Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread

Another busy day for me. No rest for the wicked.

Open Thread.

< What's Affected If There Is a Government Shutdown? | 5th Circuit Upholds Enron Jeff Skilling's Conviction >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Star Wars, The Musical (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 03:17:36 PM EST
    is available online now for the first time:

    Forget "Glee": In 1996, three high school students from California decided that they were going to do some really epic musical theater. Funded entirely out of their own pockets and with no adult supervision, 17-year-olds Garrin Hajeian, Michael Heilman, and Kevin Bayuk put on a 40-person rock opera of "Star Wars: A New Hope." Adjusting the lyrics from the tunes from "Les Miserables," "Grease," and "Godspell," the three-night production of "Star Wars the Musical" sold out every performance and ended up with a "New York Times" review and a cease-and-desist letter from George Lucas.

    Click or Salon Me

    Hope Salon... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 03:34:04 PM EST
    cleared that post with the legal team...as we can see George Lucas doesn't f*ck around.

    Hittin' the creative kids he helped inspire with a cease and desist...for shame!  I hope he's lightened up since the 90's.


    One of our best friends is a Star Wars nut (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 05:16:12 PM EST
    He even owns a licensed Storm Trooper outfit (sort of scary...he is a grown up).  But he says that George Lucas is an absolute fanatic about protecting his brand.

    It sure does. Still one of my faves. (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 03:59:31 PM EST
    I mean, it's not like there is not a real Star Wars score to set lyrics to!

    What's your crime, what's your time? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 04:31:49 PM EST
    Wasn't he a lounge singer appearing at a prison in that skit?

    Kloppenburg declares victory (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 03:44:07 PM EST

    Margin of just over 200 votes out of more than 1.4 million cast.

    woo hoo (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 03:57:52 PM EST
    great news!

    How wrong you are, BTD (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by scribe on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 03:46:35 PM EST
    when you say:  

    No rest for the wicked.

    Glenn Beck was fired today.

    Yup. I think all of those who pressured (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 04:00:55 PM EST
    his former advertisers should take a victory lap.

    What was he fired for? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 05:09:27 PM EST
    I just posted that link on FB (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 05:17:52 PM EST
    with the caption "maybe there is hope for this country after all"

    one upside of having wingnut relatives is that I know exactly what buttons to push.


    Dane County Wisconsin votes for US (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by dead dancer on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 10:38:24 PM EST
    Constitutional amendment declaring Corporations are not people and money is not free speech.
    This is hopeful!

    he had lost 2/3s (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 05:16:33 PM EST
    of his audience and there was a massive advertiser boycott



    He's going to do some documentaries now :) (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 05:18:59 PM EST
    I think....I think one of these days Glenn Beck is going to find out he has some Tiger blood in him :)  Maybe a little Adonis thrown in for balance :)

    there were rumors a few days ago (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 05:27:04 PM EST
    that he planned to start his own network.

    I almost wish he would.  Howard Beal for real could be entertaining.


    You sure he's not joining (none / 0) (#60)
    by scribe on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 07:05:40 PM EST
    Charlie Sheen's Violent Torpedo of Truth tour?

    If nothing else, I heard Current TV is hiring....


    Any recos... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:07:53 AM EST
    for replacement unintentional comedy viewing from 5:30-6?  

    I had a nice routine of laughing my arse off to Beck over after work festivities...few talking heads come close to the comedic stylings of Mr. Beck.


    unfortunately (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:28:02 AM EST
    many people did not get it and believed every poisonous word he vomited into the camera.

    Yep... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:41:13 AM EST
    too many took the routine as gospel, but I try not to let the hopelessly gullible get in the way of a good laugh.

    I'm gonna miss Beck.


    Im sure you will be able (none / 0) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:31:29 AM EST
    to catch him on radio.  and of course his "documentaries"

    I might split my sides... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:35:45 AM EST
    watching a whole doc...can only handle small doses.

    The man has sufficient ego (none / 0) (#98)
    by Politalkix on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:38:16 AM EST
    and zealotry to declare himself the President of Beckistan for life.

    Joseph E. Stiglitz (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 04:31:03 PM EST
    on government "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%."  Sounds like plutocracy to me, or pretty d@mned close.

