parent

    I was thinking the same thing (none / 0) (#121)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:28:54 PM EST
    Sounds like something that would have been a hit on the radio in my glory days.

    I don't know if the songs on the radio today are any more or less superficial, but they are sure not to my (admittedly old) taste.

    Parent

    Well, there you go. (none / 0) (#119)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:25:28 PM EST
    I'd been hearing this song on my local college radio station, but with no DJ so no way to ID the songs if you don't already know them. Thanks!

    Parent
    There's... (none / 0) (#150)
    by sj on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:44:15 PM EST
    ... a smartphone app for that :)

    Parent
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#202)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 06:17:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#129)
    by vml68 on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 01:53:09 PM EST
    I am a fan of your music choices... :-)

    Parent
    If I had known you'd dig it... (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:36:39 PM EST
    I woulda invited you down to the Bell House in Brooklyn to see it live...awesome venue btw if you ever get the chance.

    Parent
    Here's the quote from my (none / 0) (#165)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 03:47:52 PM EST
    "A Year in Art Calendar":

    Music is a moral law.  It gives soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, and charm and gaiety to life and to everything.  
    Plato.

    I thought of you when I read this earlier today.

    Parent

    I'm digging Plato's sentiment... (none / 0) (#169)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 03:51:11 PM EST
    too bad written laws can't and don't do all that:)

    Parent
    Another interesting SC case (none / 0) (#140)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:21:54 PM EST
    Decided today - Carr v. United States, whereby the Supreme Court held, 6-3, that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), which requires convicted sex offenders to register with local authorities when they move from one state to another, does not apply to sex offenders whose interstate travel occurred before the Act went into effect.

    h/t Volokh

    The fun part is the breakdown of the vote.  Sotomayor wrote the opinion for the majority, and she was joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Stevens, and Breyer.  Scalia concurred in part.  The dissenters were Alito, Thomas, and Ginsburg.

    Strange.

    RIP Andrew Koppel (none / 0) (#152)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 02:49:22 PM EST
    Son of Ted Koppel

    Too much alcohol?

    Monday Evening Open Thread | 200 comments (200 topical)