Presidents Day Open Thread

How are you spending the holiday? Michelle Obama and the First Daughters are skiing in Vail. Michelle ate at Kelly Liken's restaurant last night (remember Kelly from Top Chef? She made it pretty far.)

The first lady went to Restaurant Kelly Liken in Vail Village on Saturday night, dining on a pickled pumpkin salad with arugula and a braised ancho-chile short rib with hominy wild mushrooms and sauteed kale.

Check out Sasha's cool boots.

Al Gore spent the weekend addressing global warming in Aspen. Veep Joe Biden spent it in Key Largo.

And the President? He was at home, and coached Sasha's basketball team in Maryland, even though she was skiing in Vail.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Rocky Mountain Diner Forced to Close After 20 Years | Seattle Times Calls For Marijuana Legalization >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    No holiday here (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 02:58:29 PM EST
    My corporate overlord gives most of the minor holidays in bulk between Christmas and New Years Day.

    But I am making my own 4 day weekend this coming weekend. Looking forward to joining oculus and kdog in NYC to see Geoffrey Rush in "Diary of a Madman'...here's hoping he does not take Oscar weekend off from the play.

    that is really nice to hear (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 03:26:47 PM EST
    that you are meeting with Occulus and KDog in person. Send us some pix to post!

    I'm sure you will see us on Page Six! (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 03:38:01 PM EST
    Thank you for making it possible! I'm looking forward to some face time with kindred spirits.

    As am I... (none / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:51:08 AM EST
    rolling with the intellectual set, moving up in the world:)

    My last significant constitutional before Mexico in 3 weeks (yip yeah x2!), G-Rush better not let the TL crew down with no Academy shenanigans.

    Thinking maybe some Ruby Foos for a lunch of the pan-asian persuasion...they have this filet mignon dish I go nuts for.  Or if you guys dig German, Hallo Berlin is the bomb too...knock back some steins of the finest lagers.  Both not too far from your evening show. Food for thought.


    Both sound great to me! (none / 0) (#74)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:06:17 AM EST
    I am an omnivore. Plus, a friend of mine here told me, there are no bad restaurants in Manhattan - if they are bad they don't make it!

    Not 100% true... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:38:08 AM EST
    maybe for restaraunts, unless ya catch a bad one in the 6 month window between grand opening and bankruptcy...but I must say I am appalled at how awful the vast majority of Manhattan pizza joints have become...tourists must keep them in business because I wouldn't feed my dog some random slices I've had the misfortune of eating lately...it's an outrage for the food mecca.  

    So if ya got pizza on the agenda ruffian, make sure you ask for the straight dope because they be slinging alotta garbage pies in Manhattan.


    Wow, thank you! (none / 0) (#113)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:50:44 PM EST
    I do love pizza and will probably stop for a slice at some point. Steer me to the right joint kdog!

    The best of the best of the best... (none / 0) (#119)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 03:09:20 PM EST
    isn't far from Laguardia in Queens...Amore Pizzeria.    

    Maybe I should just bring a pie to the play, you can ask room service to heat it up for ya:)


    That's so cool (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 03:36:23 PM EST
    I finally got to watch the recent Bill Maher last night.  I really enjoyed what Matt T had to say, but the panel sort of blew me away.  It was hard to be a feminist and watch John Heilemann and Tavis Smiley form a sort of high fiving boy's club.  And Michelle Caruso Cabrera wasn't going to have one meaningful thing to add to any discussion of how it is very different if a woman tells you that you suck and you cut her head off verses how you will have to settle for telling her that you don't like her much either.  And she can inform all of her friends about how much you suck......and you are free to - uh, inform all of your friends about how much she sucks :)

    sounds like fun (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 08:22:41 AM EST
    I will be there in spirit

    Packer Charles Woodson stand with WI workers (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 04:22:05 PM EST
    In a statement, Woodson, who is one of the team's elected representatives to the players' union, said: "I am also honored as a member of the NFL Players Association to stand together with working families of Wisconsin and organized labor in their fight against this attempt to hurt them by targeting unions. I hope those leading the attack will sit down with Wisconsin's public workers and discuss the problems Wisconsin faces, so that together they can truly move Wisconsin forward."

    It's gonna be a cold July if I am praising a Packer, but well done Charles!

    I believe taking a pro-worker stand (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 07:23:11 PM EST
    in a situation like that in Wisconsin falls under the " Workers of the World, Unite" exemption to the law requiring that Bears fans never say anything nice about the Packers. :)

    Link (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 04:23:15 PM EST
    But he is a former Wolverine. That must (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 11:22:51 PM EST
    count for something--no?

    Counts for nothing where the (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 11:27:09 PM EST
    whole Bears-Packers thing is concerned. :)

    Casey is right...it is irrelevent (none / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 09:54:47 AM EST
    Bears-Packers thing ignores all college history.

    "I hate this damn job" (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 08:47:03 AM EST
    A leaked manuscript by one of Sarah Palin's closest aides from her time as governor charges that Palin broke state election law in her 2006 gubernatorial campaign and was consumed by petty grievances up until she resigned.
    The unpublished book by Frank Bailey was leaked to the media and widely circulated on Friday.