    Read this a couple (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 11:12:58 PM EST
    of days ago.  Very good.  

    Implied was the inherent corruption of concentrated wealth.

    Plutocracy.  How else to explain the lack of vigorous reform of the finance industry, low taxation of the very wealthy and destructive trade agreements.


    Will Wisconsin be closest state in 2012 (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Towanda on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 04:57:00 PM EST
    as it was in 2004?  Is this map of the past going to be the map of the future, too, if Republicans don't stay home this time, as they did in 2008?  Interesting quick analysis of the vote yesterday in the nation's number-one manufacturing state that has been a battleground for months now, but in the opening battle for 2012 by eviscerating the Democratic Party's main source of funding support, unions.

    You mean that Wisconsin really DOES (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 06:37:02 PM EST
    have national political implications for  elections in 2012? And beyond??? ABG is gonna be sooooooo upset to find that out. Ruins the whole trolling-for-Obama-as-OFA-paid-shill thing.

    Good on you, Towanda, for keeping this site up-to-date on the details of what's happening in Wisconsin. It's extremely important, and you're doing a great job.


    ABG could not bring himself to reply (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Towanda on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 09:56:11 PM EST
    to the comment explaining why what's going on in Wisconsin is more than a "labor issue."  But ABG has his uses, as we can see the talking points of the all-about-Obama-all-the-time mindset.  

    For one, his comments suggest to me that Obama sadly also may see what's going on in Wisconsin as little more than a "labor issue."  And if so, be ready for a big loss in 2012.


    It's okay ... Obama's got their back (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:20:43 AM EST
    Eliminating the democratic party (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Saul on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:20:39 PM EST
    This is the true gold of those states Wisconsin and Ohio started it to get rid of unions.

    Without the power of unions, which collectively have great power in raising money, the republicans are saying if we can get rid of unions then the democrats will never be able to compete with our corporate money.  

    Hence the end of the competition to the Republican party.

    Signs of a backlash to anti union rhetoric is now showing up in Wisconsin in some of the local elections.  

    This issue has awoken the democrats and are now fighting back.  Good

    courageous, seriously (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:38:29 PM EST
    A budget that removes assistance from the sick, elderly and poor is "courageous."

    to quote "Mr. ryan, I wish you had a little less profile, and a lot more courage.."

    Good to see ya JLV... (none / 0) (#82)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:09:24 AM EST
    don't be a stranger.

    Old school!


    Here come the teabagger carpetbaggers (none / 0) (#2)
    by Towanda on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 03:23:56 PM EST
    to Wisconsin, with Kloppenburg's declaration of victory by only about 200 votes (the Associated Press numbers still are changing) in the state Supreme Court election of more than 1.2 million votes.  When the official (non-AP) count comes by the end of the week, then the recount can begin in every county.  I bet that D.C. lawyers are making reservations now in some county seats that they are trying to find on maps.  

    Federal judge 'sentences' woman to unending (none / 0) (#4)
    by honora on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 03:35:55 PM EST
    jury duty.  Seems she filled out a juror's questionnaire and he deemed her answers racist. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/04/06/Judge-gives-woman-indefinite-jury-duty/UPI-11381302114093/  I hope the ACLU helps her out.  It seems like an incredible abuse of power.  Can we all plead the 5th on these forms, if we have unpopular opinions??

    Read that.. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 03:41:11 PM EST
    in the paper today.

    The judge is tired of people filling out outlandish questionaires just to get out of jury duty...but he's way outta line imo.  Power trippin' big time.

    If and when I'm accused I don't want a juror who can't wait to convict and go home...I don't think its fair to any potential defendants if she is chosen for a jury when she is an obvious malcontent.  Just get her outta there.

    I always tell people if you want out of criminal jusry duty, say you hate cops.  And if you want out of civil, say you hate lawyers.  They can't send you home fast enough:)  


    Actually, if they ask me (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 04:23:12 PM EST
    during voir dire what organizations I belong to (as some do), and I tell them truthfully that I am a dues-paying member of the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, People for the American Way, Amnesty International, the AAUW, The League of Women Voters, and The Fully Informed Jury Association, I bet most prosecuting attorneys would not want me on their juries (especially due to the last named organization, since it's biggest cause is to inform citizens about jury nullification).  If they don't ask, I won't tell, but if they ask, I won't lie.

