Friday Night Open Thread

Another holiday weekend arrives. Anyone have any special plans?

Paris Hilton has been cleared in South Africa of possessing a joint. It looks like it will be a slow news weekend, a good time to kick back and do something different. But what?

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< White House Fantasy: "Signs Of Gradual Labor Market Recovery" | World Cup Grudge Match: Argentina-Germany >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    pervert and sexual predator ??? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 12:49:37 AM EST
    I haven't been able to catch up on threads (busy) but the Enquirer headline (I suppose a quote) calls Al Gore a "pervert and sexual predator". Isn't that libel? She can't prove he groped her, and even IF he did does that make him a 'pervert' or a predator? This woman seems to think in slippery absolutes.

    I am strongly in favor of laws that protect women. I was close to a situation where a woman (18 years old) used child porn laws to inflict pain on a man (just turned 19) who sent out a photo of her topless. She took the photo of herself (underage) and sent it out to a number of guys in her class. But the re-posting of it fell into the child porn laws. Luckily the Portland detective assigned to the case was sympathetic. Nevertheless he was kicked out of his high school one month before graduation, and lost his West Point acceptance. I am strongly against those who bend laws that are intended to protect those who need protection.

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#27)
    by otherlisa on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 02:56:45 AM EST
    I don't admire that many politicians. Al Gore is on my very short list. I tend to default to the woman's perspective in sexual assault cases, but...it would just shatter the remaining shreds of my faith if he is guilty of this.

    That's the problem I have with it too (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 07:01:43 AM EST
    If making obnoxious sexual advances is considered perversion and predation there sure are a lot pf perves around. I'm not even saying I don't believe her statement of facts, when you separate actions from her thought process and interpretation in her statement.

    On the other hand, if it is so common for men to order 3 hour NON-sexual massages at 11 pm in their hotel rooms that she would not think twice about taking this assignment, maybe I'm the perve with a dirty mind!


    my daughter (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 01:21:16 AM EST
    just landed her first job just out of college. Receptionist/administrative assistant for a large real estate law firm in LA. She actually turned down two other job offers for this. She described the offices as "really legit Mom!!". Sigh. I guess I need to finance a few actual good outfits for her to show up in.

    Congratulations!!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 01:55:12 AM EST
    To both of you.  An employed child is no small thing right now.

    I second MT's congrats. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 02:28:44 AM EST
    Getting a job, any job, right out of college is quite a feat these days. Good for your daughter.

    MT is right. A kid with a job is a blessing.


    Thanks MT and CaseyOR (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 05:24:27 PM EST
    I'm very glad she has a job - and she really went for it, which I'm glad about too. Also, I think (hope) she can take care of herself around powerful men. She had a receptionist job last summer and was hit on by her boss who took out a couple of the people in the office, plied her with expensive champaign and tuna tartar. She managed to hold her own, even tho he kept going on and on about all the money and homes and cars he had. It was actually rather upsetting to her (ah youth). I told her to remember that when they offer you tuna tartar that it is actually only raw fish.

    My daughter and I were talking today (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 08:35:49 PM EST
    She was complaining about how much she is hit on right now too.  She is really beginning to bounce back from the failed marriage, getting her house in order...raising two very small children alone.  She has really needed to grow a lot quickly and she has.  She wants to know why she is suddenly such a "hot" commodity?  My opinion, a man may not be able to stand a lifetime with a strong woman, but it doesn't hurt the survival of your DNA to at least try to get one pregnant :)  And that girl isn't shooting blanks :)  It might be easier to get laid when you are strong, smart, and beautiful, but it isn't one bit easier finding someone you want to wake up next to for the rest of your life and who wants to wake up next to you :)  Tell her I said to stay true to herself and enjoy lots expensive dinners :)

    MT, every single (none / 0) (#68)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 09:17:49 PM EST
    bit of your comment is relevant to my daughter and probably lots of young women. I think I need to copy your entire comment and forward it to my daughter. I'm sure I'll catch h*ll for mentioning her on a blog. BUT.... I have a few guilt factors up my sleeve, like paying for an expensive private college. That's just one. Oh, as a good mom, I'm so good at thinking up the heavies and then just implying them.

