home

Monday Open Thread

Busy day. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Sunday Open Thread
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    DOJ vs. Fox News (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Slado on Mon May 20, 2013 at 02:35:23 PM EST
    Reason

    I'm not sure what to think anymore.  Everyday another weird storyline from this administration.

    Anyone believe anything coming out of this administrations mouth?

    The real question (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Yman on Mon May 20, 2013 at 02:48:10 PM EST
    Why would anyone believe anything coming out of Fox News's "mouth"?

    Parent
    The link wasn't from Fox News (none / 0) (#6)
    by Slado on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:15:14 PM EST
    I hope you are snarking

    Parent
    Reason is a Right Wing publication (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:38:31 PM EST
    But this is the type of thing that happens if you do not have a FISA warrant requirement.  

    The GOP can fix that by supporting new legislation that would require FISA warrants even in the evemt of national security.

    Parent

    Not really (none / 0) (#44)
    by Yman on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:50:57 PM EST
    But a Reason article complaining about threats to free speech (when applied to a Fox News reporter) is pretty damn amusing.  Particularly when the wingers were the biggest supporters of the FISA warrant exception.  Not to mention how they loved the idea of prosecuting Julian Assange for doing the same thing Rosen is was doing - reporting classified/national security information.  Hell, the Washington Times was calling for Assange to be assassinated.

    Take out "Fox News" and insert "Reason" in my comment.

    BTW - You cite this article as a reason to not believe anything from this administration.  Is there some evidence the administration was lying about this?

    Parent

    This was uncovered by WaPo (none / 0) (#9)
    by Cylinder on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:27:26 PM EST
    Right or wrong, this information came from the Washington Post. They published the story along with the APC today. It's not clear to me if the Post gave FNC advance notice of the story.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:19:35 PM EST
    you finally found something. Hooray for you. The whole wiretapping of phones thing but he has the Patriot Act to back him up remember? Warrantless wiretapping anyone? How is the GOP going to go full tilt on this one when they are the ones that were screaming in support of this kind of stuff?

    Parent
    But it wasn't supposed to be used on them. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:12:51 AM EST
    It was meant for those other people who hate America so much. So, when you use it on real Murecans, that's bad. But when you use it on people who stand in the way of real Murecans, that's good.
    ;-D

    Parent
    Good news, bad news (none / 0) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon May 20, 2013 at 02:45:10 PM EST
    .

    The good news is that there is no evidence of Obama directing this stuff.  The bad news is that this is what big government is all about.  

    .

    Parent

    Here's another one (none / 0) (#5)
    by Slado on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:11:41 PM EST
    What are the odds someone gets audited by 4 Federal and 1 State agency in two years while simultaneously being called out by congressional democrats?

    After the IRS thing hard to believe this is coincidence right?

    NRO

    Parent

    One more (none / 0) (#7)
    by Slado on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:18:27 PM EST
    Conspiracy site (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:46:55 PM EST
    Don't use stupid conspiracy sites to prove your point. Just say no to conspiracy sites.

    Parent
    And look what we know (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:07:04 PM EST
    The inspector general gave Republicans some fodder Friday when he divulged that he informed the Treasury's general counsel he was auditing the I.R.S.'s screening of politically active groups seeking tax exemptions on June 4, 2012. He told Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin "shortly after," he said. That meant Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

    NY Times

    Now that forced this to come out.

    The White House on Monday once again added to the list of people who knew about the IRS investigation into its targeting of conservative groups -- saying White House chief of staff Denis McDonough had been informed about a month ago.

    Press secretary Jay Carney said again that no one had told President Barack Obama ahead of the first news reports: not his top aide McDonough, nor his chief counsel Kathy Ruemmler, nor anyone from the Treasury Department.

    Monday's revelation amounts to the fifth iteration of the Obama administration's account of events, after initially saying that the White House had first learned of the controversy from the press.

    (PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS)

    Republicans said they were on the lookout for the next installment in the White House's ever-shifting narrative.

    Link

    The question, my dear GA, is not if Obama will be named as knowing all about this, but who will do it...

    Rats get nervous when the water gets on their feet.  

    Parent

    So, impeach him (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Mon May 20, 2013 at 11:39:10 PM EST
    The bad news is that it's legal (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:40:05 PM EST
    Thats yet to be seen. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:29:08 PM EST

    For openers, theft of honest services and/or the Hatch act may apply.

