Monday Night Open Thread

There's a lot of news to catch up on today. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Guantanamo Documents Show Detention Policies Were a Failure | AG Eric Holder Outlines DOJ 's Planned Priorities >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Stonewall Uprising... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 09:16:04 AM EST
    doc on PBS last night...very well done.

    Really hard for this NY'er to even imagine a time when homosexuals were rounded up on the streets and arrested, and in such large numbers, almost approaching the marijuana possession arrest numbers of today.  Really insane.  And the brutality of the arrests and raids...heinous.

    Hatred of the police sure makes strange bedfellows...Black Panthers arm in arm with Village drag queens standing up to the billy clubs of the state by the second night?  Talk about awesome.  

    The tears of pride and joy by those who fought for their right to exist and be free...it was quite moving.

    And one old cop who was part of the raid, realizing the err of blind law & order in hindsight..."They were breaking the law, but what kinda law?"  Exactly Officer...exactly.

    Climate (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 10:02:03 AM EST
    Is it just me or is the dramatic weather, which climatologists predicted years ago, being dismissed as random and getting zero air play.

    Damn, it snows a day later than usual and Inhofe is all over it making fun of global warming.  Yet this past 3 months, mother nature has been ripping apart the country and crickets from climatologists.

    For the record, Houston, has hit a record high temp every single day for the past couple of weeks.  Not a fraction of rain for Fort Bend Country (SW Houston), another record, wild fires of unheard of levels, tornadoes, flooding, on an almost cosmic level.  

    I understand the difference between weather and climate, but the climate is so obviously changing and nothing from anyone.

    Here in CA (none / 0) (#20)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 10:30:31 AM EST
    we had record-breaking rainfalls in Bakersfield, Los Angeles(most rain in one day) despite La Nina being prevalent this year which is suppose to usually leave us with little rain.

    Yes, I can tell here that climate is and will be changing, we've had windy days that remind people of the weather in OK and TX, as well as days when the humidity approached levels I've only experienced in the Southern USA.

    Or course, it looks like the global warming scam proceeds afoot, now that Gore et al have co-opted the Antarctic ice cap and the Greenland ice sheet onto their side as well:

    The rate of melting by the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica may throw existing projections for sea level rise out the window. Unfortunately for Maldivians and other idyllic, but altitude-challenged islands, the ice sheets are melting faster than anyone expected.

    Sea levels have been rising nearly unabated since the late 19th century, but rates have been increasing in recent years. The bulk of the change has been attributed to water expanding due to rising ocean temperatures, while melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica was considered to contribute a relatively small amount. But a new study published in Geophysical Research Letters reports the ice sheets may be contributing to sea level rise at a rate three times that which was previously suspected. The result? Sea levels could reach predicted heights 50 years earlier than experts thought, and total sea level rise may exceed previous estimates.

    Ice is primarily lost from the Greenland and Antarctic sheets when it calves into the ocean. When ice sheets move faster toward the ocean, they shuck more ice into the water. And if snowfall over the ice sheets fails to replenish the amount lost, the sheet shrinks in size over time, transferring the water it once held into the ocean.

    Ars Technica Link

    204 words.  Anyone have a problem with that?


    Just found this on the LAT website (none / 0) (#1)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Apr 25, 2011 at 11:10:05 PM EST

    William H. Parker and Mickey Cohen's L.A. cops-and-robbers tale is way stranger than fiction

    In 1920, L.A. surpassed San Francisco as California's largest city. It was a triumph for Los Angeles Times publisher Harry Chandler. It was also the year that saw the emergence of a major threat from Prohibition.

    For years, Chandler and the so-called business barons had supplied local politicians with the advertising, publicity and money needed to reach the city's new residents--in exchange for power over the city government. But with Prohibition, a new force appeared with the money and the desire to purchase L.A.'s politicians: the criminal underworld. To suppress it, the business community turned to the Los Angeles Police Department. The underworld also looked to the LAPD--for protection.

    Bill Parker and Mickey Cohen entered the drama as bit players. Two characters more different would be hard to imagine. Parker arrived in 1922 from Deadwood, South Dakota, an ambitious 17-year-old. He became a patrolman in the LAPD. Coldly cerebral (Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, a onetime LAPD officer and Parker speechwriter, reputedly based Mr. Spock on his former boss), intolerant of fools and famously incorruptible, Parker persevered--and rose.