    The manuscript opens with an account of Palin sending Bailey a message saying "I hate this damn job" shortly before she resigned as Alaska's governor in July 2009

    What a surprise (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:27:13 AM EST
    The manuscript goes on for nearly 500 pages, a mixture of analysis,
    gossip and allegation

    she quit (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:39:27 AM EST
    why on earth would you doubt she hated the job.

    The surprise was what I quoted (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 12:49:34 PM EST
    The manuscript goes on for nearly 500 pages, a mixture of analysis,gossip and allegation

    and a bit of sarcasm there (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 12:50:16 PM EST
    a moral issue (1.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 04:56:33 PM EST

    Al Gore stirred an Aspen audience Friday with a passionate speech about the effects of global warming, at one point pounding his fist on the podium and declaring it "a moral issue."

    Buying Al's products is a moral issue?  He sounds more and more like one of those slimy televangelists.


    Gore is putting his money ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 06:24:05 PM EST
    ... where his mouth is and investing his money in green products and technology.

    His positions regarding global warming are strongly supported by the data, studies and scientific community at large.  In fact, since 2007 when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists changed its position, not a single scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion on global warming.  Those "slimy televangelists", much like the global warming deniers, do nothing more than prey on people's fears and sell fairytales and snakeoil.


    Since 2007? Not really (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 10:41:00 PM EST
    More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.

    This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.
    The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.



    And how many of them are (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 09:10:05 AM EST
    climate scientists?

    As for AGW, one cannot look at the evidence and dismiss the concept:

    The permafrost capping the top of the world is irreversibly thawing and within two decades will release more carbon than it now absorbs, scientists calculate in a new study that makes this dire prediction: Up to 60 percent of Earth's permafrost will have thawed out by 2200.

    Why care if you don't live in Siberia, Alaska or northern Canada, where thawing permafrost has already buckled roads and swallowed structures?

    Because permafrost -- which is ground that's been frozen continuously for two or more years -- holds enormous amounts of carbon in the form of frozen plant matter, and adding more of that to the atmosphere would raise temperatures even higher, scientists say.

    Click or MSNBC Me

    Google Image search for permafrost melting.

    Here's what one of the scientists who didn't sign the petition PPJ talked about says about the subject:

    The Greenland ice sheet is melting twice as quickly as it was 10 years ago.

    The glacier could be wearing away by as much as 10km per year, a leading glaciologist claims.

    Professor Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University believes the thaw is dangerous for people in low-lying areas.

    He said yesterday: "If the ice on Greenland were to melt, the sea would rise 7 metres. If the ice in Antarctica melted, it would be 70 metres. Sea level is rising 3 mm per year, but it could rise to 1 metre, which would be damaging. Then sea defences can be breached and low-lying areas of the world can be flooded."

    Click or Daily Mirror Me

    More evidence?

    Numerous studies in recent years have raised alarms about the rapid pace of disappearing Arctic ice. The retreating ice will eventually open new sea lanes to greater commercial traffic, and will expose the Arctic's rich oil and gas deposits to greater exploration.

    Last summer, the melt of ice caps in the Arctic Ocean reached unprecedented levels, while a 260-square-kilometre chunk of ice broke off a glacier in northwest Greenland -- the biggest slab of Arctic ice to break away in half a century.

    Klepsvik said the Arctic Change Assessment will study changing climate and melting sea ice, glaciers and permafrost. The aim is to help Arctic countries cope with inevitable, irreversible change.

    Click or CBC Me


    Yes, really (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 09:14:14 AM EST
    Try reading it again, Jimmy .... sloooooooooowwly for better comprehension.  

    "...since 2007 when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists changed its position, not a single scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion on global warming."  (my paraphrasing)


    Climatedepot.com is not a scientific body - certainly not one of any national or international standing.  Marc Morano and his laughable list of "scientists" are a joke.  His list of "scientists" is filled with people who are "so-called experts who are really weather broadcasters without advanced degrees", like Chris Allen (weather director for WBKO-TV in Kentucky), who is listed as a meteorologist on the report, even though he has no degree in meteorology.  In his report, Morano also misrepresents the work of legitimate experts like Dr. Steve Rayner (who does not dispute global warming), who actually asked to have his name removed from the report.

    Not only is climatedepot.com not a scientific body of any standing, but they're a branch of CFACT - a winger group funded by Richard Melon Scaife and (surprise, surprise) exxonMobil Foundation.


    Pfffftttttt ...

    Try again, Jimmy.


    Looks to me like (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:22:05 AM EST
    consensus is swinging the other way.

    You remember consensus, don't you? That was supposed to prove man made global warming.

    Was it wrong then, or now?


    "Consensus swinging the other way"?!? (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:58:55 AM EST
    When Jimmy heads in to "looks to me" territory, you know it's gonna get funny.  1,000 fake "scientists" is consensus of nothing, Jimmy.  I have a doctoral degree, and can accurately call myself a "doctor".  So if I gather a group of 1,000 other "doctors" and sign a petition denying the medical value of vaccines, by your logic we would be "swinging the consensus" against vaccines.  No matter that the real doctors  and medical researchers who actually work and publish research in the field have a strong consensus on the value of vaccines.  Nope.  To Jimmy, it's all about the numbers.

    Consensus is important, Jimmy - but it's scientific consensus that matters here - not fake, "1,000 'scientists'" consensus.  Let's see, on the one hand we have 32 national science academies, dozens of prominent scientific organizations, 97-98% of climate researchers, 97% of earth scientists, etc., etc. etc...


