Tuesday Night Open Thread

Breaking Bad's new season looks awesome. Unfortunately, it doesn't start until July 17. Weeds kicks off its new season on June 27, with Nancy in a halfway house completing her sentence. The show moves to New York. Among the recurring guest roles will be Martin Short, who was so great on Damages as Bernie Madoff's son last year. For Weeds, he plays an attorney.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Who Has David Headley Duped the Most? | A Case Study In Media Management >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It's official... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:59:24 AM EST
    drug test required to receive public assistance in Florida.

    I thought Brand R was big on privacy rights and small government? Oh, this explains it....

    Controversy over the measure was heightened by Scott's past association with a company he co-founded that operates walk-in urgent care clinics in Florida and counts drug screening among the services it provides.

    And why no tests for boozing?  It's not cool to smoke a joint on public assistance, but drinking taxpayer money is cool?

    And Fla parents will be happy to hear they banned the bath salts that you can catch a buzz off of...thats a relief:)  Well, happy until they gotta bail out Lil Johnny for possession of bath salts.

    Probably because (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 12:24:36 PM EST
    And why no tests for boozing?  It's not cool to smoke a joint on public assistance, but drinking taxpayer money is cool?

    One is legal and the other isn't?


    If we're gonna police... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 12:55:23 PM EST
    how public assistance is spent, and I don't think we should...a ban on all non-essentials would make the most sense, no?  No booze, no trips to the movies, no cell phone, no baseball glove for your kid...just healthy food, rent, no-frills clothes, and electricity.

    Better just to help the least among us without any demeaning strings, ya know, like we do for multi-millionaire grifters on welfare.


    Not to mention... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 01:08:22 PM EST
    a failed drug test doesn't mean or prove ya used public assistance to buy illegal drugs, it could be a false positive (more common than you think), or the recipient of the assistance has good friends who share.

    "A friend with weed is a friend indeed."


    I agree with all that (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 01:26:45 PM EST
    I'm just sayin' it's an easy bright-line rule - the assumption is you can't buy illegal things with public assistance.  If you possess it, it is assumed you bought it.

    Also probably because (none / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 12:58:04 PM EST
    finding various overt and covert ways of further punishing poor people, such as denying them assistance (while offering them bare minimum of treatment), provides such an immediate, visceral, emotional catharis for the insatiably punitive types amongst us and a unique righteous, grandstanding opportunity for their favored elected officials. A real win-win.  

    I Remember Katrina (none / 0) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 04:09:28 PM EST
    They gave people debit cards who were living in the Astrodome and were appalled they found some of the receivers in nudie bars getting drunk.

    Sorry, but if my city is in ruins and all my S destroyed, the last thing I want to do is deal with reality.  Give me some half naked girlies and as much booze as my liver can deliver.

    The thought being they should be on their hands and knees thanking us for letting them stay in the Astrodome and giving them a little cash, which apparently should only have been spent on approved purchases.  These weren't welfare people, just people who couldn't afford an indefinite stay at a hotel or rent in Houston, which had nearly doubled because of the number of people migrating here.


    That all would be fine (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 08:53:19 AM EST
    If you aren't using money that your family is depending on to eat, or if you don't come back looking for extra because you blew it on strip clubs and booze.

    Right.. (none / 0) (#55)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 09:28:26 AM EST
    ... because all the tax money I put in doesn't go to the exact same thing for politicians who neglected to put in the right infrastructure to keep my city safe.

    When I give in I don't get to attach strings, why is that same convenience not afforded to me when the tables are turned ?

    I'm not from NO, so when I say me and I am am speaking for myself if I had been in that position.

    The amount of tax I pay is so far and above what anyone in that disaster got back, that no one would have any business telling me how to spend it.  When they stop pulling all the BS they pull, quit wasting zillions on expensive meals, and drinks, hookers, and carousing around the country, and start living the way they want me to live when they flip the tab, I will take your words to heart, otherwise they can suck it.