    Best of luck to your amazing daughter. Luck is always a factor.


    Anyone see the (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by brodie on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 04:06:30 PM EST
    interesting Fritz Lang film Fury last night on TCM?  Loosely based on the real-life San Jose, CA mob lynching of the two men accused in the 1933 kidnapping of Bay Area young man Brooke Hart.

    CA Gov Rolph, probably for political reasons, declined to send in nat'l guard to protect prisoners after the announcement of a lynching in the park was sent out over local radio stations.  Rolph also said he would pardon the lynchers.  Alameda County DA Earl Warren favored their prosecution.  Ex-pres Hoover, from Palo Alto, denounces lynch mob.  

    Crazy and wild scene of thousands of San Jose citizens, including cheering and fainting women.  Check out the linked contemporary newspaper accounts -- looks like Lang didn't have to make much up.

    Dodgy Sprint billing practices (none / 0) (#1)
    by observed on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 08:03:01 PM EST
    I got a Boostmobile phone several weeks ago---pay as  you go, unlimited service for $50/mo.
    It's on the Sprint network and Sprint does the billing.
    I have been unable to refill my minutes because online bill pay doesn't work. This happend about 2 weeks ago, and then I tried again yesterday and failed again.
    What happens is that I enter the usual information to pay, press "submit" and get a message back saying the transaction was refused and to contact my bank.
    In fact, after I contacted my bank I discovered that Sprint HAD taken the money to the extent of putting a hold on it, but did not put the money into my Boost account. After 1 week, the money reverted to my bank account. I went to the Sprint store 2 days ago and was told several customers had  this exact complaint. I figured by now it must be fixed. My mistake.

    What really irks  me, besides not having phone service, is that I get a message saying the transaction failed when in fact, Sprint has put a hold on  that amount. This seems fraudulent to me.

    Debit Card? (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 10:09:53 PM EST
    They make millions because they are allowed to hold a certain amount over the fee, as security. Multiply that by a million customers and they make a fortune on the float.

    Not only that (none / 0) (#16)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 11:18:24 PM EST
    But our Corrupt Congress has granted these banks and CC Co's status that the rest of society does not enjoy.

    If you rent out a room in your apartment, or house, you have to keep the money in a separate, dedicated account, and if that account bears interest that interest belongs to the tenant. Banks, as you've noted, get to use the funds for whatever (nefarious) purpose they choose.

    But another beef of mine is this: why, when you deposit a check into your checking account do the banks still get to hold the funds for an arbitrary number of days, equivalent to those of long ago, manual-handling days? Yet when one of your checks is deposited into someone elses account the funds are removed from your account instantly, via the bar code.. Also, When you swipe a cc card in a store the funds are removed from your account while you're still standing there.

    Whenever I've asked bank employees why this is so, they smile at you with that "check mate" smile that only idiotic, robotic automons have and chirp, in a low, hushed tone, "bank policy." And, they actually have been brainwashed into believing that that response adequately explains, and answers, the question. So when I say, "I know it's bank policy, but my question was, "why?" Then they shake their head back and forth, exhaling exasperatedly, thinking to themselves, "boy, is this guy dense!)

    And that's the exact moment I want to morph into Al Pacino and say to her, "Let me introduce you to my little friend"


    Huh? (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 08:48:13 AM EST
    If you rent out a room in your apartment, or house, you have to keep the money in a separate, dedicated account, and if that account bears interest that interest belongs to the tenant.

    Can anyone verify this?