    On the other hand, we have a few real scientists who are uncertain, a whole lot of fake scientists (weather directors, etc.) who have produced no peer-reviewed studies to support their claims, ...

    ... and you.




    Correction (none / 0) (#34)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 10:41:55 PM EST
    He seems to be putting his money into products that would be unsaleable but for government subsidies and mandates.  Crony capitalists and slimy televangelists are two peas in the same pod.

    oh you mean like (none / 0) (#46)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 09:08:34 AM EST
    "but for government subsidies"

    oil, and food?

    New industries always face barriers to entry that make financial help extrememly valuable.  There is a significant development cost associated with any relatively new technology.  Spending money on science is usually worth it.  Unless you're content to just tread water forever, in which case the rest of the world will leave us in the dust.  As it is, the fact that our government isn't spending as much money to develop new technology is sending companies packing to china.  There are jobs to be had - it's only a matter of where they go.

    What's big oil's excuse for sucking on the gov't teat?

    And actually a lot of this stuff is starting to take off on it's own.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:32:49 AM EST

    People will buy both food and oil without subsidies.  BTW, the sugar tariff subsidy to the corn syrup industry raises the price of sugar to consumers but they buy anyway.

    As to "big oil" the oil industries are net tax payers, as opposed to wind farms that are net tax consumers.


    then we should stop (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 12:24:17 PM EST
    subsidising them.  There is no net benefit to society to promote oil over other types of energy.

    And I'm 99.99% sure you just made that last part up.  The only study I've seen of this shows wind fams as net tax payers, granted, that was done by GE - who certainly has a stake in this, but I haven't seen it contradicted anywhere.


    "wind farms built in 2007, supported by the production tax credit, carry a net present value benefit to the US Treasury of $250 million."

    "In addition to those federal tax revenues, the wind projects generate an estimated $6 million per year in local property taxes, $15 million annually in state income taxes on wages and profits during construction and $1.5 million per year in taxes while operating."


    You must be kidding (none / 0) (#115)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:04:17 PM EST

    GE Study: Tax Revenues from wind farm more than offset tax incentive

    You reference a "study" from G.E., the country's leading crony capitalist!  A study that makes enough assumptions that the some time in the future this will turn a profit.

    If it were a good deal, investors would be waiting in line.  They are not, because it is not.


    I acknowledged (none / 0) (#116)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:11:20 PM EST
    That the G.E. study was possibly biased.  However, I was not the one to make an opinion statement as if it were fact.

    Unlike you, who offered no proof for your assertian.  At least I have some basis for mine beyond "gut".

    Although I like how you conveniently adjusted your qualifier from "net tax loser" to "good deal".

    Obviously you can make more $$ off of oil right now so there is less of a capitalist incentive to invest in wind vs. an oil rig.  That doesn't make oil the "best" solution, or mean that wind cannot be profitable.  Just not AS profitable at this moment in time.

    Investers are running to China.  Because that's where the support is.


    "Correction"? Nope (none / 0) (#50)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 09:15:18 AM EST
    Any time a winger heads into "seems to be" land, you know they have no facts.

    I am honoring (none / 0) (#2)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 03:01:32 PM EST
    today and tomorrow, on George Washington's actual birthday, this country's first public employee.

    (Pass it on.:-)

    How am I doing so?  I'm a public employee, and I am working.

    But I took a break to find (none / 0) (#4)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 03:06:00 PM EST
    this favorite moment of mine from the John Adams series, the inauguration of our first public employee.   (That starts at about 2:40, but the previous scene about the pique of our second public employee -- who conquered his pique and agreed to serve, and well -- also is worth watching.)

    what's up with this stuff? (none / 0) (#3)
    by vector on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 03:03:02 PM EST
    I'm getting e-mails and facebook messages from conservative acquaintances, with alleged quotes from FDR, attacking the idea of unions for government workers.

    Are these real quotes?  Out of context? What's what?  

    Anyone know for sure?  

    Yes, and yes (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 03:46:44 PM EST
    Real quotes, out of context, but nothing new for them.  Of course, those who use them prefer a return to the past, and they would not stop at the 1930s.

    Just remind them that, according to their ilk at the time and since, FDR was a godless Socialist -- so why would they use his words as evidence?  Tha makes them godless Socialists, too?  And deflect:  Find a few other FDR quotes on other issues and ask if they now support those stands, too.  Or find a few from the Bible, instead, and ask them what Jesus would say.  

    Or ignore the fools and do something today for unions.


    There were allusions to that (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 03:11:28 PM EST
    on This Week yesterday by whoever the conservative mouthpiece was, but Christiane Amanpour cut him off.

    I suspect some sort of out of context quoting, but I have not researched it.


    Looking for realtime info on Libya? (none / 0) (#10)
    by shoephone on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 03:47:52 PM EST
    The Guardian has a live feed, and most recent reporting is that a speech by Qaddafi is imminent...

    Qaddafi on Libyan TV (none / 0) (#22)
    by shoephone on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 06:27:14 PM EST
    making some wacky statements from the back of a car... check it out on the Guardian's live feed.

    The new HBO documentary on the (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 03:54:48 PM EST
    Battle for Marjah is in my opinion very factual.  Not that anyone here will be thrilled with any of the facts, but facts are always very important in making any kind of good decision or effectively fighting for any change that you want to make.