    .

    Parent

    You would have to spin quite a yarn (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MKS on Mon May 20, 2013 at 07:08:28 PM EST
    to get there.

    The subpoenas were issued by the DOJ in an investigation of a  leak of classified information.   The investigation may or may not be justified.  But to say it was done just to please someone's personal fancy would seem beyond any facts known so far.

    And who would be that stupid?  No one worth catching....

    You guys really can't help yourselves.....just keep marching down that 1998 path.....that'll help you in the midterms, especially since your sacred deficit is disappearing.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#53)
    by Yman on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:16:15 PM EST
    Oh, wait ...

    ... you were trying to be serious.

    Parent

    Glenn Greenwald's (none / 0) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:52:04 PM EST
    reaction to "criminalizing basic reporting".   For me, it is too early and complicated to form an opinion, but one thing for sure, that it relates to Fox should be irrelevant.  We know this administration works hard at "balance" so we are talking about  a potential maimed-stream media.  As for Fox's Rosen,  he may have chosen the wrong profession for the times:  safer  to be a banker than a journalist.

    Parent
    I think it's also important for people to (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Anne on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:40:38 PM EST
    understand that this happened in 2009 - Obama's first year in office - not so recently, which makes me wonder how much more of this kind of thing went on.

    The Washington Post says:

    Privacy protections limit searching or seizing a reporter's work, but not when there is evidence that the journalist broke the law against unauthorized leaks. A federal judge signed off on the search warrant -- agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator.

    Machen's office said in a statement that it is limited in commenting on an open case, but that the government "exhausted all reasonable non-media alternatives for collecting the evidence" before seeking a search warrant.

    However, it remains an open question whether it's ever illegal, given the First Amendment's protection of press freedom, for a reporter to solicit information. No reporter, including Rosen, has been prosecuted for doing so.

    Rosen appears to have been soliciting Kim for information - but as Glenn says:

    Kim did not obtain unauthorized access to classified information, nor steal documents, nor sell secrets, nor pass them to an enemy of the US. Instead, the DOJ alleges that he merely communicated this innocuous information to a journalist - something done every day in Washington - and, for that, this arms expert and long-time government employee faces more than a decade in prison for "espionage".

    [snip]

    Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information. That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ - that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for "soliciting" the disclosure of classified information - is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself. These latest revelations show that this is not just a theory but one put into practice, as the Obama DOJ submitted court documents accusing a journalist of committing crimes by doing this.

    That same "solicitation" theory, as the New York Times reported back in 2011, is the one the Obama DOJ has been using to justify its ongoing criminal investigation of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange: that because Assange solicited or encouraged Manning to leak classified information, the US government can "charge [Assange] as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them."

    Never in a million years did I think we'd have a "Democratic" president who seems determined to criminalize reporting/journalism.  

    This is bad - and I don't care if in the instant case, it's a Fox News reporter - this is bad.

    Parent

    But should the reporter exercise some judgement (none / 0) (#15)
    by Farmboy on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:25:09 PM EST
    regarding the outcome(s) of her/his reporting?

    For example, reporting on gov't corruption is seen as a "good" thing because ideally the outcome is a better gov't.

    On the other hand, a reporter revealing national security secrets just because they're secret - "In other news, last month the CIA inserted 5 operatives inside al Queda!" - while news, rarely has a positive outcome for anyone.

    Or is the freedom of the press truly the most important right, regardless of potential harm to the nation/public welfare/lives/etc?

    Parent

    Think about what your suposing (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Slado on Mon May 20, 2013 at 05:04:09 PM EST
    The reporter must use judgement on what questions to ask.

    The reporter should be able to ask any questions and the "government official" should answer...Sorry that's classified.

    If this is now criminal then the WH press Corps breaks the "law" on a daily basis.   How many times does the WH say...I can't comment on an ongoing investigation, or that is classified?

    There is no excuse for this.  It appears that they called him a "criminal" so they wouldn't have to inform him of the warrant.

    Simply amazing..

    And what was he reporting on?  The fact that North Korea was going to respond to sanctions with a missile test.   How is that top secret classified information?  How is that worth even an investigation?

    Parent

    As (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by lentinel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 05:16:51 PM EST
    long as it is in the interests of the party in power to control the flow of information, I will always suspect the worst: That they want us to know only that which profits them politically or financially. I have absolutely no reason to believe that they suppress information because they actually think that it will be to our benefit.