    Depends on state law (none / 0) (#34)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 09:41:25 AM EST
    In NY, I believe, if landlord places tenant security in interest-bearing account, interest credited to tenant less fee for landlord's administrative costs, which, in my experience, eat up a substantial portion of the interest.  Also, interest credited to tenant is taxed as income in year earned, but not returned to tenant until security deposit is required to be returned.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 03:47:33 PM EST
    The comment I quoted didn't say security deposit.

    correct (none / 0) (#64)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 06:18:27 PM EST
    should have said deposit and/or additional pre-payment of rent, usually first & last month.

    Verify? (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 10:45:31 AM EST
    Seems like common sense to me, not to mention being fair. If you are holding someones money as a security deposit, for example three months rent at $3000/month, the $9000 should at least be bearing interest for the tenant, no?

    Do you think that the landlord should profit from the tenants money put down as a security deposit? I don't.


    "Bank Policy".... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 09:29:40 AM EST
    surpirsed they didn't just say "because I said so!" like a parent to an over-inquisitive child...lol.

    Living without a bank account is no prize sometimes, but I wouldn't trade with any of ya...you guys are nuts to put up with that crap.  It's your money and you let fuedal lords rule over it...I'll never get it, never ever get it.


    The amount being held is exactly the fee, (none / 0) (#22)
    by observed on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 01:45:14 AM EST
    but it's not going into my account.
    What seems illegal to me is notifying me that the transaction has failed but then putting a hold on the money anyway.

    Is It a Debit Card? (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 10:53:17 AM EST
    Most likely. They really rake in the profits when you rent a car, because they extract several hundred extra dollars, just in case you get into an accident, or damage the car. The bank holds that money and is in no rush to credit it back to you.

    Chalk that up to the creative use of a float on steriods. As NYShooter pointed out, the delay in a check clearing is so that the money floats, inaccessible for the customers on both ends (check writer and check depositor)  while the bank profits off it.

    Seems trivial but when you multiply it times a million customers the profit is not trivial.


    You ain't kiddin' its fraudulent... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 09:25:35 AM EST
    a bank and VISA/MC are involved...of course there is fraud, it's a given!

    If you haven't totally soured on Sprint, just pay in cash at the store and leave the leeches out of it.


    I was totally soured on Sprint (none / 0) (#48)
    by observed on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 03:09:10 PM EST
    before I bought the Boost mobile phone.
    I got it an Radio Shack and didn't realize Sprint was the provider until too late.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 03:33:03 PM EST
    Well, imo they are all horrible. ATT, Verizon, Sprint, MCI, I have quit them all, even Vonage... but when it comes down to it they are all the same slime.

    I agree. Just use cash... (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 03:54:56 PM EST
    Debit cards are used because people don't want the exposure of carrying cash and/or the merchant doesn't want a personal check and the individual has a problem with credit cards.

    Everything costs in life, why should a desired convenience be free?


    Michael Steele rooting for failure in Afghanistan (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 08:46:23 PM EST

    Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse said in a blistering statement that

    "They'd also be interested to hear that the Chairman of the Republican Party thinks we have no business in Afghanistan notwithstanding the fact that we are there because we were attacked by terrorists on 9-11," he continued. "And, the American people will be interested to hear that the leader of the Republican Party thinks recent events related to the war are 'comical' and that he is betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan. It's simply unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement."

    Not what he said, and what he said was (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 01:52:26 AM EST
    so much worse than that really

    Well the McChrystal incident um, to me was very telling. And I think it's a reflection of frustration that a lot of our military leaders have with this administration and their prosecution of the war in Afghanistan.