    Now that there is a documentary out I feel safe in saying that my spouse played a constant daily role in the battle for Marjah.  Before anything becomes common knowledge it is so hard to know what it is okay to say and not say, but if they are going to put out a documentary about it all...then okay, it must okay to talk about what I've seen and experienced.

    I did not want my husband going into any gun slinging fest, it causes my hair to burst into flames just thinking about something like that.  So after my husband went to some of his training, before he actually deployed he came home and eased my mind by telling me that all movements would be extensively filmed and many many people are in the mix in making any decision where my spouse was working.  All decisions went straight up to General, and where my spouse worked that room was crowded with all sorts of people constantly collecting and processing intelligence all together all the time.  This is talked about in the documentary too.  The room includes lawyers constantly arguing battlefield law and ethics too.  The cowboy days of the Bush administration are gone.

    Not that any of this will reassure anybody else here, I inhabit a different zone and that's okay.  I do so by choice.  I saw the documentary though before my husband did and I told him that I thought it was very accurate.  He snorted and said that he doubted they showed when they all really phucked up.  I asked him if that was when they had the wrong coordinance and killed a woman and little girls.  He looked shocked and said yeah, I told him that was in there too.

    I'll look for that (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 04:03:33 PM EST
    Can't say 'look forward to it', but I'll definitely watch. I think it is good to have the information even if painful to watch, and thanks for verifying the authenticity. I think the HBO documentaries are generally well done, but it is good to have an educated recommendation.

    It is hard to watch (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 04:23:01 PM EST
    Have you read War by Sebastian Junger? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 04:38:50 PM EST
    Junger was an embedded journalist in the Korangal Valley in Afghanistan. The book is riveting, outstanding and moved me to tears...

    I watched the documentary he was involved in (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 06:41:03 PM EST
    Restrepo, about one of the outposts in that area. It was excellent. Hard to watch like I'm sure this HBO doc will be, but informative and emotional, and I like to have the visuals of the terrain, facilities, etc.

    I can't help but come away with a sense of futility however. As well as these brave people perform their duties, I just have profound doubts about the mission.


    I watched Restrepo too (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 06:46:43 PM EST
    That is how I know I cannot handle the book right now.  I will become too infuriated, as if I haven't already been :)

    Yup. There are so many books I can't read. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 07:47:21 PM EST
    That's ok, not enough time to read all the others anyway.

    I haven't read it (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 05:13:30 PM EST
    I have tried to stay focused on today with this President.  What Bush did to our military and what many of them ended up trying to survive shouldn't have happened to anyone.  Our soldiers should have never ended up short manned and short changed addressing a real threat while all the brain power and the force power went to take over an oil rich country.  That has been my experience with all of it.  I stayed home and tried to run a household and be both parents to children while George Bush took all of our efforts and flushed them down a toilet.  As if the sacrifice isn't already mind numbing when it is Afghanistan and we are really addressing the problem, then have someone lie and cheat and steal and steal that force and all the energy that everyone puts into it that is supposed to actually keep the nation safe, drain it dry and damn near break it at one point.

    I'm sure that it is a book that I will read in my lifetime.  I'm just not sure this is the time for me to read it, cuz those guys were really screwed to the point of sheer hopelessness when compared to the operations we have in Afghanistan now.  And it never should have happened to them.


    Not sure what you're saying here, MT. (none / 0) (#20)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 05:45:21 PM EST
    When you say
    Not that anyone here will be thrilled with any of the facts
     do you mean that people at TL don't want to know the facts, or that knowing the facts may not change people's position on Afghanistan?

    I think it is possible to know and be glad that Bush is gone and some of the ways we are waging that war have changed, and to still be opposed to our continuing to wage that war. It is possible to be relieved that our troops finally have what they need to keep themselves as safe as one can be in a war zone, and still be outraged at what we are doing to the Afghan people.

    I always want the facts. I never want to be told lies. My guess is that most if not all commenters here feel the same, regardless of where each of us stands on the continuing war.


    All I'm saying is (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 06:33:07 PM EST
    Facts that reassure me will not reassure most of the people who read here and comment here.  I don't expect anyone here to be reassured by this administration's battlefield facts as I am, because people are still dying and that is the line in the sand for most liberals on what is okay and not okay to accept.

    But because most people who read here and comment here can stand to know an uncomfortable fact or even in some cases a horrible fact, I literally felt like I had a duty to say that hey...this most likely for many here, ugly documentary, is pretty factual from what I have known.


    Thanks for the (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 06:51:20 PM EST

    I think that just about any documentary on war is, by definition, ugly. There is nothing pretty about war. Even wars that we think are justified, like say WW II, are ugly.

    That people are sill dying is not my line in the sand. When we send people to war we do so knowing that people will die. And because we are both sending our fellow citizens off to possible death and expecting them to kill others, we had better be damned sure we have exhausted all other chances to resolve whatever problem the war is supposed to take of, and that we have a plan to get in and out as quickly as possible with a minimum of death.

    I don't see that we have that plan in Afghanistan, or in Iraq for that matter (changing troops' designation from "combat" to something else does not mean the war is over). Maybe Obama does have a grand and good plan. If he does I haven't seen it. Just being different from Bush does not automatically mean better than Bush.

    I am enormously relieved that we are being less cavalier about the lives of our own troops. That is a decided improvement.


