home

Friday Night Open Thread

The weekend has arrived, just in time for an open thread. All topics welcome.

< California Judge Invalidates Execution Protocol | Time Person of the Year: The Protester >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Two obituaries today that made me sad (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Peter G on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 08:50:40 PM EST
    Christopher Hitchens (although I certainly didn't always agree with him!)
    and Russell Hoban (my personal favorite, "They Came From Aargh," although "Best Friends for Frances" is pretty awesome, too.)

    The older I get, the sadder the obits (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:19:38 PM EST
    make me, as I realize that I'm reading about people in my own age group more and more, and mortality is becoming less a concept than a reality.

    Puts a lot of things in perspective.

    Parent

    Frances: (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:37:03 PM EST
    Scrambled Eggs

    I eat as well as I am able,
    But some falls underneath the table.
    --Frances, Egg Thoughts and Other Frances Songs

    Parent

    Question (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 08:55:36 PM EST
    Now that we have a king, why do we even need those useless jesters in congress, anyway?

    LOL (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Amiss on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:14:55 PM EST
    That is the way I feel most of the time too. Thanks for the laugh.

    Parent
    The "king" reassures (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:38:43 PM EST
    the supporters of Israel:  no option is off the table re Iran.  How comforting.  

    Parent
    Heckuva job this guy does, eh? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:48:52 PM EST
    I think somewhat Hawkish thoughts about Iran (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 08:40:26 AM EST
    When I saw Obama's speech though, is he really going to go all hyperbole because a bunch of INSANE Republicans are saying he hasn't done enough to protect Israel?  He has his game faces all FUBAR.  That face he always gives me on domestic issues, or at least the one he used to give me right before he threw me under the bus, that's the face for this conversation.  He is a great killer, he has GIANT COJONES.....just bring them with you to the speech man and let them silently hang around.  You don't have to say much.  You don't even have to raise your voice.

    He killed Osama bin Laden.  He has factual intel and kills someone big in the Haqqani network or Al Qaeda several times a year.  He does these things without Abu Ghraibs or almost losing Baghdad moments.

    I couldn't believe he's acting this silly about a couple of doofuses claiming he's too nice.  Sit down Obama!  You are a great killer without creating international incident and moments of deep shame for country.  Sit the hell down and get used to it.  I can't believe he's letting these buffoons roll him like this.  He was just a little too over the top all puffy chested.  Given what has gone down on his watch it just seemed flat out embarrassing how much of a threat he seems to think Republicans are on national security or Israel security issues.

    Parent

    No man is an island. (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 08:57:46 AM EST
    He does these things without Abu Ghraibs or almost losing Baghdad moments.

    Perhaps his success is because of what went before.

    Parent

    You mean the guys (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:06:00 AM EST
    who tried to tell our soldiers to shoot looters until their own soldiers had to remind them of what the Geneva Conventions were?  You mean those guys?

    Parent
    You mean the guys (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:12:52 AM EST
    who didn't think much about Osama bin Laden when he was alive anymore?  You mean those guys?

    Parent
    You mean the guys who had (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:15:13 AM EST
    stopped aggressively seeking and gathering intel on Al Qaeda?  You mean those guys?

    You mean the guys who broke our country and almost the spine of our military in order to invade Iraq?  You mean those guys?

    Parent

    Im sure what he means is (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:35:30 AM EST
    after what went before he doesnt have to do much to look good.

    Parent
    Obama's military (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:10:28 AM EST
    goes by the book.  They might not show you all the books, they classify a lot but so did Bush.  People always talk though Jim when they are being forced to do things that qualify as HORROR.  It's so damned quiet out there, all I hear are crickets.  And you might be able to cover up quite a bit of something, but never all of it.  I can PROMISE YOU Obama's military is under severe scrutiny.  It makes some senior people sweat bullets sometimes, but nobody said this job was ever going to be easy....nor should it ever be, this job of killing people.

    Parent
    Your Obama's book (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:31:39 AM EST
    has pulled out of Iraq, told the world when he will leave Afghanistan making every live lost one lost in vain, lost Egypt to the radical Muslims, has no knowledge of where a few thousand Surface to Air Missiles went to from Libya, wouldn't help the demonstrators in Iran overthrow the government that brags of destroying Israel and the west.....