    And I will come back for more, because they come for mine every paycheck, 52 times a year. with a gun to back, give it up or go to jail.  All I want is some booze and a break from my disaster.


    I'm not disagreeing with you (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 10:34:21 AM EST
    But, like with politicians, it's the appearance of what you're doing that's more important than what actually is happening.

    If you are getting government assistance (which isn't much to begin with) to aid your family with things like food and clothing, because you have nothing, then it looks really bad if you can be found in a bar boozing it up.  So either you DO have your own money and possibly don't need the government assistance (or as much), OR you are using the money for things that it was not intended to be used.  In which case, if someone else is paying your bills (the taxpayers), then they absolutely have a right to voice an opinion (or have rules) as to how you spend that money.

    It's the same as if I borrowed $1000 from my parents because I was having trouble paying my rent, but then I decide to take a vacation instead.  Yes, I am working, so who's to say it wasn't the money I earned from my job that is paying for the vacation, but my parents would have a legitimate question / gripe about the money borrowed to pay my rent.


    You're using Reagan's (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 05:19:51 PM EST
    cadillac driving welfare queen canard, updated for Katrina. it was immoral, and disgusting then, and it hasn't lost any of its stench with age.

    countless thousands of babies got a little milk in their bellies, but someone, for whatever reason, bought a beer, and FOX will yammer it to death for a month.

    You're better trhan that, Jbindc, don't be a willing quisling for the Hannity/Beck pigs.


    It's not that simple (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 08:51:36 AM EST
    It isn't "The babies got fed, and daddy stopped for one beer" - that's hogwash and you know it, but the Hannity comparison is a nice scare tactic.  You can't honestly tell me there aren't SOME people who receive government benefits meant to buy food and sundries and pi$$ it away on booze and such - money for which it was not intended, which is why there are bright line rules in the first place. Personally, I think some things should be expanded for assistance - to allow people to buy things like toilet paper and such.  But frankly, booze is a luxury, never a necessity.

    I still stand by my statement - if someone gives you money, they do have a say in how you spend it.


    I knew Rick Scott would be making money (none / 0) (#50)
    by Amiss on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 12:30:41 AM EST
    off of this somehow! No way would he let it slip through his hands.

    Campbell Scott played the (none / 0) (#1)
    by Anne on Tue May 31, 2011 at 10:12:37 PM EST
    son  - "Joe Tobin" - of the Bernie Madoff character "Louis Tobin" on Damages; Martin Short played the Tobin family attorney - "Leonard Winstone" - who, as it turned out, wasn't really Leonard Winstone, and also wasn't even an attorney.

    Such a good show.

    Paging Nanny Bloomberg... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 09:15:36 AM EST
    WHO says cell phones are carcinogenic...better ban 'em in confined spaces, parks, beaches, pedestrian plazas, etc.

    If my second-hand smoke is a health threat, so must be your second hand cell phone radiation.  

    Well, no, that's a ridiculous analogy (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by observed on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 09:21:28 AM EST
    First of all, second hand smoke IS a known risk factor for disease. In fact, cities which have instituted smoking bans have seen an immediate reduction in death rates, for reasons which are not clear.
    Second, blowing your smoke where someone else is affected is just f*cking rude. Only the psychology of addiction can obscure the etiquette.
    "2nd hand cellphone radiation" is benign because of the distance, and noone would even notice it, to be annoyed, anyway.

    Well there is the annoyance.... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 09:46:35 AM EST
    of all the Lt. Uhuru's running around with the thing in their ear impersonating schizophrenics...but thats a cost of freedom, tolerating annoyances and cell phone addicts.

    I still say car exhaust is the major outdoor air health threat...I love this cartoon.  The science behind the health threat of outdoor second-hand tobacco smoke is dubious at best.


    Add... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 09:56:31 AM EST
    there is a middle ground between blowing smoke in somebody's face and an all out ban in the parks, beaches, etc.