    Shadow Caster Link

    Sorry, Jeff. We win. But when I saw (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 12:48:00 AM EST
    the Braves had acquired "The Owl," I thought, that's it.  Braves will sweep.  

    Oh well, one game does not a season make. (none / 0) (#22)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 10:38:24 AM EST
    But I couldn't stay up to share my mojo last night. I'll see tonight's game.  Heck, sweeping the Giants was suprising!

    As expected, (none / 0) (#3)
    by Makarov on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 03:27:41 AM EST
    Judge Nelson sided with NFL players over owners and ordered the league to end its lockout. She did not immediately stay the ruling pending appeal, but owners' counsel filed a motion with her to do so Monday night. Assuming she denies it (I would be surprised if she granted it based on the decision), the owners will likely ask the 8th Circuit for a stay.

    In sum, the Brady Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that it is likely that
    they will suffer irreparable harm absent the preliminary injunction. The facts of this case,
    and similar decisions by this Court and others, refute Defendants' argument that money
    damages alone would sufficiently compensate Plaintiffs if this Court were not to issue
    injunctive relief.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 06:58:49 AM EST
    Obama as Carter

    At least Carter wanted to try to (none / 0) (#5)
    by observed on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 08:16:04 AM EST
    change this country's energy consumption habits, and move away from oil, eventually.
    Too bad about Japan,  in terms of President Exelon's plans, isn't it?

    Jimmy, like Gov Jerry Brown v. 1.0 (none / 0) (#6)
    by brodie on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 08:33:34 AM EST
    was a little too far ahead of the people on the energy issue.  And he had a tendency to lecture them about their energy gluttony, a style not exactly perfect for rallying the public and producing a positive reaction.

    JC just wasn't effective in reaching the people.  Not likable with his sanctimonious attitude.  The MSM -- pre-cable, Fox and RW talk radio -- began mocking him.  And because of poor relations he'd developed, by his own stumbling and stubborn efforts, with his party's liberal base, he had only his admin's inner circle to defend him.

    Obama has some of Jimmy's unfortunate tendencies to snub the liberals and give them only tepid porridge by way of policy.  With O it's less a stubborn independent streak than a knee-jerk inclination to want to make nice with the other side by giving them 75% of what they want.

    In his favor, he still has a year, maybe, to correct things and start governing like a real Dem.  He's more likable than Jimmy.  And he's very unlikely to face the sort of attractive opponent that unlucky Jimmy got for re-elect.


    It is to laugh (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by sj on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 10:24:04 AM EST
    he still has a year, maybe, to correct things and start governing like a real Dem.

    Or cry.

    With O it's less a stubborn independent streak than a knee-jerk inclination to want to make nice with the other side by giving them 75% of what they want.

    I would say 75% is a bit more than "making nice".  If he was the 98lb weakling then one can theorize bullying.  But he's the "Leader of the Free World".  He's doing what he wants to do.

    But that's my opinion.  Let's say that you're right and he's wanting to make nice.  How does that serve the nation, foreign or domestically, to have such a needy head of state?


    Of course 75% is more (none / 0) (#26)
    by brodie on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 11:00:06 AM EST
    than merely making nice.  But O starts from his patented pre-negotiation generous compromise position, then, because the GOP rigidly insists on getting 100% of what they demand, he sees 75% as a reasonable halfway point.  And voilà, he's reached an agreement.

    That's how he's largely operated to date, that's the approach he had with some early and formative "victories" in bipartisan negotiating, that's the pol we have to deal with and try to shake up and wake up.

    A shame there doesn't appear to be anyone in his inner admin circle with the cojones to grab him by the lapels, slap him around figuratively of course, and tell him to snap out of it and start acting like a real Dem.

    Iow, this admin is sorely in need of a Cher to step in and lay down the law.  Unfortunately, she is currently bogged down with yet another lengthy gig in Las Vegas.


    More likeable??? I find Obama (none / 0) (#31)
    by observed on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 11:36:16 AM EST
    to be the coldest, most obviously arrogant, least likeable President I have ever seen (starting with Nixon).

    Then you must have slept (none / 0) (#34)
    by brodie on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 11:52:16 AM EST
    through the presidencies of both Shrub, the spoiled ignoramus fratboy prez, and Jimmy the Sanctimonious Scold.

    Nah, on the personality front, Obama is easily still in the likable category, along with Clinton, Reagan, Ford, JFK, and Ike, and not even remotely in the lower regions with Nixon, LBJ and Shrub.

