Monday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 08:03:53 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

(Above: Kid Rock (another favorite of mine)joins Bon Jovi in March in Detroit.)

Sending good thoughts to Jon Bon Jovi, who tore a calf muscle while performing at the Meadlowlands Friday night, and gives new meaning to "the show must go on." Video below:

It happens around 49 seconds in:

He continued playing, finishing the set with Livin' on a Prayer. The band had to help him off the stage. And despite being seen on crutches over the weekend, he'll be playing tonight in Ohio and Wednesday in Calgary, Canada.

Here's a video with Bob Geldorf joining them for "I Don't Like Mondays" in June. I like their 1998 version better.

Update: According to this site, here's what Bon Jovi told the crowd:

My calf muscle just blew out! Whoa!," he said from the stage. "I got another leg. I don't need this one."
The YouTube video shows the 48-year-old singer flexing his foot as he assures the crowd he's OK. "Don't you worry, folks," he said. "I ain't got nowhere to go. I'm old. What can I tell you? But I'm still good-lookin'!"

He certainly is.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Lindsay Lohan's New Lawyer Bows Out | Omar Khadr to Boycott Military Commission, Issues Statement >

Legal

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

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

Monday Night Open Thread | 32 comments (32 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Omar Khadr Speaks (none / 0) (#1)
by squeaky on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 08:33:57 PM EST

Your honor, I'm boycotting this military commission because:
Firstly, the unfairness and unjustice of it. I say this because not one of the lawyers I've had, or human right organization or any person say that the commission is fair, or looking for justice, but on the contrary they say it is unfair and unjust and that it has been constructed solely to convict detainees and not to find the truth (so how can I ask for justice from a process that does not have it or offer it?) [new color ink--apparently added later] and to accomplish political and public goal and what I mean is when I was offered a plea bargain it was up to 30 years which I was going to spend only 5 years so I asked why the 30 years? I was told it make the US government look good in the public eyes and other political causes.
Secondly, the unfairness of the rules that will make a person so depressed that he will admit to alligations or take a plea offer that will satisfy the US government and get him the least sentence possible and ligitimize the show process. Therefore I will not willingly let the US gov use me to fullfil its goal. I have been used to many times when I was a child and that's why I'm here taking blame and paying for thing I didn't have a choice in doing but was told to do by elders.
Lastly I will not take any plea offer or [several words redacted] because it will give excuse for the gov for torturing and abusing me when I was a child.

emptywheel

Really sad, imo and remarkably to the point.

like I said (none / 0) (#2)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:22:26 AM EST

Pentagon: Gay Soldier Survey Won't Lead to Segregation

The Pentagon today strongly pushed back against an allegation from a prominent political blogger that the military could segregate gay and straight servicemembers if and when lawmakers repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

more (none / 0) (#3)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:23:36 AM EST

Aravosis highlights this comment from Morrell: "We think it would be irresponsible to conduct a survey that didn't try to address these types of things. Because when DADT is repealed, we will have to determine if there are any challenges in those particular areas, any adjustments that need to be made in terms of how we educate the force to handle those situations, or perhaps even facility adjustments that need to be made to deal with those scenarios."
Conjuring up some of the most evocative images of the Civil Rights Movement, Aravosis writes, "The Pentagon confirmed on Friday that it is considering segregating gay troops, specifically with regards to creating separate showers and/or barracks for straight and gay troops...Why is it okay to even talk about segregating gays and lesbians? What would have happened to an Obama administration spokesman who talked about segregating blacks?"
Morrell told Hotsheet that the suggestion the survey could lead to segregation is "absurd."

like I said. absurd.
and Aravosis is a blathering fool.


: and very pleased with himself (none / 0) (#6)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:48:17 AM EST

Pentagon responds to my post about segregating gay troops
by John Aravosis (DC) on 7/12/2010 08:05:00 PM
Apparently, the Pentagon feels I'm not being very helpful.

oh, (none / 0) (#4)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:25:13 AM EST

and the "reason" for the survey?

"If the consequence is that servicemembers are reluctant, hesitant to participate in the survey, that would be very unfortunate," he said. "We need empirical data to advise the working group on what the potential challenges and what the potential opportunities are that come from a repeal."

like I said.

: and a great first comment (none / 0) (#5)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:28:05 AM EST

Well the military ALREADY segregates the female soldiers from the male soldiers. SO...if we are not going to segregate the homosexual male soldiers from the heterosexual male soldiers, and the hetero male soldiers are going to be told to "suck it up" and "this is not a democracy" --- shouldn't the female soldiers be told the SAME thing?
Shouldn't we just have ONE latrine and ONE shower for ALL? That IS what you are getting to, is it not? A non-segregated military with no male or female or heterosexual or homosexual...just all soldiers?

George Steinbrenner (none / 0) (#7)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:54:47 AM EST

Dead at age 80 from a massive heart attack.