    He really has not done a very good (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 07:07:37 PM EST
    job of keeping any of you guys informed on what is happening.  And I don't know a whole lot myself about Iraq these days.  Iraq and Afghanistan have flipflopped and changed positions in what our forces are focused on and that changes what information is freely available to all of us.

    I am satisfied with the mission in Afghanistan while at the same time understanding that it doesn't look like my country can afford to do this anymore.  We should probably do our best to take our leave cuz I don't know how we build Afghanistan while America falls financially apart. I am ever mindful as well though that if we leave and the same dudes take over, we and the rest of the world may end up back in this same boat again and have to go back again and they'll have better weapons next time.  So from my position I must take my cues from all of you as to what is to be expected and done in the future.  And that is going to be ugly too because we are in one hell of a pinch and monetarily there is no good solution that we can tweak our way into.


    My husband also says too (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 07:12:52 PM EST
    That when things get really crazy, when they are attempting to accomplish something by pushing the Taliban influence out, if it gets really hot and dangerous they call a time out and pull back a little.  They don't gin things up thinking that bloodshed will win the day.  The troops will hunker down where they have a measure of safety and instead others focus on collecting intel so that a safer way for all can be found.

    Why is the Taliban our national (none / 0) (#36)
    by observed on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 10:57:57 PM EST
    enemy? Granted,they are vile,but AFAIK, the Taliban and AQ are not the same.

    It is a bit more complicated (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 05:25:43 AM EST
    than the Taliban is our national enemy because we are working with some Taliban.  There are different factions of Taliban.  The not so funny thing about the guy who was running his own CIA over there and has stung us probably more times than any of us know about is that he provided us with intel on the Haqqani network at a time when we had little of our own.  The Haqqani network is an extremely sophisticated terrorist organization and they pack a great deal of influence within the Taliban system.  We are beginning to have our own influence within that system too now.  Generally speaking the Taliban are not freedom loving, kind, peaceful folk.  They have played a horrible role in destroying the fabric of functioning Afghan society.  They burned the country of Afghanistan down to the point that anyone seeking to build any sort of healthy functioning nation simply cannot and will not be able to.  That is why they now have a serious problem with us. And us isn't just the United States in Afghanistan because the violence and instability has bred a very successful deadly terrorism, it is NATO too, because we aren't the only ones who they target.  The world is with us in Afghanistan.

    And I'm going to have to bust you (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 05:35:38 AM EST
    on claiming that AQ and Taliban are so different.  They are interwoven, many Taliban individuals are fine with AQ goals and adopting them and working towards them whenever called to.

    Thanks for the answers. (none / 0) (#45)
    by observed on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 09:03:40 AM EST
    I'd say that after 10 years fighting in Afghanistan, using the most powerful military resources in history by a large margin, the apparent abject failure to achieve any apparent success is indefensible.

    we may have been in Afghanistan (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 09:19:29 AM EST
    for 10 years.  But we weren't "using the most powerful military resources in history by a large margin" in Afghanistan until recently.

    Bush invaded Afghanistan and then abandoned it for Iraq.

    I think it's clear that that played a major impact into turning it into the situation we have today.  Had we stayed focused from the get go, I don't think we'd be in there right now - or at least not en force.


    I think (none / 0) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 09:22:03 AM EST
    that is certainly true.  we took our eyes off the ball.

    By what standards are things better in (none / 0) (#53)
    by observed on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 09:37:29 AM EST
    Afghanistan now than they were 2 years ago?

    according to whom? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:05:18 AM EST
    And by what metric?

    I have a feeling that if I quote Petraeus on this, it's gonna be taken with a grain of salt, but there's not a whole lot of other reporting or information available.  In any event, the military seems to think progress is being made.  So do these NYtimes contributers.

    I haven't seen any recent polling of the Afghan people though if that's what you mean.  I mean short of being there, I don't really know how you answer that question.

    Also - who said anything about things being better already?  I just said that we haven't spent 10 years putting the weight of our military into it.  We've spent 2 years.  I don't assume that that's enough to finish the job.


    Oops, misread your comment. (none / 0) (#70)
    by observed on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:55:40 AM EST
    I thought you were talking "the situation" today being better.

    no problem (none / 0) (#77)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:19:50 AM EST
    yea re-reading it's a bit confusing.  By "the situation" I meant still being at war 10 years later.

    Anyway, thanks for the links. (none / 0) (#72)
    by observed on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:56:15 AM EST
    I understand your frustration (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:31:54 AM EST
    Gaddafi to speak (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 05:23:36 PM EST
    My dad called earlier today, and he was so happy Gaddafi is falling.  Inspite of losing certain capabilities he is still sharp on politics.  And he has always wanted Gaddafi to go away.

    Anyone see the MSNBC Piece on WJClinton? (none / 0) (#31)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 10:18:26 PM EST
    Very interesting.  Most positive.  

    Agree. (none / 0) (#120)
    by brodie on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 06:07:38 PM EST
    Tweety's attitude towards Bill Clinton has done nearly a full 180 since the 1990s when he spent so much air time absolutely foaming about Monica and lying and the importance of character, and etc.

    Strange guy, Tweety.  Some wild political swings over the past 10-15 yrs, though a lot of that I assign to career motivations and the need to appear somewhat bipartisan or independent.