    Yeah, that book.

    He's your guy, Tracy. You voted for him. Enjoy what he is doing.

    Parent

    Obama's foreign policy (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:40:52 AM EST
    has been very good and the American people know it, in spite of the yelling done by many.

    Parent
    What I said in comment 33 (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:53:15 AM EST
    This President killed Osama bin Laden (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 10:13:00 AM EST
    He collected real intel on bin Laden too, and ooops...he gathered a WHOLE BUNCH of real intel when he got bin Laden too.  For some reason he decided to care about bin Laden.  He has also put into place an excessively (I'm certain Jeralyn would call it excessive) advanced CIA and Special Forces operation to deal with the danger that is Al Qaeda and Haqqani.  Our relationship with our NATO allies that Bush did so much damage to has been repaired, and many NATO countries have the asset of proximity that allow us ALL to monitor and protect ourselves from Al Qaeda and Haqqani and wow...yes...even Iran.

    When you stand up and holler "PHUCK THE WORLD, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SOME HISTORY!" like George Bush and Dick Cheney and Feith and Wolfy and that band of psychos did....the world phucks you Jim instead.

    This President is of the highest military caliber, that's what makes me sad when he rolls over for people blabbering crap like you.  Give him a call this morning and see what he can do for you since he lacks a little bit of self confidence in this department.  I don't though, and I will be rolling over for nobody spouting your brand of psycho stuffage.

    Parent

    And I be lovin Dick Cheney going off (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 10:25:33 AM EST
    on Obama not sending in Special Forces to retrieve a downed drone.  That Cheney was such a coward he couldn't really go after bin Laden, but by God we need an International incident created over a stupid phucking drone.

    Yeah, we lost technology.  They lose those damned things all the time though.  They do try to retrieve them, but can they find every one?  Gee, I wonder what the odds of that are?  They've always been prepared to "lose" that technology.  We don't have to deliberately speed that along but nobody needs to die for it.  Unless of course you are sitting there with crap all over your face like Cheney is now, makes someone even crazier than they originally were for sure.  I'm certain of that, look at that crazy old bastard.....KILL THEM...KILL THEM ALL....I DEMAND BLOOD FOR THIS.

    Parent

    I wonder how much technology (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 11:59:08 AM EST
    was actually lost.

    The electronics for the drones I think are here in California, or at least in the States.  In terms of the stealth technology, I do think they have that much on them....

    Parent

    I do "not" think the drones (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 12:17:07 PM EST
    have that much stealth technology on them.

    Parent
    This is not (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 12:28:51 PM EST
    Jimmy Carter's military.

    It's almost not worth dignifying the doubt that our guys didn't address the "falling into the hands of the enemy" as priority #1.

    Ordnance and/or intel, #2

    Let's find a "real problem" to bi!ch about.

    Parent

    Look! Up in the air! (2.00 / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 11:32:31 AM EST
    It's a plane! No! It's SuperObama!

    Really Tracy sometimes you are a hoot.

    Have a nice day and keep on believing. After all, he is The Smartest Man In The World and has reduced unemployment to under 5%....

    Wait! Sorry! That was Bush on the employment thing.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Interesting perspective (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 11:56:42 AM EST
    Again, you are correct (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 01:37:53 PM EST
    Bush WAS employed under 5% of the time; the rest of the time was spent smirking.

    Parent
    I already know Jim that (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:43:15 AM EST
    You will work your military and their families to death.  You will idolize them at opportune times in order to be able to grind them into dirt guilt free when it suits you. You will nuke them into vapor in order to "feel like" you "win".  You will destroy their economy in order to be at war so that their own people cannot afford to care for them when they return home broken and injured.  That is what I know and understand about you Jim.  What you understand about stand off vs. conflict and how it makes living possible for everyone would fit into a thimble.

    Yes Jim, in this particular realm, Obama is my man and you and your kind are not

    Parent

    Can't stand the truth, eh? (2.00 / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:54:44 AM EST
    Obama's foreign policy will kill more military people than we lost all during the Bush years.