    I need to pay more dues (none / 0) (#28)
    by sj on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 04:45:32 PM EST
    Well, all of these (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 04:52:19 PM EST
    organizations are close to my heart.  I have decided that it is more important to give to the causes I believe in than to individual politicians.  I made the mistake of giving money and work to Obama in the 2008 election.  I won't make that mistake again.

    PS (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 04:55:10 PM EST
    Oh, and The Chesapeake Bay Foundation.  And my long distance and cell phone provider is Credo, which also gives to causes I favor.  Face it, I'm a DFH.  Always have been , always will be.  ;-)

    Hmm, the League of Women (none / 0) (#30)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 04:54:54 PM EST
    Voters?  They're still around?  I mean, I don't think they've sponsored many presidential debates lately.  They used to run that show back in the 70s and 80s.  Back when we had something a little closer to meaningful debates ...

    They're still around (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 04:56:44 PM EST
    And still working for causes I favor.  Check them out.  Link

    They're also (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by sj on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 05:12:16 PM EST
    still the best source of unbiased information on local ballot issues.  The pamphlets they put together are way, way better than that blue book that the Colorado SoS sends out.  Also more localized.

    I used to get a stack of those pamphlets and invite my friends and neighbors over for coffee and dessert (potluck style) and to discuss ballot issues.  (Not my original idea, when I first moved into the neighborhood, someone else was doing the honors.  I just picked up where they left off).  It was a good way to get voter participation and interest.  And way more effective at GOTV than a thousand comments on a blog like this.

    Absolutely no disrespect to this wonderful site intended.  I'm just saying that I was good at my job of whipping my district into shape.  Brought in a fair number of Independents, also.  The LWV was instrumental in that effort.


    In Colorado, they produce the (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 05:24:52 PM EST
    most useful voting guides. Very informative. (Now, I'm feeling guilty for not joining.) Of course, it goes without saying that the ACLU is a key component for any liberal. My first endeavor after law school was a 1st amendment federal case in CO with the ACLU's local rep at the time. (We won!)

    Good causes, Zorba. 'Tho we often find ourselves coming from different angles as to the Administration, I'm in total sync with the causes represented by your membership.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#48)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 05:38:59 PM EST
    I do believe in putting my money, and my work, where my mouth is.  ;-)

    Many of the local leagues (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 06:46:28 PM EST
    also produce extensive, informative studies of current local issues, and hold monthly public meetings on those issues. The panels are comprised of local, county, and state reps, agency heads, health care experts, and social justice advocates.

    When you join your local league (which in my city is $62 a year) you automatically become a state and national member as well. Since the LWV is non-partisan and only advocates on issues, it is respected by citizens and power brokers alike.

    Do yourself a favor: join your local league.

    <End of public service announcement>


    Additional 15-second PSA for the LWV: (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 06:54:37 PM EST
    THe reason the LWV doesn't sponsor the presidential debates anymore is because in the late 80's the two political parties colluded to control every single aspect of the debates -- the format, who would be asking the questions, what the debate focus would be, etc. etc. etc -- so the national LWV president at the time went before the microphones and declared that the League would not take part in the "sham" that the parties had cooked up.

    But the local and state leagues still host  candidate debate forums every year. If you want to see a balanced, well-run debate betwen your mayoral, legislative and gubernatorial candidates, the LWV is for you.

    <End (2)>


    Beautiful answer, Zorba (none / 0) (#40)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 05:18:52 PM EST
    More than an ad, I'd bet the look on the relevant faces would be...priceless.

    I have to admit (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 05:37:14 PM EST
    to being honest to the point of bluntness.  The last time I was called for jury duty, I went through voir dire on a civil case involving worker's compensation.  It was an employee of the county suing for worker's comp, which the county was contesting.  When the judge learned that I had a relative involved in a worker's comp case, she called me up to the bench to question me further, along with both attorneys.  When I explained my involvement in my relative's case (basically taking her to the doctor, and advising her to fire her first attorney, who was incompetent- sorry, counselors) and when I then truthfully answered that I felt that the worker's comp laws were way skewed to favor the employers, the judge excused me.  The plaintiff's attorney then exclaimed "Wait a minute!  I want her as the jury foreman!"  