    Keep in mind, again, [inadudible] our federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not, this was not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in. It was one of those, one of those areas on the total board of of foreign policy of the middle east, that you would be in the background, sort of shaping the, the changes that were necessary in Afghanistan, as opposed to directly engaging troops. But it was the President, who tried to be cute by half, by flipping the script, demonizing Iraq while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. Well if, if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, that's the one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan. Alright? Because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan that do not [indaudible]

    So now, for, for our candidates whether they're running for Congress or United States Senate, um, there is a whole text of resources available to them through our office, the RNC, through uh, congressional committee, the senatorial and congressional committees, and even some of the think tanks that help to frame those arguments, uh, so that, um you know, you you don't get stuck on the, well, George Bush, you know ... fill in the blank. And I think that that's gonna be very helpful. [inaudible] you can shoot them down with the facts. It's amazing what facts can do. You know? So .. but that's our reality.

    The McChrystal event is indicative of what he claims, and hopefully that is behind us now.  But General McChrystal failed big time.  He needed to address his problems in a different way if he wanted to stay employed in his last job.  As to this war being Obama's choosing ummmmm....we were already there.  We were already there in such small numbers that we were about to be completely overrun the day Obama took office and he had to send 20,000 emergency troops in immediately or I guess send the helicopters and evacuate from the rooftops.  Whose feck up was all that?  Erm...Dubya and friends!

    Erm...and battle really is in Afghanistan.  Iraq was not a failed state that had become the haven and ATM of Radical Islamic Terrorists who then attacked us on several occasions and finally in such a way on Dubyas watch that we could no longer look the other way.

    Erm....and because of the B.S. that Bush got us into in Iraq we have fewer resources, many dead soldiers, and the real enemy now knows things about us they learned from watching how we conducted ourselves in Iraq. And Michael, that is getting soldiers killed in Afghanistan while we deal with the real problem that Michael Steele completely ignored for seven years.  And that is not comical.


    The only part I saw actually was (none / 0) (#29)
    by observed on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 07:02:40 AM EST
    about Afghanistan being the graveyard of empires.
    I didn't care so much about what he said as the DNC response, which was disgusting.

    The DNC response was horrific (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 10:47:17 AM EST
    It was a Dem version of Fox News :)

    No Tracy (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 08:53:47 AM EST
    we were not about to be over run. And it took Obama 7 months to give the military about half of what they said they needed and he

    then told our enemies and our friends when we would leave

    That remains one of the dumbest things I have ever seen a President do. It ranks right up there with Johnson and Nixon's decision to fight a proportional war rather than just wiping them out.


    Sorry Jim (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 10:46:04 AM EST
    I can point all I want to to his campaign, but Obama had not really made up his mind exactly what he was going to do about this Afghanistan thing.  And when he took office we were in SERIOUS SERIOUS trouble on the ground.  We had had to pull completely back to try to protect ourselves (the few troops that were there).  You are wrong my friend, very wrong.  Afghanistan was in an emergency state for the Americans and I guess our interests since we do have them there the day Obama was sworn in.  It is almost as if BuchCo did that to him on purpose, just to make things even more of a certain hell for him right out of the gate.  But that would be treating American troops like cannon fodder trash and Bush and friends would never do that :)

    No, the pull back was a (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 03:43:25 PM EST
    decision made to not pursue the war while we were still actively engaged in Iraq.

    You and I may disagree with that decision but that is what it was and Obama dithered and postured rather than make a decision to reinforce or pull out.


    Dither? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 03:52:03 PM EST
    All of Obama's statements about Afghanistan were as warmongering as anything you have ever come up with. The record is clear, there never was any dithering, as you put it, involved on Obama's part, or Hillary's for that matter.

    But for you he is a black muslim democrat, so I understand that for you to imagine that he would act in any way that you would agree with, your head would explode.

    At least it would not be too messy, considering...


    Is Hillary Clinton responsible for (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 04:57:02 PM EST
    the Obama Administration's policy re Afghanistan?

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 06:05:13 PM EST
    My point, oh Hillary devotee and great protector, is the Obama, Hillary et al. reflect the mainstream Democratic party position on Afghanistan.

    No dithering, only warmongering.


    I suppose if you could answer my (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 11:23:38 PM EST
    question, you would.  I believe there is a special U.S. envoy, Richard Holbrooke, re Afghanistan.