    Poppy the distant effete U-class watch-checking Kennebunkportian was much more unlikable than the merely somewhat distant and cool Obama.

    Nixon, LBJ and Shrub actually fall into the special So Disliked as to be Hated category ...


    I think (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 12:36:37 PM EST
    Obama most closely resembles George H. W. Bush in likability. Somewhere in that netherworld of neither really likable or unlikeable but definitely patrician in attitude. Obama telling people who were complaining about gas prices to go buy a new car sounded remarkably out of touch as Bush did when people were complaining about insurance companies redlining neighborhoods and saying you need to straighten out your credit score.

    That's YOUR impression (none / 0) (#45)
    by sj on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 02:42:47 PM EST
    I liked Carter.  So did my very large and vocal family.  Not that I had a lot to base it on, what with no internet and all. But I didn't feel as scolded by him as I do by Obama.  Felt more like he was being professorial.

    So you can have your impression.  And I'll have mine:  

    JC - Likeable if a trifle earnest.  (unless your name is Clinton. Some bad blood there.  Don't know why).

    OB - Unlikeable.  And preternaturally calm.

    So that's me.  But ultimately, who cares?  Likeability is like electability.  One of those intangibles that somehow become Big Deals and everyone argues over.  And has zilch to do with ability.


    Per Alterman link, Obama's deficit plan more (none / 0) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 08:46:44 AM EST
    conservative than Simpson/Bowles.

    So what does Obama propose? Well nothing so simple as his own party's highly popular political platform for this president. He's too smart for that. Rather, as Ezra Klein points out,, Obama's deficit reduction plan, while not quite as brutal as the Republican Ryan plan, is even more conservative than the Simpson-Bowles plan, which was itself deeply conservative. He calls for raising less money in new taxes and far smaller cuts in the defense budget, chasing the Republicans into territory that is well to the right of anything even Ronald Reagan dared propose before his 1980 shellacking of Jimmy Carter.

    Interesting article (none / 0) (#8)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 09:07:32 AM EST
    and Eric Alterman is hardly someone who has been attacking the President from Day One, for example.

    IMO if the GOP is so intractable, Obama should be maneuvering to the "do nothing" strategy of letting the Bush tax cuts expire on everyone.  Basically, do what he should've done in 2010.  I hope that's the endgame but who knows.


    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 09:16:41 AM EST
    actually "doing nothing" would be preferable to what Obama has done. At least it would give you a reason to vote FOR Obama if for no other reason than he's holding the fundamentalists at bay. As far as I'm concerned, it's a hard sell to say the fundamentalists want to destroy the country (which they do) and then turn around and preach bipartisanship.

    US Royalty ?? (none / 0) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 09:39:22 AM EST
    Is anyone else agonizing over the massive news paid to the royal wedding.  I swear, even on 'serious' news stations, a third of the time has been dedicated to this non-sense.

    Just get it done with and please save me the post-2 week fashionista BS I know we are going to be subjugated to.

    Not sure how or if Britain measures the tourist (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 11:17:12 AM EST
    trade and other economic activity generated by the wedding...but I'm sure it is substantial. They'd marry one off every other year if they could.

    I guess I am the only one here (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 11:59:59 AM EST
    who will be taking off work and mixing a Bloody Mary at 5 am?

    What can I say, any excuse for a party ;P


    What time zone is that? (none / 0) (#37)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 12:11:50 PM EST
    That actually sounds like a good way to start a Friday :D

    EST (none / 0) (#39)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 12:18:34 PM EST
    I guess if you're on the West Coast this all kicks off at the end of a Thursday night on the town, eh?

    Oy, Prime sleep hours is (are?) more like it (none / 0) (#44)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 01:17:21 PM EST
    Guess I'll catch the recap on the early AM news with a cuppa joe :)

    I'm amazed... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 10:02:06 AM EST
    the British still tolerate the concept of royalty, and the tremendous cost burden of having welfare kings, queens, princes, and princesses, especially while they're talking about all these social spending cuts for the commoners.

    Must be a sense of empirical pride or something...though for the life of me I can't see how the inhumane antiquated concept of royalty could be a source of pride...shame, maybe.


    A few more cuts in basic (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by brodie on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 10:23:24 AM EST
    services to the Brits, and I suspect you will hear more open grumbling, and more, about the royals' taxpayer-funded lavish lifestyles.

    Right now though I think the Cameron govt and the Tories are getting most of the flak while the royals are being given a temporary pass for this wedding.