    I have no idea if this is legal or not (none / 0) (#6)
    by CST on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 03:40:59 PM EST
    (although I somehow suspect not really)

    I certainly don't agree with giving someone useless unending jury duty - I don't really see what it accomplishes, how he has the authority to do that, the bad precedent it sends, and where this ends.  Abuse of power indeed.

    All that being said, "unpopular opinion" seems a bit light.  Her answer was clearly racist.

    "Asked on her questionnaire to name three people she least admired, the Asian woman in her 20s from Brooklyn allegedly wrote "African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians."


    The First Amendment protects racists too (none / 0) (#10)
    by honora on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 03:47:00 PM EST
    The woman was asked a question.  Assume that she is a racist.   Then her two choices were to answer honestly and be declared to be a racist by the judge and by you, or lie.  I am sure that lying on the form is perjury and would place her in more legal jeopardy.  That is why I mentioned taking the 5th.

    I agree with that (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CST on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 03:59:52 PM EST
    She made the right choice as to her jury answer (not lying).  She's just also racist.  One of the things about being racist, is that means you have to live with being "declared racist".

    Thats life.  The first amendment protects her right to be racist, and it protects my right to call em as I see em.

    I do not think it allows the judge to give her endless jury duty.


    you know what (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 04:14:07 PM EST
    screw that judge.  if I was her I would make escalatingly racist comments every time he brought me back.

    I would find out about HIS (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 04:14:43 PM EST
    heritage and include it big time.

    Did You Read the Article (none / 0) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 05:02:11 PM EST
    "She also wrote that all policemen are lazy and use their sirens to get around traffic jams."

    Racist maybe, but the answers were so obviously stoooopid, that her intent was to get out of jury duty.  All she forgot to mention was her hatred of people who wear robes in public.

    And this business about racist and juries, please, we gonna pull out cop haters too, then what, women/men haters, republican/democrat haters, you pull out all the haters and your left with a group that would exactly like this woman, in perpetual jury duty.  

    One could even make the arguement that enough Fox viewers are racists that they all should be disqualified.

    And on the other side of the coin, what about lover, we going to pull out people that love prosecutes, judges, celebrities, and on and on.

    Everyone brings baggage to the jury box.


    Why and how (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 07:28:38 PM EST
    could you make that argument re Fox?

    I ask you the same question I asked Donald. Why do you feel it is necessary to  do personal attacks on people who disagree with your political views?


    What the man (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by NYShooter on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 02:01:24 AM EST
    from Hawaii said.

    Oh, and p.s.........Jim, you would do well to focus, and dwell upon, the numerous (I thought overly generous, but, what the heck) compliments you were granted in Howard's post. Remember, you don't have to instantly respond to every post with a disappointing, adolescent <snark.> You come across like a barely potty trained teenager sitting on an overpass, shooting b.b's at passing windshields.

    o.k now that's out the way so, I'll wrap up with an overused, but appropriate, thought: You're better than that.

    "Aloha" is Howard's so, being from NYC, I'll leave it with, "YO! muthuh.....later."


    And you should (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:31:12 AM EST
    not get taken in on what you think re things you don't like.... that is most people think their headaches are worse.... 3" of rain is a flood...etc.

    Looking back over the past 29 days I have averaged posting less than 4 comments a day....

    My point and question remains and has been debated here several times in the distance past.

    "Why does the average member of the political Left attack political opponents in a much more personal level than the average liberal, or average conservative??"

    In the past I have always quoted Lanny Davis' WSJ article re the nasties he had received from the Left over his support for Leiberman vs Lamont. Alas it has disappeared, probably a victim of Fox's cost cutting storage space at the Journal.

    But here's a sly admission of the truth from HP:

    Washington corporate lawyer Lanny Davis has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal citing anonymous commenters at the Huffington Post as supposed proof that Ned Lamont is supported by bigots. There's no doubt the comments are disgusting and hate-filled - but make no mistake about it: if there's anyone who has been comfortable with using hate for political gain it is Joe Lieberman.


    And Donald's reply also provides a beautiful answer and I thank him for it. Several others have chimed in to show their agreement and I also thank them.