    Parent
    I have no idea what in the world (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:59:24 AM EST
    you are talking about, but that isn't anything new.  I finally sleep at night, I feel like I can live again and that better days are finally ahead for us and you keep chanting danger...danger....danger.  I'm still feeling pretty sleepy though Jim :)

    Parent
    A Southernor's perspective (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 12:19:22 PM EST
    Loves war and hates peace....Likes torture too.  How Christian of them.

    Parent
    WoW! a fortune teller (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 12:32:42 PM EST
    Tell you what, Jim. Give me the winners of tomorrow's four o'clock games and I promise, no, I swear, I will never, never, never, ever call you an idiot again. I won't even think it; you and me, buds to the end.

    Wadda say, chum?

    Parent

    Or (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by lentinel on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:19:44 PM EST
    maybe we have a jester in the executive office, and a bunch of little kings in congress.

    Parent
    Maybe they're just all clowns (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:30:37 PM EST
    or sockpuppets?

    Maybe they should all have to wear nascar jackets covered with logos of their sponsors, so people know who they work for?

    Parent

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by lentinel on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:40:41 PM EST
    they could all get into one of those tiny cars and drive off somewhere.

    Parent
    Well, they did (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:48:57 PM EST
    give Obama the power to disappear them all, after all.

    History repeats itself:

    He dissolved the parliament...


    Parent
    Surely, you jest (none / 0) (#82)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 01:39:29 PM EST
    sorry, couldn't help myself:)

    Parent
    Bizarro World (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by lentinel on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:18:22 PM EST
    In 1971 Richard Nixon signed into law the Non-Detention Act.

    Soon, Barack Obama will sign into law a bill that will undo that.

    Change we had better believe in.


    nothing has ever been the same (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:40:48 PM EST
    I know, right? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by sj on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:51:50 PM EST
    Who would have thought that Nixon's legacy could be rehabilitated.  Not his reputation, surely, but his legacy.  Boggles the mind.

    Parent
    Nixon bent to a very liberal Congress (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:50:33 AM EST
    I tend to think he would be just like Newt today, or any of the other Republicans....He would be right there as a cheerleader for wingers....

    Parent
    Barack Obama, evil genius (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 04:41:55 AM EST
    fact:  big labor, a very important supporter of the president, wants the pipeline

    fact: environmentalists, a somewhat less enthusiastic supporter of the president, does not.

    fact:  Obama is in the process of manipulating the republicans into "forcing" him to accept the pipeline to get tax cuts for the middle class and extended unemployment for poor folks like me.

    genius

    Isn't it great (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 06:58:46 AM EST
    how he wraps those republicans around his little finger? And the dummies never see it coming either. He's the man.

    Parent
    And if we "harvest" this oil (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:32:25 AM EST
    And make it possible for nobody to have to find better ways to create and use energy that won't destroy our children, it is game over for the planet from what I've read.

    Parent
    No, no, it's ok, The planet will be fine. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:41:30 AM EST
    In fact, once it gets over the fever it's developing to get rid of the virus it caught, it'll be better than ever.

    Parent
    I am big on the enviroment (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:46:43 AM EST
    but pipelines get built.....The Alaska pipeline proved that.

    The irony here is that it would go right through Red State America, and some of the Republicans there are starting to wake up to the fact that their drinking water might be affected.

    Ha! Let them have their pipeline, and the toxins in their groundwater, and all the "little" oil spills that result.....No need to fight all-out for these folks if they don't want it.

    Parent

    I laughed outloud (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 12:36:05 PM EST
    the other day when the poster boy of nepotism Luke Russert was explaining how the pipeline would go over a very important "aquafier".  which I suppose is where one goes to get aquafied.

    Parent
    and I think I agree (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 12:39:13 PM EST
    it will be build.  the delay seemed obviously political.  punt till after the election.

    instead the idiot republicans give the democrats yet another chance to fight a high profile battle for the middle class right in the middle of an election year.