    Of course, over here we have our taxpayer-subsidized welfare kings and princes and entitled ones too -- the corporations and their execs paying no or little taxes, the bloated Pentagon and their fruit-salad brass, and the quietly powerful intel people with their dark budgets and dark ideas.

    At least the Brit royals and their excesses are right out there in the open for all to see.  And apparently the royal spending of taxpayer money isn't nearly as obscenely bad as it was a few decades ago.


    Indeed... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 10:28:59 AM EST
    we have our leecherous royalty here at home, but they just want the money...at least we don't have to bow and say your majesty:)

    And, it doesn't seem smart to (none / 0) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 11:20:33 AM EST
    have left off the Labor party prime ministers, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown--only John Major and Cameron, the Conservatives.   Apparently, the Queen is still not amused by Tony, who claimed that he saved her bacon when she was determined to stay in Scotland during Diana's funeral.  Mrs. Blair, was is disfavor for not curtseying, as well. (Almost, but not quite, makes we forget about Blair as Bush's poodle) And, Gordon resigned summarily after Cameron won, an act apparently seen as not being proper, despite his meticulous bowing and all.  

    Of course the whole "wedding thing" (none / 0) (#33)
    by christinep on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 11:48:04 AM EST
    is overdone. Almost the entertainment for the masses approach that has always been part of society? Growing up, I was regaled by stories from the aunts & uncles, etc. about what they "did during the Depression." Movies and dancing to live bands seem to have been a big diversion from trying times. My dad told me about the glamour in the 30s' movies--the dancing, the art-deco, the songs like "Pennies from Heaven, the silks & satin.  Yet, brodie, the contradiction apparent in all that seemed all too apparent. And, it wasn't just a matter of having faith in FDR--no matter how much trust people, like my young lad dad, placed in that President.
    It really is a broader statement, isn't it...about the need for diversion, smiles, and wanting to see some happiness even in gloomy times (perhaps, all the more in such times.)

    In my guilty moments, I indulge in "the wedding." Why? Because it is nice to see two happy young people. It elicits a happy sigh & a smile.
    It also reminds me of our own dedication to certain diversions/amusements...not the least of rich is our real "royalty": Sports & its champions.  Please understand that I am & have always been a sports fan; yet, one thing does get to me.  The growing and accepted practice of allowing our "royal" sports heroes to perform in stadiums (or gladiator stadia) paid for by taxpayers via bonds, etc.  "Royalty" plays & we pay...and, the owner reaps even larger receipts.
    Whose "royalty"? At least, the paid for royal family in Britain is expected now to perform charitable services as part of their room & board.


    The difference betw the 30s (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by brodie on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 12:10:52 PM EST
    and today in Britain is that then folks willingly, affirmatively handed over a few quarters to see our royal stars of the big screen for a moment's diversion from their own troubles, as opposed to having a portion of Brits' taxes involuntarily taken out to support a lavish royal lifestyle while on the other hand HM's govt chips away at the social safety net.  Not a good trend over there, where the public is quite used to its stable social services.

    A little more complicated situation with our American sports heros for the reason you cite about taxpayer-subsidized sports arenas.  And my sense of it is that Americans are becoming less willing to so easily fork over a portion of their earnings towards funding a local sports stadium; certainly they're more skeptical about it than in decades past, doubly so in a sluggish, recessionary economy.  (Of course, in the South, sports being a religion, things don't change as quickly ...)

    On the sports front, it would be nice to see a movement, advocated by writer Dave Zirin, for public ownership of teams, à la the Green Bay Packers of the NFL.  Of course, that all sounds a little too socialistic for some, especially the current owners of teams who band together to prevent further Packerization of their leagues.


    I don't know about (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by NYShooter on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 06:23:58 AM EST
    anyone else here, but I remember when the current Queen Elizabeth was still a Princess and was about to be coronated Queen. I was just a young tyke, living in Brooklyn with my family, and we were too poor to own a TV. What I recall was that the coronation was a Really Big Deal. My mother, who was otherwise a pretty smart and cool cookie, having gone through WW2 in Russia and all, was all abuzz about the upcoming event. She knew a woman who had a TV several blocks away, and all the women who didn't own TV's congregated there for the big event. I only caught glimpses of the celebration but I remember the looks on all the women's faces, ooh-ing and ah-ing throughout the procession, and each of them mesmerized while making small, quiet comments like, "ooh, do you see so and so, the dutchess of whatever, and look there, isn't that what's his name, the wretched brother in law of who's its."