    Indirect apology (none / 0) (#121)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 06:54:02 PM EST
    to Hillary?

    Christchurch, New Zealand hit by earthquake. (none / 0) (#32)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 10:30:03 PM EST
    A 6.3 magnitude earthquake hit Christchurch at lunchtime. Buildings in the central city have reportedly collapsed. There are reports of fatalities. The airport is closed. Very high chance of a tsunami. This is just horrible.

    Here's a better link from New Zealand. (none / 0) (#35)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 10:46:53 PM EST
    Water from broken pipes is rushing up through the shattered pavement. Because of liquifaction, tarmac is melting and water and sand are shooting up.

    Many people trapped in central city buildings that are half-collapsed. Emergency services overwhelmed. reports of dead bodies lying in the streets.

    NZ Herald News reports.


    Spartacus/Lucy Lawless (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 08:25:35 AM EST
    if you have not been following this abbreviated season of Spartacus you have been missing some great performances.
    but if you only see one show this season I suggest it be this weeks (the one that premiered last friday and will show this week until the finale this friday which I also expect to be must see) because Lucy gives the most amazing scheming woman performance ever.
    she is so deliciously treacherous.  I was always a fan but now I am her #1 fan.


    ps for Dexter fans (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 08:36:41 AM EST
    Lyla has a very big part is this season.  and she is more amazing here than she was in Dexter.

    Did you see the BBC series (none / 0) (#55)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 09:56:34 AM EST
    she was in about the gang of grifters? Great show...and now I can't remember the name. I will look it up after this meeting.

    When you get to see her butt (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:49:30 AM EST
    my husband hid his eyes. I guess he just couldn't deal with it :)

    I never see anything coming (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:37:04 AM EST
    in any of these series like you do, but I saw that one man.....honeyed wine always dispensed via her own hands and not letting her husband have any :)  Using his own father's belittling of him, by indicating that he had a weak constitution which daddy dearest would agree with and discourage him with, to keep it away from him too.  She's a bad girl!

    have you seen this weeks episode? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:40:20 AM EST
    amazing and wonderful.

    yes (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:48:03 AM EST
    I don't know you wrap this up in one more episode.  I suppose I'll lose Gannicus, because he feels bad now.  Someday I'm going to name a hot looking loyal awesome dog Gannicus, because Gannicus is hot, and he's loyal to those he loves, and he is a dog :)

    its amazing how they have (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:55:41 AM EST
    structured it.  if you watched the first season you "know" all these things.  now from this season you "know" a lot of things that are in conflict to what you know about the first season.
    and all those conflicts have to be resolved friday.
    I cant wait.

    also I think it was brilliant to remove the thing we were talking about above from the glut of resolution that has to go on friday.

    it deserved special attention.


    and (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:14:10 AM EST
    what an amazing scene.  its so short and so PIVOTAL.

    its like an ice pick.


    I have to say (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:53:38 AM EST
    this series is nudging Dexter for my best ever on the small screen position.
    for two reasons.  
    first the depiction of slavery is realistic and brutal.  it is a show about slaves.  Spartacus is after a story of a slave revolt.  it has been obvious from the first that the primary goal was to make you feel why they revolted.  all the major characters are slaves. it gets you involved in their lives and then MAKES you feel what it is like to be the property of another person.  it is brutal and honest about what that might be like.  sex plays a big part in the series because it played a big part in the lives of the slaves.  
    it make you know what its like to be, literally, a sex object that deserves no more concern than a vibrator.  the series Rome did this also but it seems that in Spartacus they took that one great idea and built a series around it.

    second the depiction of "gay" sex.  I put it in quotes because they would not have even understood the concept of gay.  it was just the way it was.  honestly I have known for years the extent to which these gladiator types engaged in this.  I have read much fiction and non fiction on the subject.  and honestly, even for ME, it is jarring to see it shown the way they show it.  which from what I have read is about as realistic as it could be shown. if anything I think it probably under estimates the amount of gay sex compared to straight sex from what I have read.
    and I understand why they might have done that.
    if they had been completely honest it would have been a "gay" series and it is far more effective the way it is.  which is showing the panoply of sex in the roman world in a very realistic way.


    Interesting... (none / 0) (#78)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:20:34 AM EST
    this is the only thing I've heard about the show that actually makes me want to watch it.  I've read so much "nudity for the sake of nudity" commentary on it that I passed it over.  When I want that I watch True Blood :P

    there is a lot of nudity (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:22:47 AM EST
    but it is not just for the sake of nudity.  it is realistic.

    and (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:36:46 AM EST
    often not "sexy" at all but stomach churning.

    I would suggest (none / 0) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:30:58 AM EST
    that if you watch it you start the seasons in order.
    even tho this is a prequel you really need to see the first season first.

    I am reading a little bit more (none / 0) (#117)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:20:04 PM EST
    about the series online...and looking at the pictures I'm just thinking, "smelly."  I can literally smell the BO through my screen.  Haha.

    it grabs you slowly (none / 0) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:38:33 PM EST
    I started watching it because of the unique look.  which is amazing and I did not expect much else.
    as you say it seemed rather gratuitously carnal.  but I stayed because of the story and the performances.

    The poison is turned loose (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:17:24 PM EST
    She definitely is the most interesing character.  Her husband is a pathetic weasel.

    The show is something I stubled across....the show that you mention has been the best.  The other shows just seem so sadistic....