    Oh I See (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 11:41:48 PM EST
    Once again my point was larger than your question, as I explained, this is a was Democratic party position.

    Regarding your question, I do not think Hilary Clinton decides what the US war strategy is in Afghanistan. Her opinion is no doubt valuable, and taken into consideration.

    In any case, I would be surprised if she had any different opinion about the War than Obama does. They both get their info from the same sources, and have mouthed the same rhetoric about Afghanistan war for the last several years.


    Well he could have given us (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 05:13:57 PM EST
    a single payer health insurance and he didn't.... And yes, that bothered me. And what he has promised has serious problems...

    The Obama administration has not ruled out turning sick people away from an insurance program created by the new healthcare law to provide coverage for the uninsured.


    Now if you want to claim that is because he is a "black muslim democrat" that's up to you.

    I just say he was, is and will be incompetent.


    Nice (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 06:07:13 PM EST
    CHanging the subject when you are wrong.

    But, I am sure that from your point of view it is better than having your head explode...Although,  I am sure that without one, your comments would be just about the same.


    Whatever he said has nothing to do with anything. (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 08:51:01 PM EST
    I mean show him a statement and it is like a dog seeing a nice juicy bone. He can pounce from 40 feet and speak for hours and hours. All full of sound and fury but signifying nothing. (Sorry William S.)

    But you didn't address "dither" so I just assumed you were done with the subject.

    dith·er  (dĭth'ər)    
    n.  A state of indecisive agitation.
    intr.v.   dith·ered, dith·er·ing, dith·ers
    To be nervously irresolute in acting or doing.

    He did that for about 7 months.

    He also blathered.

    And told the enemy to just keep killing soldiers because we would be leaving on schedule.

    How stupid.


    Riiight (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 09:09:56 PM EST
    It wasn't right when the Republicans (none / 0) (#3)
    by observed on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 08:48:19 PM EST
    used fascist propaganda techniques, and it's not right for the Democrats either.
    Steele is right.

    Michael Steele...sheesh (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:43:19 PM EST
    As a resident of MD, who endured four years of Steele as Lt. Gov (with Bobby "Haircut" Ehrlich as Governor), I wholeheartedly agree with this:

    Steele's a Grade A buffoon and first-class hypocrite

    He's affable enough, but has a 200 watt smile and a 15 watt brain. Words just roll out of his mouth, unencumbered or filtered by anything resembling common sense or a grasp of the facts.  As good an example of incomptence as one can find.

    His only real use seems to be as a foil to Democrats who aren't exactly distinguishing themselves in the good policy and competent leadership department.

    The bar is almost as low as it can go, I think.


    I'm starting to wonder (none / 0) (#36)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 09:53:23 AM EST
    if the conspiracy theorists were correct about Steele's rise to prominence- I mean I'd always thought it was due to tokenism and a cargo cult mentality in the GOP base ("Dems put a Black guy in charge come to power; if we do the same the country's ours again") but what if Steele was elected to discredit African-American leadership- basically saying "look this is the best a black man can do- so don't blame us when White Guys run everything."

    Or what if Steele is playing with their heads? (none / 0) (#42)
    by esmense on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 11:20:30 AM EST
    After all, he is, I'm sure, aware of their "tokenism" and "cargo cult mentality." It must be tempting to, from time to time, tweak that hypocrisy and do something to have a little fun (at their expense). Take this latest kerfunkle -- he made Billy Kristol scream like a baby. He did a great send up of their blame everything on Obama storyline. And he, of course, reminded a public that is becoming tired of war that Obama is only fighting wars Bush started and that his current Republican critics fully support.

    Agree 100% about the DNC statement (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:04:33 PM EST
    Really horrible.

    Regardless of what Steele says (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:41:07 PM EST
    the DNCs use of Bush era language like 'rooting for the troops to fail', etc, to describe people who do not support the war is unacceptable to me. Completely unfair.