    It's called tolerance, and it's a two way street.  I certainly am not running around blowing smoke in people's faces, that is rude, but so is making a smokestack out of a cigarette.


    eh, dog (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 10:03:30 AM EST
    you'll be interested in this: (wish I could remember where I read it) but, anyway, a study that 16 universities participated in just concluded: "Texting Makes You Stupid"

    No, Really

    They found that, aside from making kids dizzy and unable to concentrate & focus, excessive texting actually reduced I.Q. levels from 3 to 7 points.

    But we didn't need a high fallutin college study to know that, did we buddy?


    No we didn't... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 10:27:44 AM EST
    just a little observation...now potentially cancerous & dumbing!  

    All kidding aside, 2 far too young acquaintances of mine diagnosed with brain cancer within the past year...both were operable, my friend's wife prognosis is good, but her personality has drastically changed....another friend's brother not good, in hospice waiting to die.  Heartbreaking.  I suspect the power lines here on LI could be a cause, all above ground and all over the place.  One of the theories behind the high breast cancer rates 'round here too.

    And now Gary Carter, inoperable brain cancer...though if anybody can pull a miracle it is a Miracle Met.  Best wishes to the Kid.

    There are health threats far greater than outdoor second hand tobacco smoke, but they are popular and not easily demonized....the gasoline engine, power plants, food additives.


    what can I say (none / 0) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:17:25 AM EST
    my heart goes out to everyone.....

    For real man.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:23:04 AM EST
    my friend whose brother is dying has had a rough year...her mom is very ill too, bad diabetes and heart problems...I hardly see her, she lives at hospitals and doctor's offices now.

    No words...


    No words... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:34:56 AM EST
    ya gotta visit hospital.

    No one should have to be alone at these times.

    take it from me, you can talk to walls, but they don't talk back


    I've reached out... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:45:45 AM EST
    but she has kinda shut everybody out, outside of her immediate family...She does have her husband and kids there for her, a real salt of the earth family.

    I don't wanna pry too much...I know explaining what the doctors said today 10 times a day is not fun or particularly helpful either.  


    I hear ya (none / 0) (#51)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 03:19:38 AM EST
    just felt I had to say something

    Butting out


    As a Bloomberg aficionado (none / 0) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 10:32:36 AM EST
    you are no doubt elated to learn that the Mayor's daughter, Georgina, has written a roman a clef (with Catherine Hapka) entitled "The A Circuit".

    Thomasina, the daughter of Rick Aaroson, the blunt-talking Wall Street billionaire who owns half of New York, does not always have it easy. When Thomasina announces that she wants a career as a professional horse jumper she is distraught that her father chafes at the idea  However, she is not afraid to say no to her father even if half of Wall Street is.  If her father is not enough, she gets it from the catty Westchester horse show circuit, with torments from a particularly nasty fellow rider about her "Daddy's money.".

    The real life Georgina is doing little of the customary promotion for her novel, heading off to her ocean-front beach house in Bermuda--next door to Rick's, err--Michaels.   On sale everywhere at a bookstore near you. (based on NYT article by Julie Bosman and Michael Barbaro, June 1).


    I'll be sure... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:03:05 AM EST
    to add it to my reading list K.D....not!
    All I know about the horseshow circuit is I root for Springteen's daughter to out jump and out show the trust fund babies of unearned fortunes:)

    No Worries, Herpes Will Save Us All (none / 0) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:53:05 AM EST
    Horse herpes outbreak if forcing a lot of the horse events to be canceled.  Apparently there is no equestrian Valtrex and the stain of herpes can be deadly.

    I think this is amazing, thought these zillion dollar horses weren't allowed to fornicate, but not true.


    Waiting for someone here to actually (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:09:48 AM EST
    read and review this book.

    I have it on my list, mainly because (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:49:56 AM EST
    one of my daughters spent some time doing A-rated shows in our region, and it really is another world; where my daughter was required to do everything from washing and grooming the horse to cleaning the tack and then tacking up, many of the A-circuit regulars had their own grooms - all these kids had to do was get on and ride.  And where my kid was riding a large pony (if he'd been about a half-inch taller, he'd have been classified as a small horse) that cost us $5,000, a lot of these kids are riding animals that cost into 6 figures.  