    I guess we, in all our 21st, century sophistication can hold our cynical noses at all that "silliness" but all I remember was a lot of good people, for a brief few hours, were transported to a make believe universe and enjoyed a cathartic experience that was nothing short of a wonderful, therapeutic adventure to some magical fantasyland. For that night anyway, they were all princess in their minds. And when it was over, the smiles stayed on their faces long after the show was over, and stayed with them as they returned to their apartments to finish the factory piece work they did at night to help make ends meet, or to cook dinner for their husbands coming home from the 3'd shift at the bottling plant.

    I know one thing, it sure beats American Idol, or the latest back-stabbing morons on the so-called "reality" shows.

    Yup, the good ole 50's; just call me Opie. I can still dream that one day "Annette" will come to her senses. lol


    It IS way better (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 10:44:15 AM EST
    Than American Idol, or The Bachelor, or any of those other dumb reality shows. It's also better to be distracted for a little while from all the bad news going on in the world

    It's fun.  It's about people being happy.  It's about every single little girl's secret fantasy - marrying her Prince Charming. Who cares if it's a silly or misguided fantasy?  People have been saying that for decades - guess what?  Little girls (and many big girls) still have that fantasy.

    I'm sorry I have to work and don't have a DVR.  I will catch it online this weekend.


    talking to my friend about this (none / 0) (#51)
    by CST on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 10:50:28 AM EST
    we grew up with these boys as the "princes across the pond" - who were attainable in age if nothing else.  I'm pretty sure 90% of (straight) young women of a "certain age" have had some fantasy/thoughts in that direction.  They were quite the good looking young princes.

    The highlights of the discussion were: back in the day William use to be the "hot" one.  Not anymore.  He looks more like Charles every day.

    Meanwhile Harry the rapscallian is still out there.  And he looks more like Diana every day.  I have a feeling he knows it though ;)


    My mom called me earlier in the day (none / 0) (#52)
    by vml68 on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 11:16:23 AM EST
    to find out when the wedding would be telecast. When I teased her about it and asked her why she would bother watching, she said in all seriousness that she has only read about princes and princesses and royal weddings in fairy tales and she wanted the opportunity to actually watch a real life fairytale on TV.

    She is the most naive and trusting/gullible person I have ever known. Don't know how I ended up so cynical.
    If I did not look like her, I'd swear that I was adopted.


    Looks like (none / 0) (#53)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 01:17:03 PM EST
    some of your memories of that time track my little girlhood recollection as well. Thank you for not pretending to cynicism, NYShooter.

    I'm pretty sure at this point (none / 0) (#15)
    by CST on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 10:09:36 AM EST
    they are self-funded, by the vast amounts of wealth ammassed from previous generations of welfare kings.

    I'm just struck by how old they both look.  And then I feel old.


    Livin' on the interest... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 10:33:56 AM EST
    of past massive public assistance is still techinically livin' on the teet.

    But at least Will & Harry had to spend a little time in uniform, in service to their country,at least in theory...our royalty doesn't do that.

    Sh&t could you imagine the Blankfein's of the nation sending their kids into the service to give back? Ha!


    yea (none / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 10:43:48 AM EST
    I think they do a few "official tasks" that could constitute "labor" of some kind.

    Frankly, I'm not 100% sure why their wealth is any more/less deserved than say, Paris Hilton's.  Sure, her's might have been "earned" by forfathers where-as the royal's wealth was taxed.  But at the end of the day it's wealth ammassed by someone else, and from someone else, the majority of which are dead.


    One wealth... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 10:49:40 AM EST
    amassed at least quasi-legitimately though by an ancestor, the other is straight up taking at the end of a sword by an ancestor.

    That being said, I'd probably trade our set of royals with the UK straight up for theirs, now that I think about it:)


    go back far enough (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CST on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 11:26:17 AM EST
    and I doubt all of theirs was legit either, and in some sense the royals were the original investment bankers, or something.

    I dunno, sins of the father is not really my thing.  I would be cool if they gave all the money back, and cooler still if the gov't taxes the cr@p out of them.  But I don't hold it against them personally.

    I'm more concerned about William's receding hairline and Kate's tiny little crow's feet, and what that says about my generation :)


    "Behind every great fortune... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 11:45:15 AM EST
    is a crime."  You won't find me arguing with that:)

    I hear ya about our generation...once you're coming of age decade comes back in vogue retro-stylee its all over...and the 90's are back!