    I don't have the energy at the moment to analyze Steele. Not sure he is worth your worthy effort- pretty sure I agree with you!


    Seriously (none / 0) (#35)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 09:50:18 AM EST
    thats the part that irks me- not the stuff the DNC is riled up about (though lets be honest here- if it works use it- sorry but i lost my concerns about the gentility of the process somewhere around the third ad which painted a geniune war hero as a cowardly wimp and a male cheerleader as a macho cowboy)- how in the hell did Obama "take this country into Afghanistan" I mean the sheer cognitive dissonance necessary to state this and head a party which is all war all the time even against countries with a far less just Casus Belli than Afghanistan is almost unimaginable.

    déjà entendu (none / 0) (#58)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 05:07:55 PM EST
    "They'd also be interested to hear that the Chairman of the Democratic Party thinks we have no business in Afghanistan notwithstanding the fact that we are there because we were attacked by terrorists on 9-11," he continued. "And, the American people will be interested to hear that the leader of the Democratic Party thinks recent events related to the war are 'comical' and that he is betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan. It's simply unconscionable that Tim Kaine would undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement."

    Oh Good (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 06:12:15 PM EST
    Well I guess that you will be applauding Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu, et al., for their right wing votes from now on, as they are, for you, the same votes as if they voted with their party.

    Good to know.


    you guess wrong (none / 0) (#72)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 02:58:39 PM EST
    & you make no sense

    Make No Sense? (2.00 / 1) (#73)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 04:28:18 PM EST
    Well then you are either in denial, have no idea what you position is, or are lying.

    By interchanging the Republican Party and its leadership with the Democratic Party and its leadership in Michael Steele's ridiculous statement, one can only surmise that you believe that the Republican Party and the Democratic party are identical.

    Therefore there would be no reason to expect any Democrat to vote against their party because their party is identical to the GOP.

    Your linguistic game is utter bs, imo, and quite flippant. Not sure what you believe you are accomplishing either, save for morons and the GOP to support and agree with you.


    silly (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 06:38:29 PM EST
    it goes w/out saying that Steele is a buffoon

    your argument is w/whatever is going on in your own mind & has nothing at all to do w/my comment

    i am agreeing w/previous commenters who are appalled by the tenor & diction of the statement from Woodhouse - why don't you insult them too

    & btw there is not really so much difference between Dems and the GOP if you have not noticed - maybe you have not - but i am a leftist & my politics unlike yours do not stop w/being a partisan Democrat

    now if you cannot contain your byzantine projections please stop spewing them on me

    thank you


    Projections? (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:31:44 PM EST
    No projections. I got it right, you believe that there is no difference between the Democrats and the GOP, ergo your substitution word play in Woodhouse speech.

    I have consistently criticized the democrats, my reps and the WH on their position on afghanistan.

    Your memory is very short, either that or you are very young and did not live through BushCo I and BushCo II.

    Clinton wan and Obama is, as POTUS, to the right of where I stand, but a whole different kettle of fish than GOP rule.


    well we disagree (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 01:26:08 AM EST

    by projections i mean your style of argumentation - whereby you declare that another commenter either [is/does negative option 1] or [is/does negative option 2] or [is/does negative option 3], with no regard for & no apparent ability to read what the other person has written & no interest in or curiosity abt what the other person actually may think - as if that does not matter & only your own opinion & your own negative worldview & your own very limited & disrespectful speculations are the only thing that counts

    very immature method of communicating imo

    i very often agree w/you but also very often am put way off by how you say things & how disrespectfully you address other commenters

    you may not care abt winning friends but you are not influencing people either




    Yes (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 01:49:14 AM EST
    I am not the best with tone... although I do work on it and am sometimes unaware of the negative tone in my comments.

    I do get where you are coming from, after running into some other blog posts on Woodhouse's comments. In any case, from my perspective, your transmutation does not really reflect the criticism leveled at Woodhouse, as being Rove like.  