    Parent

    Major Garret was on MSNBC (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 12:59:43 PM EST
    last night and said he believed in his gut that Obama rolled the Republicans on the pipeline--that he would never really block it, but delayed the issue to the end of the year to use as a bargaining chip for unemployment benefits.

    Garrett usued to be at Fox and is a wingnut favorite, and one wonders if such an elaborate gambit was planned like this in advance.

    Parent

    my guess (none / 0) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 01:09:32 PM EST
    not planned in advance really.  delayed for political purposes and then the idiot republicans fall for the "puleeeeeze dont tho me in dat briarpatch" thing like the keystone cops they are.

    Parent
    and another thing (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 12:41:27 PM EST
    aquifer doesnt look that big on the map.  cant they go around it?  

    Parent
    But is an (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 01:01:05 PM EST
    aquafier, so it is really, really big.....

    Parent
    my real wish (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 01:51:07 PM EST
    is for some honest to goodness, reliable, peer reviewed facts, pro, and con, regarding this issue. Why is it so hard, on so many fronts, to get reliable data?

    What worried me, and, apparently many scientists, is that once an aquafier is breeched by toxins they're there, well, for just about forever.

    It's not like an above ground contamination that can, with different degrees of difficulty & expense eventually be somewhat neutralized.

    Also, aquafiers are not solid, impenetrable, sealed vessels. They are interconnected, and can cover hundreds, sometimes thousands, of square miles.

    Screw up....no second chances.

    I'm not against progress, but the history of the 1% is not promising. If they screw up our groundwater they can move to the Riviera....where do we move to?

    Parent

    Tax cuts for 50% (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 05:42:47 AM EST
    of the population are moot, and UE Ins. Is temporary.

    Potential damage from pipeline=permanent (damage to the aquifers in the most productive grain producing region of the country would be a horror too scary to contemplate.

    OTOH, using that money to advance non-carbon based energy would have tremendous long term benefits, including national security.

    Jeez, the Republicans should love it: National Security is advanced, and the deficit gets a body blow.

    What's not to love?


    Besides that (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 06:28:39 AM EST
    There will be massive drought throughout those most productive grain producing regions of the country in the next couple of decades anyway, but at least if we have Keystone everybody will be able to eat money apparently.

    Well, not everybody everybody of course, but at least 1% of everybody. And it'll trickle down, I'm told. Obesity will be a thing of the past among 99% of the population, too.

    In October last year, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) released a study combining 22 climate models.

    These models are not looking at global warming, but rather the chance of increased drought world wide as temperatures climb. (Just a quick aside, you see real scientists aren't falling for the "debate" meme that climate change deniers push. They know what is going on and have moved on to what will happen)
    [snip]
    ...the projections expect much of the United States to be in a state of chronic severe drought between 2030 and 2039. The further out one goes the worse these projections get, but given the problem with predicting change over many decades even the NCAR Rep says that we should take those with a grain of salt.

    Still, if we confine ourselves the prediction for just the next thirty years it bodes for a lot of trouble. The bread basket of the United State is the mid-west. Once you get passed the Mississippi and before you get to the Rockies is some of our biggest agricultural lands. If this prediction is accurate, by the 2030's this area will be constantly in a state of drought.



    Parent
    When we were deciding about (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:57:27 AM EST
    whether to buy a house at Fort Rucker or not we consulted some of the workups about what was going to happen.  They predicted that this area wouldn't become desert-like, but would end up losing a lot of the humidity.  We thought that would be okay.  Didn't take something into consideration though.  This is currently subtropic.  If this place dries out this is wildfire heaven.

    Parent
    The end is near (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:47:42 AM EST
    Except The US is Literally a Web of Pipelines (none / 0) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 06:53:16 AM EST
    The aquifers it will cross are already saturated with pipelines.

    Crude Oil Map

    Natural Gas Map

    I consider myself a friend of nature, but opposing this pipeline is a little... unfounded.  Do people think we truck fuels/gases/chemicals, they should be worried about the rapid depletion of the aquifers because that is known.  Which is a far more dire situation then the very rare pipeline spill.

    Pipelines are a million times safer than tankers ships/trucks and are far better for the environment then using combustion engines to transport it.