    At the end of the day, though, you still had to be able to ride the horse, get it over the jumps in the required number of strides, make it swap leads when it changed direction, post to the outside leg, and so on.

    Will provide a book report as soon as I've read the book!


    Well it won't be me :) (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 08:44:36 PM EST
    All I know about the cell phones (none / 0) (#49)
    by Amiss on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 12:19:47 AM EST
    is that now that I had to have a pacemaker, I cant use it in my left ear, nor can a cell phone be put in a left hand breast pocket. This from the cell phone maker.

    Sounds like our pull in Egypt (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 09:50:36 AM EST
    is diminishing rapidly.  How will we explain all that military equipment we gave them now being used to suppress democracy and human rights?

    Same way we explained... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 09:54:15 AM EST
    it for the duration of Hosni's reign?

    I mean why else do we give out military equipment?  It can't be to protect democracy and human rights, cuz if it is we've been doing it wrong for a very long time.


    We gave them equipment (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 10:00:40 AM EST
    to equalize what they had to deal with living nextdoor to Israel.  It was touchy but it got people back to the negotiating table.  I know this because someone I know very closely had a fit about teaching Egyptian students, and they had a sitdown discussing everything that was on the table and he teaches them now.  He may choose differently soon though.  We also had some pull with them kdog when the protesting for regime change originally took off.  We still have pull.  If we pull future military support now, if someone threw a big fit on the tele about all this, they would get very nervous.  They don't want to be the old Egypt with outdated equipment trying to live next to Israel ever again.

    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 10:07:46 AM EST
    the simple answer would be stop arming Israel to the teeth as well, to keep it equal.

    I see what you're saying about influence, I just think the more we arm and interfere the worse the eventual blowback.  Food aid, build a school...that stuff is cool to make friends.  But I draw the line at arms...they'll be used on somebody, and that somebody will hate us forever, and likely rightly so.


    I think we help Israel (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 10:12:13 AM EST
    in an attempt to have a space at the table with them too.  Israel is determined, they will arm themselves without us.  They are pretty good at it.

    Afterall kdog (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 10:13:40 AM EST
    Who invented the Uzi?

    Who paid for research and development? (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 10:37:24 AM EST
    I don't doubt they'd defend themselves to their full ability, but it would be at a fraction of the level it is now with the USA bankroling their national security.

    One thing for sure, our days of funding the national security of Israel or anybody else have gotta be over...unless we wanna tell some sick old lady on Medicare we're gonna f*ck with her healthcare so Israel can have more missiles...I don't wanna tell any American that.


    What happens is that (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 10:46:54 AM EST
    we research and development for ourselves and then we sell usually downgraded products to everyone else.  It isn't just us though kdog, it is Italy, China, Russia, Netherlands, France, Great Britain and many more.......even Sweden.  We are in the arms manufacturing business and if we won't do it others will and they will make allies with others that don't include us if we won't play.  It isn't as easy as you would like to think to end all of this.

    Never is kid.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 10:55:46 AM EST
    never is.

    I'd be willing to take the economic hit and let others traffic in blood, but I realize that is a knucklehead idealist opinion....and I don't work for GE or Boeing, so its easy for me to say.


    Usually ? (none / 0) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 12:18:19 PM EST
    Not Israel, they get the good stuff, our bestest technologies.

    When you say we and us, what does that mean, the US government or US companies ?

    I ask because are we, the US Government making money off these mis-adventures or are US companies making money off this ?

    I'm not real sure about the 'everyone else is doing it' rationale.  Not that I have a problem with it, but if that's our stand, can we stop doing all the other stuff other countries aren't doing.


    they are pretty good at it? (none / 0) (#38)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 01:02:54 PM EST
    let them prove it. Already.