    Lawless was Lady Macbeth--emanciapted, as she did not even need her husband for this scheme....

    And the previous week's scheme--just your everyday neighborly or*y--went awry when Lawless's best friend ends up dead as se*ual license gave way to murder.


    sadistic.... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:23:39 PM EST
    thats because its realistic.  how on earth could a depiction of gladiatorial combat NOT be sadistic?

    and dont do spoilers.  that was a huge spoiler.
    no offense but I think J should delete that comment.


    and (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:24:27 PM EST
    there was a heck of a lot more to that than sexual license.

    one more (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:33:20 PM EST
    she did not even need her husband

    without her husband she would never in a million years have been in a position to do it given her social status.  which is why the father hated her.

    and of course her husband is a weasel.  he is the series bad guy.
    question.  did you watch the first season.  i.e. do you know what happens to them?


    Nope (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:44:39 PM EST
    I keep waiting for Kirk Douglas to appear....as he as the first Spartacus....

    What slave revolt? I keep asking myself.  Where is Spartacus?   And we aren't in Rome but some backwater Villa.  This is just a bod show, and no seeming point, I keep thinking.....But still attention grabing at times....

    But your comments here about this year's show being a prequel make sense.

    Sorry about the spoiler--spoilers don't ruin the experience for me....But then again I like watching good films over and over....

    In terms of sadism or maybe psychosis or sociopathy, the Roman overload, the blond guy, just seems so beyond any human qualities at all....I watch with the hope that he really gets "his" but it doesn't happen and he keeps in power.



    What slave revolt? (none / 0) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:49:40 PM EST
    that happened last season.

    the reason they did what they are doing this season at all is that the original Spartacus is dying of cancer and had to be recast.
    they came up with the prequel idea as a way to hopefully give him time to recover.  unfortunately that did not happen and he is recast.

    oddly I find it hard to imagine how the next season which will be what happens after the slave revolt can ever be as interesting as this one has been.


    gets "his" (none / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:52:06 PM EST
    watch friday.  thats not really a spoiler.  anyone who watched the first season knows whats coming.
    in that and many other areas.  the genius of this weeks episode is that it is saying, 'just because you know whats going to happen doesnt mean watching how it happens cant knock your socks off'

    Douglas Trumbull (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 09:15:18 AM EST
    (the guy who did the visual effects for 2001 A Space Odssey) talks about working on Tree of Life the upcoming and greatly anticipated Terrence Malick movie:

    Trumbull describes this film as "more of a `man's place in the universe' concept, because it's really talking about the entire universe and where we fit into it." Little else has been revealed about The Tree of Life, due for release in May. "It's a very, very cosmic and very spiritual movie," promises Trumbull. "A movie that, in style and content, is quite different from anything you're seeing."

    I'm sure it will be amazing. (none / 0) (#56)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:04:18 AM EST
    I love "Days of Heaven."  I don't really care for Brad Pitt but whatever.

    ditto (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:34:25 AM EST
    so far the only down side I have seen.

    I saw (none / 0) (#60)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:28:16 AM EST
    that 80's extravaganza known as St Elmo's Fire for the first time last night.

    It's about what I expected it to be.  Class issues in 80's bratpack flicks are always so.... overt.  I have a hard time picturing people who actually act like that.  "I was a democrat in college but working for a republican senator pays better so I'll completely sell out with no other explanation necessary".  People today may care about money just as much, but they certainly don't talk about it the same way.  Then again, I don't really know if people acted that way or if it's just a movie thing.

    I guess I could quasi-relate to the mid-20s "angst" although in true bratpack fashion it was way over the top.  I was glad that there wasn't really a happily ever after, they were just older at the end.

    Irony (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:06:03 AM EST
    Rush Limbaugh slams Michelle Obama for eating ribs and um, not being slim.

    "I'm trying to say that our First Lady does not project the image of women that you might see on the cover of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, or of a woman Alex Rodriguez might date every six months or what have you."

    Seriously.  Apparently the man has never seen a picture of himself or does not own a mirror.

    Are you (none / 0) (#76)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:18:45 AM EST
    f*cking kidding me?

    Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

    The wingers gotta get their talking points in line.  First she's trying to ban dessert and be a food-nazi, now she's too fat?

    Ey vey.


    Yep (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:27:48 AM EST
    A) I don't understand the craze about criticizing her for encouraging people to do what their (Repbulican?)doctors have been telling them for decades - eat healthier and exercise more. This is grasping at straws so they can criticize her for something.

    B) Rush Limbaugh?? While I think he's stupid, he's not really stupid, you know.  I'm sure this was said for effect, but the fact that when you are a big fat slob and feel free to criticize a 42 year old woman whose given birth, and is in great shape (but not an anorexic freak), then you are just completely out of it.

    Since I'm piling on, we should also remember Rush's little drug problem.  What a winner this guy is.


    they do it because (none / 0) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:29:13 AM EST
    its fits nicely into their "telling us how to live" meme.

    never mind that it is very good advise.


    you know (none / 0) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:30:02 AM EST
    we are amurkans.  it our constitutional right to be fat slugs and nobody can take that away.

    We're only #3 (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:46:12 AM EST
    America Samoa and Kiribati are fatter and Germany is statistically the same as us (66.7% of Americans are "obese", while 66.5% of Germans are). Egypt is 66%, and rounding out at number 10, the UK is at 61%.

    want to bet (none / 0) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:47:24 AM EST
    that if you only took the south we would be #1?