    The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.


    Most if not all regulars (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by dead dancer on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 07:16:53 AM EST
    at this site (and others i'm sure) have come to this same conclusion.

    Most members of the Left (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:00:00 AM EST
    disagree with us Social Liberals.

    Us Social liberals (none / 0) (#106)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 04:19:52 PM EST
    sure, you can see examples of that all over the place: the Left stopping at nothing to limit a woman's right to choose; attempting to undermine gay rights at every turn..

    National Socialist, I mean Social liberals, are under seige now from the Left more than ever.


    So your answer (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:58:02 AM EST
    is that you refuse to see the other side's point and enjoy insulting people.


    That's what I thought but I appreciate your admitting it.

    And no, I don't agree.


    Ah Donald (none / 0) (#93)
    by sj on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:11:20 AM EST
    What a waste of some perfectly good courtesy.  It was good of you to try, but Jim just put up a canned response so it was all for naught.  

    It seemed worth trying...


    Have a nice day (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:35:02 AM EST
    and hold on tight to your belief that anyone who
    disagrees is a nasty old meanie.



    You have a nice day, too (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by sj on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:38:39 AM EST
    bless your heart.

    heh "bless your heart" (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:46:42 AM EST
    the genteel southern version of "f*ck you and the horse you rode in on"

    We also have this one (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 04:22:43 PM EST
    "....and yo mamma too!"

    Now, aint you special?

    For Capt, sj and all who feel left out.



    Jim (none / 0) (#105)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 02:10:12 PM EST
    Why and how could you make that argument re Fox?
    - jimakaPPJ

    Although I am not a viewer, I have seen countless remarks, some subtle, some not so subtle on Fox in regards to race that are disgraceful, aka racist.

    One has to assume that the viewers agree or at the very least are indifferent, because if they weren't, they would turn the channel.  If I were to watch a channel that regularly made remarks concerning sex with minors, although I may not be a pedophile, my indifference is support because I'm not changing the channel.  I would think most people would say that I have some predilection towards that viewpoint because I continue to watch, even though the content is socially offensive.

    In both cases, the language is so offensive to me, and I think most people, that we would turn the channel.  Yet Fox viewers don't, which indirectly supports those views, and with some viewers, it's direct supports them.

    No station is going to broadcast content it's viewers disagree with wholeheartedly, what function would that serve.  Exactly, they don't disagree with racist language and comments, and that my fiend is how I can make that arguement.


    Eactly (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 04:30:17 PM EST
    Although I am not a viewer, I have seen countless remarks, some subtle, some not so subtle on Fox in regards to race that are disgraceful, aka racist.

    Come back with something you saw/heard in specific and we can chat.

    BTW - It's okay to a viewer. Your friends won't know.




    cuz (none / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 04:32:59 PM EST
    who would be more apt as the final arbiter of what's racist and what isn't than a loyal Fox viewer?

    Well, you are apt to find (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 05:28:19 PM EST
    one who is fair and balanced.



    maybe it's time someone (none / 0) (#116)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:11:59 PM EST
    did some research into the long term effects of prolonged teabagging on the frontal lobes..

    If "Obama hates white people" wasn't a calculated attempt to stir up race-based resentment, what was it?

    Fox does have a five second delay; they didn't have to let that garbage go out on the air..


    If you like watching those baby eagles in Iowa, (none / 0) (#16)
    by caseyOR on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 04:02:00 PM EST
    then you might like the streaming video of this pair of red-tail hawks. These birds have been coming back to the same downtown Portland fire escape to nest for more years than I can remember.

    The local NBC affiliate, KGW-TV, and the Portland Audubon Society have teamed up to provide the Raptor Cam, a video feed showing the hawks laying and hatching their eggs. Later we'll be able to watch the hawks feed and teach their babies to fly.

    It is all so very cool.

    Raptor Cam here.

    The third baby (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 04:11:39 PM EST
    eagle is poking through right now for those that are interested

    still trying to get out right now (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 05:32:50 PM EST
    I have become (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 05:46:54 PM EST
    hooked on the eagles

    Looks like the newborn (none / 0) (#50)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 05:53:08 PM EST
    will be eating fish tonight

    sushi! (none / 0) (#51)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 05:55:50 PM EST
    I wish the parent would move aside again. newborn looked real close to popping out  . . .