    Leaks which are "harmful to national security", and leaks that simply reveal our government to be engaging in torture or murder or double-dealing are seemingly interchangeable in the eyes of those who would prosecute reporters.

    Did anything published by Julian Assange actually hurt our national security - or did it simply reveal a two-faced foreign policy as well as the deliberate slaughter of some Iraqi civilians?

    Freedom of the press should be absolute, imo.
    Otherwise, it is not a free press.

    Parent

    In Other Words... (none / 0) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:56:27 PM EST
    ...does the right to keep a source confidential outweigh putting people in grave danger ?  It's obvious to me.

    It's not about freedom of the press, no one at the AP is in trouble for anything they printed.  They want the source of the leaked the information.

    There is no right to conceal the identity of people who leak sensitive information that could endanger lives.  The only shame here is that the government can't just get judicial approval for the AP to reveal the source.  I am not comfortable with the government tracking the press, there is no need.  

    The press should look at themselves in this case, the AP should not have printed the story until they had the OK.

    Wanting to be perceived as the ones who got the scoop is no excuse.  Had they waited a day, there would be no issue, the government wasn't trying to keep the story hush, they just wanted to make sure no one was endanger before it was printed.

    Parent

    Freedom (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by lentinel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 05:37:33 PM EST
    There is no right to conceal the identity of people who leak sensitive information that could endanger lives.

    But, it seems to be the government that is the one determining whether any specific information "could endanger lives''. And they have a penchant for using that as a cover for simply protecting their own keisters.

    Reporters have a time-honored right to protect their sources, imo. Otherwise, they will have no sources - and the only sources will be those authorized by a government with a vested interest in controlling what we get to know.

    I may have felt as you do at one time, but after a belly-full of Bush and now Obama, I am for unbridled freedom of the press.

    If they don't want information leaked, they'll have to do a better job of holding on to it. Once it is in the hands of a reporter, it should be available to the American public.

    Parent

    ... during the investigation to find out who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to the media. Unfortunately for Miller, her source ended up being Scooter Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, who was mad at Plame's husband and wanted to get even.

    While I have no problem requiring a very high bar for the government to meet before compelling reporters to reveal confidential sources, as the Valerie Plame case shows, nothing should ever be absolute, because the motives of both leakers and media personnel aren't always altruistic.

    Parent

    Economic Mental Health (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Dadler on Mon May 20, 2013 at 02:45:49 PM EST
    RIP Ray Manzarek (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Dadler on Mon May 20, 2013 at 06:16:48 PM EST
    The Doors live at Forest Hills Stadium (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Peter G on Mon May 20, 2013 at 07:24:56 PM EST
    August 12, 1967. Opening act for Simon & Garfunkel, of all things. One of the greatest shows I've ever seen, and Ray said it was one of their worst nights ever.  Most of the audience hated them, booed Morrison, etc.  Not me!

    Parent
    Same year same place (none / 0) (#34)
    by brodie on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:01:22 PM EST
    Hendrix opened for the Monkees.  The Monkees.

    Similar disastrous response from the audience.  JH supposedly gave the middle finger salute to the Forest Hills crowd of white prepubescents as he left the stage.  Seems Jim Morrison was also appropriately rude to the folkies.

    Manzarek I always pegged as the main driver of their music, both in the studio and on stage, with Morrison providing the poetical lyrics and the surly, menacing image, and the other 2 pulling their weight creatively.

    Great original group with a good deal of outstanding music which has stood the test of time.

    Parent

    Watch THE VOICE tonight (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Dadler on Mon May 20, 2013 at 07:49:11 PM EST
    and if you see a dreadlocked dude playing sax or flute, that's my uber talented brother in law, Scott Mayo. To check out and purchase his new album...go here.

    Saw him just a bit ago backing up Sasha Allen. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Angel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:05:56 PM EST
    How cool!!

    Parent
    And he just rocked it out to Sarah Simmons (none / 0) (#45)
    by Angel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:53:33 PM EST
    singing Mama Knows Best.  Sarah killed it.  Woo.

    Parent
    Thank god for lesser evils (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Edger on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:30:31 PM EST
    I would be horrible if a republican tried it. Obama supporters would have to spend years pretending to be opposed to this kind of thing.