    Parent

    I'm in no position (none / 0) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 07:52:05 AM EST
    To debate the science regarding this issue as my technical knowledge of it is, to be generous, nil.

    But, anecdotally, I know an addiction when I see it, and with nothing less than the survival of the planet at stake, the headlong gluttony of more and more oil, simply doesn't feel right.


    Parent

    I was gonna pass this by (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:13:07 AM EST
    but since you made that nasty personal attack over in the other thread re the Rabbi....

    Since you want us off carbon fuels, which is what you are saying when you bring up the the "addiction" bit, please tell us how modern civilization can survive without oil and natural gas?

    Let's see if you want to discuss/debate instead of pass out nasty personal attacks.

    Parent

    Can I begin by calling you (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:30:49 AM EST
    an idiot, as apparently that's not a "nasty personal attack?"

    Well, I wouldn't do that as I don't think you're an idiot. I may, from time to time, think some of your comments are idiotic, but you, never.

    Now, as to your query, "please tell us how modern civilization can survive without oil and natural gas?" At the present time, it cannot.

    But, it should have been apparent I was refering to the time going forward. For the health of the planet, as well as for national security matters, weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels should be a #1 priority.

    Just as depending on the Chinese for our financing needs puts us in dire jeopardy, depending on OPEC for our energy needs does the same.

    Parent

    Nice wiggle but you did what you did (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:46:05 AM EST
    And of course you can't tell us how modern civilization can survive without oil and natural gas. I doubt anyone can.

    And until we get the research done on new energy sources we must keep kicking the can down the road.

    Opposing the production of oil/natural gas does nothing but increase costs that hurt the consumers by supporting high prices.

    Want to quit borrowing money from China? Get gasoline to $1.50 a gallon and the economy will be so good we won't need to borrow.

    Parent

    How much of the environment (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:55:19 AM EST
    should we destroy, and how much pollutions in the water and air should we tolerate?

    All environmental progress is obtained over the objections of Republicans.

    Parent

    All? Really????? (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 11:39:00 AM EST
    Thanks for the giggle.

    How much? As much as necessary to keep on keeping on.

    A failed civilization will not produce any new solutions.

    BTW - I think we are using less carbon based fuels now than in the past. That old "science and technology finding solutions" deal.

    And wasn't the EPA established by Nixon?

    Of course if you want to claim him as a Democrat......

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 11:45:06 AM EST
    There used to be some republicans who were at least partly rational. Not much, but partly.

    That was in their younger days, before dementia set in.

    Parent

    Ah, true, I should (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 11:52:53 AM EST
    amend my comments to say that all environmental progress is made over the objections of right wing religious wackos.....

    How many Republicans want to abolish the EPA?  

    Parent

    How many Republicans want to (2.00 / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 12:13:14 PM EST
    abolish the EPA?

    Not enough.

    The EPA is like too many organizations established to do good.

    When the battle is won the wackos demand you keep on fighting.

    Parent

    The battle over? (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 12:15:44 PM EST
    Good grief.....Not really.  The environment is steadily declining.....on all fronts....

    Parent
    I see you haven't been to (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 12:34:52 PM EST
    LA or Denver lately.

    Parent
    I live in SoCal (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 12:49:09 PM EST
    and have since 1986.

    The air may look clearer--but every single advance was obtained here over the objections of conservatives....

    And there are many more problems.   The worst problem imo is that the oceans are dying.

    Parent

    Saw a pretty scary documentary (none / 0) (#79)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 01:33:46 PM EST
    On that very subject.

    It seams that certain fish, and other assorted aquatic animals are mistaking plastics for coral, and even edible protein. They are capable of chewing into the plastic, and actually ingesting it....with all the really bad results you can imagine.

    The biggest problem, of course, it the longevity of the plastic which doesn't begin to "break down" for approximately 600 years.

    Gotta tune in Dildo head Limbaugh Monday to see if that's a hoax also.

    Parent

    yeah, the Garbage Patch in the Pacific (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 01:34:44 PM EST
    Ye who drink no bottled water (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 02:46:21 PM EST
    may cast the first stone.