    Reposting the baby eagle link (none / 0) (#53)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 06:06:49 PM EST
    See eaglets here.

    Because if you google "baby eagle" you are directed to a gun manufacturer.


    Everyone trying to sneak in on the action (none / 0) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 06:22:13 PM EST
    BP even has a 30 second spot that pops up before the camera starts sometimes, when you first go to the site, telling me the good job they've done in the gulf.

    Looks like there will be fresh fish on (none / 0) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    the menu today at Decorah Eagles Nest Cafe. Can't determine the origin of the daily fresh meat special. All eggs have hatched and I truly ticked that the third eaglet decided to make its appearance during a time I was not watching.



    Here's another one - peregrine falcons (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by scribe on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 07:18:03 PM EST
    nesting atop an office tower in Jersey City.

    A friend from that area related an amusing incident which happened while walking the dog.  On the dog-walking route there's a corner store that makes a habit of putting out food for the local pigeons.  They come and peck away and have for years.  Out in front of the store is a bus stop.

    One spring morning about 7, the friend is walking the dog.  As they approach the corner, there is a line of people waiting for the bus, drinking their coffee, reading their newspapers, doing all the stuff NYC area commuters do.  As my friend and the dog are crossing the street, a peregrine falcon swoops down out of nowhere and just nails a pigeon that had shown up for the free feed.  Feathers everywhere.  The falcon and pigeon go to the sidewalk in a heap, where the falcon finishes killing the pigeon with beak and talon, glares at everyone and then lumbers aloft carrying its kill, secure in the knowledge that he's both the baddest mofo in town and has a full nutritious breakfast coming.  In typical Noo Yawker fashion, the comuters don't even take their heads out of their papers to watch, and only my friend and the dog see this True Life Adventure play out on a city street.

    Not too long ago, most people thought peregrines were done.  Now, this.


    According to Hillary, the bombing in (none / 0) (#17)
    by Buckeye on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 04:10:27 PM EST
    Libya will not stop until regime change.

    Of course not (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:01:35 PM EST
    Humanitarianism demands regime change.

    The French Left and Libya (none / 0) (#75)
    by Politalkix on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 10:43:08 PM EST
    In France, military interventionin Libya is supported by
    77% of Greens
    68% of Socialists
    59% of Front de Gauche and 57% of Lutte Ouvriere/New Anticapitalist supporters

    The majority among the left in France is supporting the war (while France is going through austerity programs and increases in retirement ages).

    The most vocal non-interventionist in France is Marine Le Pen, the new leader of the far right Front National party.


    I know it's a crazy world (none / 0) (#85)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:34:26 AM EST
    when I agree with George Will rather than the French left on an issue other than the Cubs. But I do.

    Which is fine (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Politalkix on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:11:23 AM EST
    It only indicates that well meaning people (you and the French Left, not George Will :-)) can have honest differences of opinions on issues. Makes the world more interesting! :-).

    That it does! (none / 0) (#88)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:20:48 AM EST
    I believe I usually agree with you also, and you are close to winning me over on this one.

    Well, maybe not that close to winning me over (none / 0) (#92)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:01:07 AM EST
    Seems like only a matter of time before the rebels are calling on the US to protect them from NATO airstrikes.

    Federal district court judge Nelson (none / 0) (#21)
    by Makarov on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 04:17:35 PM EST
    heard arguments from the NFLPA and NFL today in the players' request for injunctive relief to the lockout. David Boies argued for the owners. From reports, Nelson all but completely shot down the argument that the court should wait until the NLRB decides on a complaint from the owners that the union's de-certification is a sham. Nelson said she would need "a couple weeks" to issue a ruling on the injunction request.

    If anyone knows where I can get a transcript, I'd appreciate it.

    The government drops (none / 0) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 04:30:59 PM EST
    one of the charges against Barry Bonds today. The defense rests without calling a witness. Can the judge toss the case without even going to the jury?

    I don't know (none / 0) (#26)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 04:32:51 PM EST
    But if I could, I would if I were the judge, due to the shenanigans of the prosecution.  I'm pretty sure he can declare a mistrial, but then double jeopardy would not apply and the government could try him again.