    Hey, Edger (none / 0) (#50)
    by Zorba on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:10:44 PM EST
    How are you doing?

    Parent
    Not bad. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Edger on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:24:01 PM EST
    I was a little better forty or so years ago, but doing fine. ;-)

    Parent
    President Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:39:23 PM EST
    commencement speech at Morehouse College, an historically black, all male institution,  was very good.   While offering the customary platitudes and exhortations to graduates, it also addressed eloquently the destructiveness of oppression inflicted as well as  the  destructiveness of oppression internalized.

    The president stressed personal responsibility and the criticality of avoiding excuses.  The personal advice included setting an example--admonishing the graduates "to be the best husband to your wife, or your boyfriend, or your partner.  Be the best father you can be to your children."   This is an occasion, in my view, where presidential words are so important.  

    Whoever it was that mentioned Kellie Pickler (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CoralGables on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:46:51 PM EST
    Just watched her freestyle dance. Was that the best dance in DWTS history?

    No spoilers! (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by nycstray on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:15:26 PM EST
    I'm using the show to clear today's news from my brain and it doesn't start for another 45mins here :)

    Parent
    Impossible to spoil :) (none / 0) (#60)
    by sj on Mon May 20, 2013 at 10:42:33 PM EST
    Even after the third or fourth time you've watched it.

    Parent
    I do believe it was (none / 0) (#61)
    by sj on Mon May 20, 2013 at 10:43:26 PM EST
    Beautiful.  Just beautiful.

    Parent
    The second hour of DWTS has just started on (none / 0) (#62)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 20, 2013 at 11:09:59 PM EST
    west coast. Now, I have not been a religious watcher of this show. I usually just do quick hits as I settle on shows that are generally more interesting to me. For some reason this season hooked me from the get-go.

    There is no one in the final four who I think should not be there. Not a Bristol Palin in the group. All four are excellent dancers. From what I have seen so far, and I have not seen the freestyle dances yet, my vote goes to Zendaya.

    I had never heard of Zendaya until DWTS. She has incredible poise for a 16 year old. And skills? My oh my can that girl dance.

    Parent

    Kelli's dance was astoundingly (none / 0) (#65)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 20, 2013 at 11:45:38 PM EST
    beautiful. So simple yet so full of complexity. I understand why Carrie Ann Inauba was in tears. I was in tears.

    Parent
    OMFG! Massive tornado just hit a suburb (none / 0) (#14)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:04:54 PM EST
     of Oklahoma City. This tornado was a mile wide, a f*cking mile wide, and was on the ground for a half hour. Think about that.  This tornado cut a mile wide swath through this suburb for approx. 30 minutes. Geez!

    CBS is reporting massive destruction and the expectation of lost lives.

    CNN (none / 0) (#21)
    by lentinel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 05:19:20 PM EST
    is reporting the tornado as being two miles wide.

    Are you in that vicinity, caseyOR?

    Parent

    Casey lives (none / 0) (#24)
    by Zorba on Mon May 20, 2013 at 06:31:33 PM EST
    in Oregon, lentinel.  (Unless she's visiting Ok. City, which I hope not.)

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#25)
    by lentinel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 06:33:31 PM EST
    should have guess from the OR part of his nom de plume.


    Parent
    I mean (none / 0) (#26)
    by lentinel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 06:34:45 PM EST
    her nom de plume.

    Parent
    Reports don't sound good (none / 0) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Mon May 20, 2013 at 07:17:08 PM EST
    here's a quick before/after of Moore, OK

    An elementary school was leveled during school hours.

    Parent

    Two elementary schools were leveled. (none / 0) (#43)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:49:04 PM EST
    Death toll is now over 50 and counting.

    Parent
    Oh, no. It's going to be really bad. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Angel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:54:11 PM EST
    Thanks for the updates.

    Parent
    Found child (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cylinder on Mon May 20, 2013 at 10:02:23 PM EST
    KWTV: Keith and Melanie Thompson, your 3-year-old has been found and is at St. Anthony's Health Plex. Call 272-7955.

    via Twitter

    Parent

    Toll's now up to 91, at 1:15 a.m. CDT. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:15:52 AM EST
    20 of the dead are children. Heartbreaking.