    If Anthony Weiner (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 09:55:37 AM EST
    had a meltdown fit about arming dictatorships and CNN covered it to the degree that they are questioning his being hacked, some people in Egypt could get nervous and decide to act differently.  But NO, Bret Breitbart will play and the world will pay.  Someone please tell Bill Maher that if he gives that scumbag one more second of airtime sitting on his show ever again I will boycott again for at least a season and write about it until my fingers bleed.

    Ha. (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 10:56:48 AM EST
    Who said... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:19:09 AM EST
    they don't know how to party in Utah?

    Not for nothing, what is "suspicion of possession of a controlled substance" supposed to mean?  Either you're in possession or not, and once arrested and searched it should be fairly obvious..  And unless I am mistaken, it is not a crime to be on mushrooms, only to possess them...once you eat your caps you're clean, unless you commit an indencent exposure or drive or commit another crime under the influence...right?

    Follow up question...can a dairy farmer be charged with possession for 'shrooms growing wild on his/her farm?  Cuz every dairy farmer in the right climate could certainly be charged with suspicion of possession.

    They Party (none / 0) (#36)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 12:57:03 PM EST
    I'm sure you have seen SLC Punk, great movie.  You can oppress the population only so much, then it's off to Wyoming to get a truck load of booze.

    In regards to mushrooms or any other drug, it's not illegal to have them in your system.  Granted you can't drive or go to most jobs under the influence, but at home or in a public space it simply isn't illegal to have drugs in your system.  Which of course makes no sense considering they are illegal.

    It's why people swallow, once it's in your system, not a damn thing anyone can do about it.  Not that they don't try with the PI's, but those laws never specify anything, like ppm, or blood alcohol level, they are just general fines, like disorderly conduct they slap you with when they got nothing.

    The question I always have, if a friend tosses a pill, say ecstasy in your mouth, is that illegal.  There's no possession and it's not illegal to have the drug in your system or to be under the influence of a drug.  Realistically, they would hall you downtown, but legally I wonder if they could charge you with anything.

    I don't believe there is even a test for mushrooms, certainly have never heard of anyone being screened for them.

    It's idiots like these clowns that make drugs so easy to outlaw.  They take them and just do whatever it is they want to, even if it means scaring the C out of families at the park.  The millions of other mushroom takers who manager to keep their pants on, will never get mentioned, just these two clowns who will be poster boys for the evils of mushrooms.


    Too true... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 01:42:26 PM EST
    my fellow partakers do our people no favors sometimes...but at the end of the day it's an inalienable rights issue in my book....if it grows, we have a natural inalienable right to eat/smoke/snort/shoot it than can not be infringed.

    That being said...fly right when you're flying high party people, do everybody a favor.  

    But sh*t happens, especially with powerful psychotropics...the square set can be a little more tolerant too...its just a naked guy ranting about bears, not a 4-alarm fire.


    now, if he had (none / 0) (#43)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 01:50:30 PM EST
    been ranting about some golden tablets he found in the woods, it might've been a different story..

    Ha! (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 01:52:37 PM EST
    Before I die I wanna get my hands on some of that sh*t Moses was on...good call jondee.

    just take some pork (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 02:02:13 PM EST
    and shellfish and leave out in the hot sun for a couple of days..

    That will cover the vomiting portion.... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 02:10:01 PM EST
    of the journey, not sure about the burning bush and voice of god...had to be some cactus or mushrooms or frog-licking in that diet somewheres!

    My dad has always said that (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 05:46:35 AM EST
    that many Bible stories had to come to us via opium

    It is the most plausible... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 09:32:06 AM EST
    scientific explanation for experiences with the divine.

    I never did find a link but I remember High Times did a great piece on it a few years back...famous religous figures and the drugs they were likely on that led to their divine experiences or callings or whatever the case may have been.


    If you read Revelations (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 04:15:21 PM EST
    Being stoned out of your ever loving mind is the only explanation :)

    Oh, Rod - you're such a card! (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 01:30:29 PM EST
    Markets open in the U.S. in 17 mins (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 08:14:24 AM EST
    What's going to happen today.  Surely the magic men have thought of something, but I can't imagine what it is.  They've already thrown the kitchen sink at this.