    I think it is better to be more direct... Being frustrated with the Democrats, as most of us are, is one thing, but I do not think that it is effective to generalize that that the Democrats are just like the GOP.  Best, imo, to be specific, and level specific criticism. Like Greenwald did, or other, regarding Woodhouse statement.

    I have mixed feelings about it, as there are parts of his statement that I think are accurate.

    Here goes Michael Steele setting policy for the GOP again. The likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham will be interested to hear that the Republican Party position is that we should walk away from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban without finishing the job. They'd also be interested to hear that the Chairman of the Republican Party thinks we have no business in Afghanistan notwithstanding the fact that we are there because we were attacked by terrorists on 9-11.

    I think that the sarcasm here is appropriate, and accurate. McCain and Graham played the cut and run game every time a Democrat said it was time to leave Iraq.  What do they think when one of their own says it....  Taken in this context it is not Rovian at all, imo.


    Will see Astros @ Padres Sat. (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 10:11:12 PM EST
    And Tilda Swinton in new Italian film, "I Am Love."  Warning:  music by John Adams.  Saw Coco and Igor today.  Definitely a chick flick (in the Masterpiece Theatre sense of that phrase).  Will/must finish "Wolf Hall."  

    Hmmm. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 11:57:52 PM EST
    I haven't seen Amistad, but I've seen lots of movies with Williams scores, and one of the things I've always liked most about his movie scores is that they don't do what you just described, which is something that makes hot steam come out of my ears.  Odd if he would do it in this movie, but Spielberg may have had something to do with that choice, especially if his trust in the effectiveness of the movie was slipping, which I think I remember having read that it had at one point.

    If I lived in NYC, on the other hand, I (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 10:16:06 PM EST
    would make every effort to get a ticket to Delacorte (Central Park) for "Merchant of Venice."

    An American minimalist composer. He (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 10:40:59 PM EST
    wrote the score for the opera "Nixon in China," which I enjoyed.  Some find his music grating.

    Yep. Read the book; it's so much better (none / 0) (#14)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 10:43:10 PM EST
    about one of the amazing stories in our history.

    So, with Hopkins and others in the cast, the movie could have been so great. . . .


    Fun to watch Matt Latos in the Pads (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 11:23:50 PM EST
    dugout hanging on the rail.  

    I see Air Coryell died today. (none / 0) (#20)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 01:08:25 AM EST
    My brother said it is a big story in San Diego today. He thinks no one East of the Mississippi even knows who he is. I told him I read the obit at 2 today and I remember having season tickets to the Chargers when Don was the Coach. It was stunning to watch Fouts toss that ball to Winslow and Joiner and Jefferson. It was pure fun because they were so good at it and having so much fun themselves.

    I was there when Garvey hit the home run in the Padres playoffs against the Cubs. A great memory also. Have fun at the game.


    San Diego...Super PADRES! (none / 0) (#26)
    by otherlisa on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 02:54:55 AM EST
    Dayum, I am loving this season!

    And as a person who has been to China double-digit times, I think "Nixon In China" is absolutely brilliant.


    John Adams is ok (none / 0) (#45)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 02:38:20 PM EST
    in little doses from time to time. "Nixon goes to China" is an interesting operatic and psychological study. And, I recently heard "The Transmigration of Souls"...a driven, powerfully despairing orchestration about 9/11.  Hypnotic, certainly not melodic.

    I haven't heard "Transmigration (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 04:59:19 PM EST
    of Souls."  Enjoyed "Los Ninos."  Did not enjoy piece for electric violin and orchestra.

    Adams' score for "I Am Love," is in the (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 08:41:01 PM EST
    irritating (to me) category.  Good film though.

    Polanski analogy (not very good) (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 11:12:17 PM EST
    from bleacher.com:

    While the mass media ogles the big name [NBA] free agents like Roman Polanski at an elementary school, . . .