    Turnabout is fair play (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 03:37:01 PM EST
    The British make a lot of money from tourism and the Windsors are certainly one of the things that fascinate tourists and draws them there.

    A Republic of England might not be any worse, but it certainly would be duller, and all the trappings of royalty would be relics, like in France or Germany.

    As King Farouk put it, "In the end, there will be only five kings left.  The king of hearts, the kind of diamonds, the king of spades, the king of clubs, and the King of England."


    I Watched the Kings Speech... (none / 0) (#43)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 12:37:00 PM EST
    ... the other night and I was amazed when he was discussing the actual power of the King and the his brother the F-up.  Honestly, it never occurred to me of all the history I have studied regarding WWII, how ineffectual the monarchy, of any country, is in actual world events.  An assassination started a war, but beyond that, they had no real value to any country.  They didn't even partake in any of the treaties post-WWII.  Big whoop, some unknown King of England has a speech impediment, which effected the war exactly zero, who wouldn't have been King if his sorry A brother didn't want to hook-up with some American hussy.

    Real deep stuff there...

    It was appalled that the movie got such high acclaim, great, so the King of England made a speech about a war he had absolutely nothing to do with.  Wow, let's make a movie about someone doing what you average joe can do and make him into some sort of hero for struggling through a GD speech.  As if history would be one bit different w/o him and his stooooopid speech.

    You never hear about the Monarchies of any of these nations except in the entertainment section.  Who knows or gives a F what Prince William, his soon to be Princess, his father, his wife, or his brother, thinks about Iraq, Afghanistan, or Japan.  

    No one even cares enough to ask.


    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by sj on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 02:59:00 PM EST
    That's a lot of vitriol for no good reason that I can see.  That's even more hateful than anything I've ever said about O.  And O actually affects my life.

    The Royal Family are the heads of state.  Not the heads of government.  There's a difference.  


    News on the jobs front (none / 0) (#12)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 09:50:00 AM EST
    The Bush energy policy (none / 0) (#27)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 11:11:10 AM EST
    was to let the Chinese eat our lunch in alternate energy technology, and the results are not pretty, I have to admit.

    Mandating (none / 0) (#38)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 12:16:29 PM EST

    Mandating the use of high cost and unreliable alternate energy technology, with the resultant loss of manufacturing competitiveness is a bipartisan insanity.  



    No, mandating R&D breaks (none / 0) (#47)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 03:21:18 PM EST
    and encouraging American industry, vs. your 'solution' to unemployment, "Drill, baby, drill.".

    Ya, But... (none / 0) (#40)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 12:18:49 PM EST
    ... Bush and Cheney were oil men.  Of all the C they pulled, energy policy, while done behind closed doors, was as expected.

    I'm in the heart of the oil beast, and oil men are expected to promote oil.  One doesn't make their name and fortune on a product and not self promote.

    Obama on the other hand talks the game, but what has really come of it, I got to deduct window film on my tax return, and if I owned a clunker, I guess I could have gotten cash for it.

    We are still drilling, even after a catastrophe; nuclear power, pretty sure as he slides into campaign mode, that will be another promotion of 'alternative' energy.  His policy, like most of them, are promotion, promotion, with little substance.

    Being better than an oilman ain't sayin' much in terms of energy policy.


    Hope BTD weighs in on the NFL lockout injuction .. (none / 0) (#18)
    by magster on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 10:27:30 AM EST
    ruling issued yesterday.

    This seems the legal equivalent of the players intercepting the pass and scoring on the return.  Unfortunately, the play is in the 8th circuit booth review.

    The NFL's (none / 0) (#41)
    by Makarov on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 12:34:38 PM EST
    argument against the injunction (to end the lockout) was hilariously weak.

    In essence, they merely said the NFLPA's de-certification was a sham to give them leverage in CBA negotiations. As Judge Nelson demonstrated in her decision, deciding to de-certify and pursue an antitrust case was completely within the rights of players, even if their intent was only to gain leverage. By electing to de-certify, the players give up the right to strike and also have the former union perform various other functions including regulating agents and representing players in administrative ruling disputes with the league.

    She also spent a few dozen pages politely destroying the NFL's argument that the Court couldn't rule on the injunction before the NLRB responded to the league's contention that the NFLPA is continuing to operate as a union.

    I am completely confident that the NFLPA will prevail with the injunction at the appellate level. The NFL's arguments against it were a joke.


    Neat profile of Paul Krugman (none / 0) (#25)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 10:51:35 AM EST