    A motion for a Directed Verdict (none / 0) (#56)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 06:40:27 PM EST
    might be in order. In that case, the answer to your question is: Yes...depending.

    I believe they originally (none / 0) (#59)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 06:56:35 PM EST
    filed 11 charges, dropped 6 earlier in the year, dropped another today, two key witnesses contradicted each other. and several pieces of evidence tossed. This would be an easy case for Jeralyn.

    Why Do Democrats Concede (none / 0) (#27)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 04:44:13 PM EST
    Timely piece I think from Chait which describes the situation as I see it exactly.  Highlights:

    "Liberals have been lamenting that the Democrats have surrendered the war of ideas and allowed Republicans to frame the budget debate entirely on their own terms, including the borderline-crackpot notion that cutting the deficit will reduce unemployment immediately. Why are Democrats doing this? Well, one reason is that the Democratic base wants its leaders to compromise, and the Republican base doesn't:

    Over all, 55 percent of Americans, including 53 percent of independents and 69 percent of Democrats, want lawmakers whose views they agree with to compromise. But 50 percent of Republicans, including 56 percent of conservative Republicans, want lawmakers who share their views to stand by their principles, even if that means the government will shut down. Among Republicans and Republicans-leaning independents who agree with the Tea Party, 68 percent want lawmakers who share their views to stand on principle.


    The upshot is that the Democratic Party is far more dependent upon the votes of moderates, who think of themselves in non-ideological terms and want their leaders to compromise and act pragmatically."


    To me this poll says that it isn't so (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 05:37:09 PM EST
    much that Dems are wimps, but that they fail to lead.  While the people certainly should be communicating with their representatives about whay they want and expect, at some point these members of Congress have to lead on the issues they ran on.  Leadership is about bringing those who don't agree with you over to your side, not merely conceding that there are no wrong answers.

    It would also be instructive to see what kinds of responses would be given to some very specific questions, such as:

    "If agreeing to a compromise would result in your Social Security benefits being reduced, would you still want your representative to compromise his or her position that benefits should not be reduced?"  


    "If agreeing to a compromise meant that Medicare would end and seniors would have to get their insurance on the open market, or via an exchange, would you still want your representative to compromise from his or her position that Medicare should not be ended?"  


    "If agreeing to a compromise meant that wealthy individuals and corporations would receive additional reductions in their tax rates, would you still want your representative to compromise from his or her opposition to that result?"

    In the abstract, compromise sounds like a wonderful thing; make it personal, and I'm pretty sure people's preference for compromise in the interest of "getting things done" would go right out the window.


    Define "compromise"... (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 05:57:50 PM EST
    ...in its myriad of meanings to as many people and I'll show you a poll that says something very different.  I'll show you thousands of them.  

    The influence of big money and an utter lack of imagination have turned the D Party into R Lite* (except on matters of______. You fill in the blank.)


    So much depends on how (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 09:52:02 PM EST
    the poll questions are framed.  I'm sure if the poll asked:  Do you want Dems to compromise on the issue of repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, the answer would be NO, as was shown in polls at the time the DEAL was made.  This statement in the poll you cite is so general, it is meaningless.  

    I used to be on the Zogby poll list, and so often, when asked at the end for comments, I had the same comment about several questions.  & the comment was always that the way in which a particular question was phrased did not allow respondents to give various answers.  Or, the way in which the question is phrased, makes assumptions that will push answers in a particular direction.

    In short, I put no faith in most polls, and this one seems particularly suspect.


    Well, there it is! (none / 0) (#42)
    by NYShooter on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 05:22:53 PM EST
    How can anyone expect an intelligent outcome when the premise going into negotiations is: one side dealing in reality, and the other in ideological, bumper sticker snippets?

    At the end of WW2 "unconditional" surrender was the correct position; in almost all other negotiation settings: no compromise=no progress. "Stand strong, line-in-the-sand," makes for good campaigning. Governing is reserved for grown ups.

    Someone should inform the American public.