    "Polanski," performed by (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 11:12:33 AM EST
    Chocolate Genius.  A ballad about exile.  No, I didn't listen to it.  link

    C-Span is re-airing (none / 0) (#43)
    by brodie on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 12:13:23 PM EST
    a 2003 presentation at the Kennedy Library by Rbt Dallek on JFK that I'd missed the first time around.  Interesting that he thinks Kennedy would have won in 64 against BG by the same landslide as Lyndon, and gotten most of the same progressive legislation after the new and more liberal Congress began in 65.  

    Also that we wouldn't have had the VN War escalation since Kennedy was too skeptical of military ventures by nature and bitter personal experience.  And of course no Nixon and Watergate either, after JFK's second term.

    Dallek is a little too hard and judgmental on the personal dalliances stuff, and the sidekick with him, Leuchtenberg, wanted to dwell on it a little too much for my tastes.  Other than that, it's 80-90 minutes well spent.

    Fair Weather Friend (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 02:28:53 PM EST
    The pair were arrested at the Brazil-Netherlands quarter-final in Port Elizabeth, after police smelt marijuana. Police approached when a joint was thrown to the ground and the women apparently were ushered inside by bodyguards.
    "Police seized the evidence and approached the women inside the stadium. The women were taken into custody after a bodyguard handed a second cannabis cigarette over to the police," said police spokeswoman Sally De Beer.
    "Charges were withdrawn against Miss Paris Hilton as her co-accused acknowledged being in possession of the cannabis and pleaded guilty."

    Here is what Paris had to say:

    I was not charged or arrested, cause I didn't do anything. I was assisting the police with the investigation and answering their questions.
    "Everyone was super nice and friendly to me. I love South Africa! Such an amazing place, especially during The World Cup! Hope that clears everything up. Love you guys, thanks for your concern. Xoxo P."

    Different version:

    But De Beer said the heiress had been arrested and charged.
    "She was arrested and then the charges were formally withdrawn in court," she said.
    "Maybe what's she's trying to say is that she was cooperative, which apparently she was, very sweet and co-operative."


    Plans for the 4th: teach American history! (none / 0) (#46)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 02:49:47 PM EST
    What better way to celebrate our past than to share it?  My first week as an online prof has proved to be as fascinating as the responses of students to the readings -- they can be so much more articulate in writing their thoughts.  (And so courteous; they are taking to heart the rule to compliment another student's work first before responding to it in the discussion forum, so it has become a marvelous Stuart Smalley Mutual Admiration Society of many daily affirmations!)

    Tomorrow, they get an Independence Day gift with an optional extra-credit opportunity . . . and a long message from me celebrating the day with lots of Youtube excerpts from my beloved bicentennial musical, 1776, and from the great HBO series on John and Abigail Smith Adams.

    In both, the scenes about the very human endeavor of writing the Declaration of Independence by committee are so marvelous -- and so instructive for students to see Thomas Jefferson subjected to the process of rewriting, too.  And to criticism about his spelling: unalienable or inalienable?  The debate rages on, even today.

    Would be interested in current students' (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 02:53:09 PM EST
    reaction to the musical "1776."

    So am I -- so I will let you know (none / 0) (#50)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 03:36:33 PM EST
    if I get responses to my message.

    However, they have their first test coming up, so I suspect that they may not have time to check out the tunes -- and that the load already of emails asking questions already answered on the syllabus will only increase with questions as well about the test, questions also already answered there, too.  (If only I could get a buck for every time I have typed "see the syllabus"!)

    And I am told to expect emails as well about problems with the technology, as some will not click on a url in another message to read tips from our techies about not using wireless access for tests, etc.  But, but, but so many students are so bright and working so hard that I will hope for the best on the test -- while looking forward to their responses to the material ahead, as we really get into major issues still with us today.


    I love this story (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 08:27:09 AM EST