    Parent
    That would allow me (none / 0) (#87)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 02:53:00 PM EST
    to chuck all day with both hands.

    Parent
    I grit my teeth when I see people (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 02:58:06 PM EST
    buying what they can get for almost nothing right out of the tap.

    Parent
    gasoline to $1.50 .....Zowee! (none / 0) (#84)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 01:53:46 PM EST
    I'm ordering my 18 wheeler first thing Monday Morning.

    Parent
    Actually gasoline fell to $1.81 (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 02:55:56 PM EST
    in Jan '08, just before Obama was sworn in. Within two weeks he rescinded all the good work done by Bush, the Repubs and the Demos had done.

    This is when he told us what he believes in, high energy prices.

    This is what he had Salazar do:

    Facing gas prices near $4 a gallon and a pivotal national election, congressional Democrats allowed a ban on offshore drilling to lapse in September

    But times change, and on Tuesday, the Obama administration - with gas prices roughly half what they were and many Democrats' having been swept into office - blocked offshore drilling plans put in place at the last minute by the Bush administration, including plans to open the national outer continental shelf for drilling.

    Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar also announced last week that his agency would block drilling on public lands in Utah, criticizing the Bush administration for releasing its offshore drilling plan just days before leaving office.

    Link

    And the rest, as they say is history.

    Parent

    BS (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 03:20:27 PM EST
    The drop in energy prices occurred in the summer of '08 because of the worldwide drop in demand cause by the worldwide recession.  There's not a single person who knows anything about the oil industry who will support your fairy tale that the lifting of the offshore drilling moratorium caused gas prices to fall.  Even those that supported lifting the moratorium won't make that ridiculous claim.

    But when the sun rises, Jim will be there to claim to rooster caused it...


    Parent

    The river in Egypt (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 10:43:14 AM EST
    is known as de nile..

    I'll try to explain it again.

    Starting in 2006 consumption started falling.
    By end of 2007 it had went negative by .96% and continued falling by the end of 2009 it was -1.71%.

    Now, starting 2006 and continuing thru 2007 production was essentially flat. Production rose in 2008.Link

    Now, if prices are tied to consumption, why did they rise?

    I mean  more was produced with less demand.

    Why did prices rise?

    Because oil prices are based on expectation. With flat production, even with modest reduction in demand, the market factored in the Democrats opposition to new supplies and bid the price of oil to record highs.

    Repeat: People do not price investments based on today, they base them on the expectation of what they will be worth in the future.

    Then Bush and Congress acted in the second half of '08.

    Facing gas prices near $4 a gallon and a pivotal national election, congressional Democrats allowed a ban on offshore drilling to lapse in September

    The market saw that there would be no government induced shortage and the bubble burst.

    In 2009 production and consumption declined. Yet, starting in January '09, gasoline prices started to climb. In 2010 production had a significant increase. The rescission continued yet prices climbed.

    Why did prices climb? Again. People base investment prices on expected future worth. And if the expectation is that the government will accept high prices and will not act to increase production... prices will rise. Just as they have since Obama was sworn in and signaled the world that he did not care if prices went up slowly, as he said in the MSNBC interview, and his actions via Salazar in 2/09.

    The "rooster" crowed and prices rose.

    Parent

    The problem isn't the "explanation" (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 12:16:52 PM EST
    The "problem" is the fact that there's not a single, tiny bit of evidence for your claim that the lifting of the moratorium caused the price of oil to drop.

    There's a reason you don't post a single link of support for your fairy tale ... because it doesn't exist.

    Parent

    My comment explained it (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 01:03:05 PM EST
    and provided links.

    You won't agree because doing so would fully lay the blame for the extended rescission on Obama's energy policy.

    No matter. The public understands.

    11/2012 comes.

    Parent

    The "public understands" ... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 01:31:34 PM EST
    ... the economy is lousy.

    The rest of your fairy tales is as believable as your other, baseless, evidence-free claims.

    Anyone could post a picture of a rooster crowing and another of the sun rising.  What you're lacking is a single link of evidence showing that one caused the other.

    The reason is obvious.