I hate the Yankees, but two losses in one week for the team. Very sad.

a while back (none / 0) (#8)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:11:03 AM EST

I mentioned my company was trying out a new policy called the Flexible Work Environment. there is a lot involved but one of the main elements is that we are only obligated to be here 2 hours a day for meetings and the like. the rest of the time is ours to divide between home and work the way that works best for us with the only requirement being that we get the work assigned to us done.
this was greeted with skepticism and warnings that it was just a trap for management to find out who they could fire and soon 50% of the work force would be laid off. well it hasnt happened. its been really cool actually.
I ran across this presentation from Netflix the company. I recommend reading it.

The presentation, which you can see for yourself below, is as interesting as any 128-page document can be. If you read it over, about half-way through, you'll probably start wishing you worked for Netflix. This was meant to be an internal document for employees to read, but it's also one hell of a recruitment pitch.

one of the interesting things about (none / 0) (#9)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:22:36 AM EST

the netflix arrangement that, so far at least, is different from ours is that they do not have a set vacation. you are supposed to "take what you think you need".

its another thing being discussed here.


Cool stuff man... (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:48:50 AM EST

very enlightened. Compared to my outfit where taking a personal day is practically a capital offense worthy of some form of retribution.


I worked for a few years (none / 0) (#11)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:57:39 AM EST

for a major Fortune 500 company, huge place, and they had the most enlightened personnel policies I've ever heard of.

No sick days, no "personal days." If you're sick, you're supposed to stay home until you're well enough to come in again. If you need a day off to tend to some personal matter, perfectly OK with supervisor permission. Up to your supervisor to know you well enough to know you're not faking. Result, one of the lowest rates of sick time taken per employee in the business world.

Vacation time-- three weeks right off the bat for new hires, 4 weeks after 5 years, and on up to 8 weeks. The employee handbook said that "usually," you shouldn't take vacation until you'd been with the company for six months, but it was up to the supervisor. That was major for me because I had some serious commitments coming up just a month after I would start. My boss, who hired me, said no sweat. Take whatever you need.

And like that.

The point being that it was (gasp!) up to the supervisors to supervise. Rigid rules are used by companies who won't require their managers to actually manage their staff, IMO.


thats cool (none / 0) (#12)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:40:14 AM EST

but this takes it a step further. we dont have to clear it with anyone. if we need to take off we are just supposed to do it. the whole point of this was to get supervisors out of the loop and make people responsible for themselves.


If it works out.... (none / 0) (#13)
by kdog on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:44:33 AM EST

many a Lumberg could have a meeting with the Bobs on their schedule:)


How does it work (none / 0) (#15)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 12:18:11 PM EST

If someone leaves the company? Do they pay you out "unused" vacation time?


: you mean Netflix? (none / 0) (#17)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 01:38:21 PM EST

I would say no. there would be no such thing.

Never would have (none / 0) (#14)
by brodie on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:59:12 AM EST

thought ex-SoS George Schultz would be considered important enough for a 3-hour tv documentary, and on PBS to boot, but apparently the folks running "public" broadcasting are still hypersensitive to lobbying from the right-wing. And this one is RW-funded.

One hour of Schultz last night, to be followed by two more one-hour installments over the next two Mondays presumably.

Probably a lot of Reagan worship and revisionism thrown in for good measure.

2010... (none / 0) (#16)
by kdog on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 12:54:42 PM EST

and the US State Dept. is still messin' with Native Americans...today's saga is the Iriquois Nation's Lacrosse team stuck at the airport instead of warming up for the World Lacrosse Championship because the passports they've been using for 20 years are suddenly not good enough to get back in the country, and the UK won't give 'em a visa if the US won't let 'em come back.

Heckuva job Uncle Sam!

Looks like (none / 0) (#18)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 02:56:10 PM EST

The changes went into effect a year ago with the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative:

Native Americans: Native Americans will be able to continue presenting tribal documents until June 1, 2009, provided they are affixed with a photo. Customs and Border Protection is working closely with interested Native American tribes toward the development of an enhanced tribal card that complies with WHTI.

(see the State Department's website for more info)

Strange that they didn't know this for a year now.


Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by kdog on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 03:04:03 PM EST

the Iriquois should know all about the white man's games by now...we always change the deal when it suits us, hold the Native Americans to the deal when it suits us.

They shoulda called it the Western Hemisphere Anti-Travel Initiative.


Well, yes (none / 0) (#20)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 03:08:47 PM EST

Since DHS and state have had major outreach programs on this very subject with tribes from all over for over a year now, then yes, I think they would have known.


Insulting "compromise" offered... (none / 0) (#21)
by kdog on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 03:22:14 PM EST

by Uncle Sam too...we'll get you US passports. Insulting...they've got their own nation, all they need is for you to stop f*ckin' with them.