    Probably (none / 0) (#91)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 12:09:37 PM EST
    But no state is immune. According to this chart (and I can't necessarily vouch for it, but it's a neat graphic), shows that Colorado has the lowest percentage of obese adults, and that's still at 19.1%.

    Looks to me like (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 12:55:47 PM EST
    he is saying Michelle is being hypocritical.

    and then they hear about Michelle My Belle and the kids 1,500 calories per rib serving -- 141 grams of fat, I'm just saying

    Your call. President's wives have to have something to do. Complaining about people being too fat is harmless. Especially if we ignore them.


    I think it's pretty clear (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by CST on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:06:56 PM EST
    Michelle and co. are not obese.  Not sure where the hypocracy comes in.  She is telling people to be fit, not anorexic.  So I'm not sure what sports illustrated models have to do with it.

    Also - I'm pretty sure she's stressing moderation.  As in, it's okay to splurge in moderation.

    This whole thing drives me nuts.  I had a co-worker going off on them getting rid of fries in school lunches talking about restriction of choice.  What choice?  You get the lunch you're given.  Either it has fries or it doesn't, but there was never any choice in the matter.  No one asked me growing up if I wanted ketchup or some other "vegetable" with my school lunch.


    in fact (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:07:28 PM EST
    that only reinforces her point I would think that if you eat in a sensible way you CAN eat unhealthy things from time to time and not be a 300 pounder.

    which she clearly is not.
    I agree with her.  I eat all the same things my tubby lardbutt family eats.  I just dont eat as much or as often as they do.

    in other words.  eat sensibly.  dont stop eating.  which seems to be what Rush and his ilk are suggesting she is saying.


    Except he got his facts wrong (none / 0) (#96)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:03:39 PM EST

    A braised short rib is a relatively lean cut of beef, braised with most of the fat cooked off. The 5-ounce serving runs about 600 calories, Liken said -- a far cry from the 1,500 calories and 141 grams of fat it's accused of.

    "A proper 5-ounce portion of protein is what nutritionists say we should have," said Kelly Liken, who launched the highly successful restaurant.

    Let's not forget that the 5-ounce rib is served with local kale, nurtured and grown by students at Eagle's Brush Creek Elementary School.

    "Kale is one of nature's super foods," Liken said. "There are more nutrients in the 3 ounces of kale we serve than you'll get in a massive green salad."

    Click or Vail Me

    We do have an obesity problem in this country, just go to any diner in Bakersfield, CA, on a Friday night if you don't believe me.


    How is she being hypocritical? (none / 0) (#99)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:09:41 PM EST
    She has been preaching healthier eating habits and everything in moderation - which would possibly include the occassional eating of ribs.

    And I don't see how saying "Well, she's no super model" isn't calling her "fat".

    Again - irony from someone who's a lard-a$$.


    anyone (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:14:31 PM EST
    who stops eating ribs because it get yours and Rushs panties in a wad is stupid and spineless.

    I suspect she is neither.


    Dude shoulda been more careful (none / 0) (#100)
    by nycstray on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:11:01 PM EST
    about the ribs . . .

    and then there's this

    The rotund radio man then called the First Lady a "hypocrite."

    "Leaders are supposed to be leaders," he ranted. "If we're supposed to go out and eat nothing, if we're supposed to eat roots and berries and tree bark, show us how."

    seems to me like she did walk the walk in her choice of food that night. if he had even an ounce of integrity, he would not have said a word. instead, he decided to say she must have eaten a meal like he would . . .  :)

    and of course, we all should look like swimsuit covers or Arod's next piece . . .


    141 grams of fat? (none / 0) (#101)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:12:59 PM EST
    I'm hard pressed to think of anything that one could eat in a reasonable portion size that actually contains that much fat.

    Could it be...Rush is ill-informed?!!!



    Never mind that Top Chef contestant Kelly Liken sources locally and organically, or the obvious nutritional value of things like "kale" and "arugula." As Liken told the Daily, the rib actually runs somewhere close to 600 calories. Which is completely reasonable for dinner, especially after a full day of skiing. And far from being a hypocrite, Obama dined at the restaurant because of its association with a local school program that teaches kids to grow produce in a greenhouse.

    That aside, having a rich meal at a restaurant every once in a while doesn't make or break a diet.


    My guess is that he (none / 0) (#106)
    by nycstray on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:24:56 PM EST
    grabbed the info from a calorie count at some chain rest that serves a massive heart attack rib meal . . .   ;)

    Probably has them (none / 0) (#108)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:35:31 PM EST
    saved as one of his favorites.

    Still (none / 0) (#109)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:39:28 PM EST
    you'd have to eat two Wendys Bacon Deluxe Triples for that.  

    I mean, Baby Back Ribs from Outback have ALMOST that many gs of fat but they are huge.


    mmmmmmmmmmm (none / 0) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:42:34 PM EST
    Baby Back Ribs from Outback

    Are we agreed (none / 0) (#122)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:25:46 PM EST
    that the whining and howling from Rushbo on this subject is just as misbegotten as his other rants about liberals, feminazis, etc?

    Pet Otters - Ferrets on Crack (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:45:06 AM EST
    what comedians.  I want one.  

    no,  I want two.