    Parent

    You know, all you do is make claims. (2.00 / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 04:01:20 PM EST
    I provide facts.

    Enjoy being proven wrong.

    Parent

    It'd be a nice change ... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 04:08:31 PM EST
    ... of pace if you ever actually did it, but the reason you still haven't provided a single link for your fairy tale is obvious to everyone.

    Parent
    I provide links with facts (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 04:11:57 PM EST
    that support my position. I don't just quote articles. Try doing some actual research.

    Parent
    You provided links ... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 04:31:35 PM EST
    ... showing two, unrelated events.  I previously provided you with links to numerous experts in the oil industry who know the lifting of the moratorium did not cause the drop in gas prices - including experts who worked for the oil companies and wanted the moratorium lifted.  You've provided not a single link to prove your fairy tale claim - that the lifting of the moratorium caused the drop in prices.

    The reason is obvious.

    Parent

    Uh, the use of facts (2.00 / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 04:54:28 PM EST
    is how intelligent and correct conclusions are made.

    I used facts, not political blog articles to demonstrate that demand went down while production remained flat and then rose....

    yet prices rose.

    Because oil prices are based on expectation. With flat production, even with modest reduction in demand, the market factored in the Democrats opposition to new supplies and bid the price of oil to record highs.

    Repeat: People do not price investments based on today, they base them on the expectation of what they will be worth in the future.

    Congress and Bush acted and the bubble burst. But then Obama signaled that he favored high prices and even though demand declined and production increased prices went up.

    Politics, not market, is the driver in oil prices.

    Has been ever since we decided to let OPEC exist.

    Parent

    True, ... (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 04:58:07 PM EST
    Uh, the use of facts is how intelligent and correct conclusions are made.

    ... but the use of fairy tales and winger myths is not, which is why you have not and cannot provide a single link to back up your claim that the lifting of the moratorium caused the drop in oil prices.

    Even the oil companies and the wingers aren't crazy enough to make that claim.

    Parent

    Sigh (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 05:42:05 PM EST
    Unlike you I do not depend on others to tell me what to think.

    I used two links that destroyed the claim that crude oil pricing is controlled by supply and demand.

    That was your claim.

    I then showed the connection between the bursting of the bubble and the new price increases starting in 1/09 by demonstrating that there was no connection between that and supply and demand.

    The roster crowed, Yman.


    Parent

    You showed nothing ... (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 07:08:21 PM EST
    ... other than a remarkable ability to link to two, unrelated events, and still not provide a single link to prove your fairy tale that the rooster makes the sun rise.

    BTW - I don't need anyone to "tell me what to think", but I do recognize the value of experts when it comes to industry analysis.  OTOH - I understand why you wouldn't, given there's not a single person who supports your silly claim.

    Parent

    Yman (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 08:27:49 PM EST
    your denial of realty and continued attempts to defend Obama by claiming such things as you have just done proves again that engaging you is a waste of time.

    Good night!

    Parent

    "Reality" as defined by Jim (none / 0) (#106)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 08:37:18 PM EST
    = an evidence-free fantasy.

    Heh.

    Parent

    I Do Not Concure on the Jim Assessment (none / 0) (#107)
    by ScottW714 on Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 11:10:35 PM EST
    Same old tired S, do republicans think our society won't be modern in 50 years when we start running out.

    When democrats were liberals, back in the Bush years, there were a lot of ideas, ideas that have been are tried and true in many modern societies. Ideas that republicans fought tooth and nail to bury.  Carbon credits, emission standards, investing in green energies, and on and on.

    Their entire party still thinks Global Warming is some grand conspiracy, which even if it was, carbon based fuels are finite.

    Parent

    Oh no....... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 10:12:06 AM EST
    Grammy-winning blues and soul singer Etta James, most famous for her signature song "At Last," is terminally ill, her doctor and manager said in comments published Friday.

    Experts declared two weeks ago that the leukemia from which the 73-year-old was suffering was inoperable, Dr Elaine James told The Press-Enterprise newspaper, which covers where the singer lives in Riverside, California.
    [snip]
    James was hospitalized in early 2010 for dementia and leukemia, and went in again for similar problems in May 2011, said the paper, which reported there has been a family legal dispute over her assets and payment of her care.