    Wonderful story (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by NYShooter on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:41:07 PM EST
    Having served in upper management for many, many years, I can attest to the fact that almost all people react similarly to certain, base stimuli: being treated with dignity, being talked to in a respectful manner, having management talk up, rather than down to them, and having management express even more confidence in their abilities than they may possess themselves.

    I had the advantage of "cutting my teeth" in business in the late 50's and 60's. Most of my trainers came from the military as so many officers from WW2 transferred to business careers after that conflict ended. Let me tell you, the total disdain (even hatred) I felt towards them then, is in complete proportion to the love, respect, and thankfulness I feel towards them today.

    Their success in The War was due to the fact that they could transform young, raw, unformed kids into self-reliant, confident, goal oriented, victorious solders. The casualty rate would have been greater by a magnitude of 10 if those kids were left to their own devices in obtaining the skills necessary for survival....and victory. It was only their Leadership's ability to show, no, to force them to transcend the limitations they had naturally imposed upon themselves. And enough of those youngsters discovered that they had powers and abilities that would have remained dormant (probably forever) were it not for the faith, vision, determination, and leadership shown by the Leaders, military and political, of that day.

    Anyway, I could go on and on, but the point I'm trying to express is that I know, from personal experience, that nothing is impossible. If a few leaders appeared on our scene today and dealt with the American people in the manner I described above no politicians, no bankers, no media, and no other "power brokers" could stand in the way of us attaining the dream our Founders meant for us to have.

    Please believe me; during my life I have not only witnessed, but thanks to the gnarliest, meanest, and most demanding "sons 'o bitches" anyone could imagine, even performed what can only be described as miracles. I learned that you cannot defeat people that will not be defeated.
    We did it before; we can do it again.

    All it takes.......a little Leadership.  


    Agree with about (none / 0) (#64)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 07:59:49 PM EST
    everything NYS said except this

    At the end of WW2 "unconditional" surrender was the correct position;

    At least wrt the Japanese, our one allowance should have been they could keep their emperor as head of state, which if we'd been clear about that and willing to be flexible on that one point and not play to domestic politics, as Truman did, we probably could have avoided the nasty turn that end of the war took.  

    Otherwise ... governing is for grown ups, something the GOP used to be, back during my youth.  A much larger tent for them, and thus room for flexibility in views.  Today, it's toe the line -- according largely to what the Tea Party wing dictates -- and governing becomes just an extension of the macho posturings of the election campaign.


    I don't disagree with your comments (none / 0) (#70)
    by NYShooter on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 09:02:12 PM EST
    but, as to the manner in which Truman ended the war with Japan, I have to tread softly. I'm really quite reluctant to be too judgmental, or to second guess what our leadership did then, considering the pressures and decisions they had to confront.

    "Walking in one's shoes" is a pretty good policy to follow, I've found. Having experienced combat I know even the greatest wordsmith that ever lived cannot relay the "experience" of those encounters to someone else. A writer (forgot the name, but he was a Navy psychiatrist) once wrote, "a person can think about, ponder, imagine, even project his thoughts to someone else. But no one can experience someone else's experience."

    If they could, many of the injustices in the world today would vanish.

    I do, however, accept, and agree with, the essence of your thoughts.


    This is for Howdy: (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:50:47 PM EST

    The Donald is tied with Huckabee for 2nd place in the GOP primary in NH.

    HA (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:05:21 AM EST
    wow (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:51:32 AM EST
    Well, I have people that actually have been studying it and they cannot believe what they're talking.

    You have people now out there searching-- I mean, in Hawaii?

    Absolutely. And they cannot believe what they're finding. And I'm serious--


    They are finding (none / 0) (#101)
    by CoralGables on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:53:38 AM EST
    waves and pineapples and Kona beer and..oops I forgot...Donald you won't believe what we're finding. Keep the money coming, we'll get back to you right after the Luau.

    and those (none / 0) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 01:06:30 PM EST
    are just the thing they found in Donalds hairpiece

    Harry, Last warning (none / 0) (#114)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:36:06 PM EST
    Stop reprinting things you read elsewhere. Quote a short paragraph and link to make your point. Bandwidth is expensive and this space is for comments, not reprinting the words of others.

    Sorry about that. (none / 0) (#115)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:01:30 PM EST
    Seriously, I should be able to make a point without being a bandwidth hog.