    Parent
    Curiouser... (none / 0) (#27)
    by lentinel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 06:50:40 PM EST
    From the NYTimes;

    WASHINGTON -- White House officials were first notified on April 16 about an investigation into Internal Revenue Service scrutiny of conservative groups and discussed its potential findings with the Treasury Department but never told President Obama, the White House said Monday.

    The I.R.S. inspector general informed the White House counsel's office about the agency's nearly finished audit along with other reviews nearly a month before its release, the White House said. Kathryn Ruemmler, the White House counsel, was personally told on April 24, and she notified the White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, and other senior aides without informing the president, the White House said.

    "She made the decision or the judgment that it was not necessary or appropriate to inform the president of this, and that didn't happen," said Jay Carney, the White House press secretary. "And most importantly, no action was taken by anyone in this building to intervene."

    This is dizzying.
    We are offered quotes from something known as the "White House" - as in "the White House said"...  I suppose they mean Carney...
    The "White House" is certainly not President Obama.

    In fact,  White House officials and White House counsel apparently make decisions about what information it should share with the Chief Executive.

    Maybe this is as it always has been, but I find it beyond parody.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Mon May 20, 2013 at 07:11:11 PM EST
    But whether Obama was informed as soon as the others will make no difference in the IRS probe because the others were informed just a few weeks ago.....

    In terms of shielding the boss, who knows whether that is a good idea or a bad idea.  He could have done nothing about it during the investigation, else he be meddling....

    Parent

    He knew about it last year (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:12:11 PM EST
    Let's stop kidding ourselves.

    It was a Chicago move from a Chicago politician...

    Parent

    And that gut instinct of yours (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MKS on Mon May 20, 2013 at 11:45:09 PM EST
    told you Romney would win.

    And that Saddam Hussein had WMD and was behind 9/11.

    Good grief, have you guys forgotten 1998?  

    Parent

    Would that have been ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Yman on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:22:47 PM EST
    ... around the same time that the IRS told Republicans (Issa, Jordan, etc.)?

    Heh.

    Parent

    You know nothing about Chicago politics, Jim. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:29:30 AM EST
    And given that you live in a region where Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida are your neighbors -- yep, home of the eight-hour long lines to vote -- you've absolutely no business mocking northern politics. Clean up your own act first.

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#36)
    by lentinel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:11:45 PM EST
    wasn't speculating about whether it would have made any difference if Obama had been informed re the IRS probe.

    The Times article just stuck me funny on two counts...
    The first being the use of the phrase, "The White House said"... and not meaning the primo occupant thereof...

    The second was the casual reference to the fact that members of the White House apparently routinely take it upon themselves to decide whether or not to inform the President about an issue.

    I don't know that I want those folks making those decisions - if in fact they are. I wonder whether President Obama wants those people making those decisions, if in fact they are.

    Parent

    The Big Fish always have screeners (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:13:46 PM EST
    That's why it matters who the staffers are....  

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#39)
    by lentinel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:23:45 PM EST
    wonder whether all of the fish, presidential fish that is, were equally open to having people screen what information would be given to them.

    I have a feeling, for example, that Clinton might have wanted to be informed of everything.

    I am open to the idea that I'm wrong about that - but that is my impression.

    Parent

    "Plausible Deniability" (none / 0) (#59)
    by Mr Natural on Mon May 20, 2013 at 10:32:54 PM EST
    lol; how quickly we forgot...

    Parent
    You oould start writing for Drudge (none / 0) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Mon May 20, 2013 at 07:12:17 PM EST
    I think (none / 0) (#38)
    by lentinel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:19:49 PM EST
    you should re-read what I wrote if you felt I was being critical of Mr. Obama - which is what I assume you meant by referring to that slug, Drudge.

    I was referring to the phrase, "The White House said"... without a specific reference to whom the actual speaker was. They didn't write the White House Press Secretary, or the President... Just "The White House". A house don't talk - last I heard.

    The other thing that caught my eye was the way in which it seems to be accepted practice for staffers to decide what they want the President to be informed about. I find this to be either comic, or potentially tragic.

    Parent

    My reasoning is (none / 0) (#47)
    by CoralGables on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:59:17 PM EST
    I believe you know why the White House Counsel wouldn't notify the President until the investigation was complete.

    But your point on "the white house said" makes perfect sense and you're right it was pretty lousy writing.

    Parent

    Missed The Voice in favor of (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:37:56 AM EST
    Daniel Barenboim conducting the Brahms "Requiem". Ethereal.