    Her longtime manager, Lupe De Leon, told the Entertainment Weekly news website EW.com: "Etta has a terminal illness. She's in the final stages of leukemia. She has also been diagnosed with dementia and Hepatitis C.

    "She's in a home right now and mostly sleeps. She is under the care of a live-in doctor from Riverside Community Hospital and two others who have placed her on oxygen.

    "Her husband is with her 24 hours a day, and her sons visit regularly. We're all very sad. We're just waiting."

    --RawStory

    Here's Etta with Dr. John, singing I'd Rather Go Blind

    I love Etta James... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 12:22:33 PM EST
    She's been ill for a long time. I have her album "Blues to the Bone" which is amazingly good. I listen to it in the car, it helps me cope with the driving (which I hate).

    Parent
    She's great (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    One of my favorites of hers, that she sings with BB King, I uploaded to youtube...

    There Is Something On Your Mind

    Parent

    Have you ever put the lights on a six-foot (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:54:26 PM EST
    Christmas tree single-handed?  But is is beautiful.  Plus am really powering through vast CD libs of Christmas music.  

    I suppose (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:18:25 PM EST
    you aren't listening to the musical Christmas stylings of the great Caribbean rock n roll philosopher Mr J. W. Buffett.

    Parent
    Ha. Building up to my fave: Berlioz' (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:25:12 PM EST
    "L'Enfance du Christ."  

    Parent
    I used to have a recording of that with (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by observed on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 03:45:46 AM EST
    Giorgio Tozzi, who was perfect for the  baritone part.
    Some years later, in 1985, I flew to LA to watch a Birgit Nilsson master class. This was when I was somewhat seriously studying voice.
    The classes were all extremely memorable, and not only because I got to hear her fabulous high notes live.

    At the reception on the first evening, I arrived early. The only other guest was a nice old man with a pleasant speaking voice. He didn't  introduce himself, but several minutes later, Nilsson came in and they kissed and hugged in greeting. It was Tozzi.

    Parent

    Wonderful story. No segue: (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 11:08:03 AM EST
    what types of Christmas music are you hrg.?  

    Parent
    none. Christmas is not (none / 0) (#85)
    by observed on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 02:24:31 PM EST
    much of a holiday at all. New Year's is the big day of the season.

    Parent
    Your new country of residence is in the news (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 03:34:15 PM EST
    here now re oil workers unrest.  

    Parent
    yes, I saw that. (none / 0) (#92)
    by observed on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 03:36:50 PM EST
    Actually, first I was reading the story in Russian, thinking it was something about the 20th anniversary independence celebrations, and I saw something about buildings burning, etc. and I switched to English.
    Protests about conditions for oil workers have been an issue for some time.

    Parent
    Authoritarian? Need a job? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 10:34:55 AM EST
    Pro-Obama rally draws crowd of 10 people (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 11:17:27 AM EST
    Obama promised to make ending the war in Iraq his first act in office. Then he did what he could to avoid ending it. Forced by Bush and Maliki and the Iraqis to remove troops, he's keeping troops nearby and filling bases with mercenaries, while expanding ground and drone wars around the region and claiming the power to make war anywhere he likes, including having already done so in Libya. Nonetheless a hearty band of Obama-Right-Or-Wrongers planned a rally in Chicago to praise the president for . . . well, for something or other.

    The rally was sponsored by Marilyn Katz and Carl Davidson and "Chicagoans Against War in Iraq," and was promoted as a big national event. I heard about the planning here in Virginia. Among the 30 speakers were the president of the Cook County Board Toni Preckwinkle, Alderman Joe Moore, and Tom Hayden. But an email report I've just been forwarded says the audience was "5-10," and "Dozens and dozens of prepared placards that said 'yes we can' were in a box, untouched."



    Maybe they played the recording (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 11:19:37 AM EST
    of the President's anti-Iraq war speech.  

    Parent
    Yes they could have... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 11:21:14 AM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    Obama wasn't there (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 12:51:33 PM EST