Yup (none / 0) (#22)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 03:39:34 PM EST

The game of De-hon-tshi-gwa' ehs (Lacrosse) has become an inspiration to a third of the world's youth - 109 countries in all. The long-stick game is a gift to the world from the Haudenosaunee, the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. It would be strange - beyond strange, indeed - if the Iroquois Nationals lacrosse team, the national team of the Haudenosaunee were denied participation in the World Lacrosse Championships by agencies of the United States. We are perplexed by this position taken by the Obama administration.
Since the Iroquois Nationals lacrosse team's admittance to the Federation of International Lacrosse in 1983, the team has participated in every world competition as a member nation, flying our own colors, singing our own anthem and traveling on our own Haudenosaunee passports, to England, Australia and Japan. As citizens we have traveled internationally on our own passports since 1977.
We don't take this issue of passports lightly. We have always traveled with the utmost respect for the sovereignty of the nations involved. As indigenous peoples of North America, we have more than 200 years of treaties and international relations with our brother, the United States.

The US (none / 0) (#24)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 12:33:21 PM EST

Is letting them go on their old passports.


From AP (none / 0) (#25)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 12:39:16 PM EST

By SAMANTHA GROSS (AP) - 1 hour ago
NEW YORK -- The U.S. government has agreed to allow a native American lacrosse team to travel to England for a world championship competition under passports issued by the Iroquois Confederacy, a team spokeswoman said Wednesday.
Tonya Gonnella Frichner, a member of the Onondaga Nation who works with the team, said the State Department dropped a demand that the team travel using higher-security U.S. passports. The players regard U.S. government-issued documents as an attack on their identity.
The team still needs British visas to attend the Lacrosse World Championship in Manchester, England. The British government said previously it wouldn't give the players visas if they could not guarantee they'd be allowed to go home.

Strange comment:

"The players regard U.S. government-issued documents as an attack on their identity."

I get what they mean, but if this statement is true, how did they pay for their trip (without "government-issued documents")?


Identity (none / 0) (#28)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 01:00:10 PM EST

I get what they mean, but if this statement is true, how did they pay for their trip (without "government-issued documents")?

There is a big difference between having a government issued passport and using government issued money.

Maybe the way for you to understand it is to put yourself in their shoes.

What if you were traveling in Pakistan. Just because you pay for thing using their currency, does not mean that you would become a national of that country. If you got a Pakistani passport you would become a national of that sovereign country.

The Iroquois are not US citizens, they are citizens of the Iroquois nation, which is sovereign.


Well (none / 0) (#29)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 01:34:38 PM EST

Of those that are not Canadian Iroquois, they all get Social Security cards, those that have income (besides fromtribal trusts) pay federal taxes, many have Medicare or Medicaid cards, and if they have a job with the federal government , receive psychecks and W-2s - all "government issued documents" that have some basis in identification ny the federal government. Do those documents "steal their national identity"?


No (none / 0) (#30)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 01:46:51 PM EST

Just a passport does. Many who are french and work in the US have to pay taxes including social security. They are still french nationals.

A passport is very different from the things you are talking about. A passport is issued by the sovereign nation you are a national of.

The fact that you are trying trivialize the Iroquois position, suggests that you have no understanding or empathy for their position, or any understanding of what a passport is.


You almost did it (none / 0) (#31)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 02:15:11 PM EST

You almost had a rational and thoughtful conversation going there, and then you reverted back to a failed attempt to mind read and put words in my mouth and assume to know what I think.

The quote said that they feel government-issued documents steal their identity. Notice that they did not qualify the statement by saying "government-issued documents that only prove citizenship" steal their identity, which is why I said that while I get their point, it was a strange comment to make.

But you are just grasping to try and be disageeable.


: Yeah (none / 0) (#32)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 03:16:09 PM EST

Nationalism is only about identity. period. I have trouble with nationalism in general, but when it comes to Native Americans I absolutely sympathize with their nationalistic agenda.

Almost Right (none / 0) (#26)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 12:55:38 PM EST

The government is letting then return with their old passports.


: Implied (none / 0) (#27)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 01:00:09 PM EST

Britain would not admit them unless they could return, so they are both going and returning, if you want to be technical.

But some are from Canada (none / 0) (#23)
by Cream City on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 01:49:17 AM EST

so I doubt that outreach would have reached that far -- or ought to have done so.

Uhhh, what the heck is the U.S. doing in demanding that Canadians get U.S. passports? Or passports similar to those in the U.S. Huh? (This story is a tad screwed up, perhaps.)

As for the U.S. nationals among the Natives, from what I've seen in my state -- one with the most reservations east of the Mississippi -- in terms of courts finally holding us to our treaties that accorded separate and equal status to Native nations, I suspect that a court well could rule for the tribes re their sovereignty on this, as the tribes assert.

And to my mind, such courts would be correct.

____

Btw, lacrosse is a fearsome game to watch, much less to play. And I've only seen midlevel play. World Cup is over; let's get lacrosse on teevee! And let's hope that it would mean getting to see these guys, as their level of play must be something.
