home

Monday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 10:15:18 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Travel day for me. Maybe posting tonight.

Open Thread.

< Sunday Night Open Thread | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Morning Open Thread | 158 comments (158 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    No fair man... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:14:09 AM EST
    Holy Rollers get an apology from NBC for ommitting "under god" from the pledge during US Open coverage...I've been waiting all my life for Uncle Sam to apologize for adding it to the pledge in '54...sh*t ain't right.  

    The original is better than the cold-war butchered version.

    why were they saying the pledge at all? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:23:26 AM EST
    No anthem? Seems to me a scheme for the very purpose of getting 'Under God' in there somewhere. But then I'm suspicious that way.

    Parent
    Beats me... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:30:32 AM EST
    but I'll bet there is some fire & brimstone holy roller golf nut blaming the ommission, and god's subsequent wrath, as the reason a foreigner won the US Open.  You know how that crew do.

    Parent
    I was in 6th grade (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 12:08:48 PM EST
    when 'under god' was put into the pledge.

    It was awkward, an interruption of the flow.

    Not to mention that it's unAmerican.

    Parent

    I was six years old (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 12:14:23 PM EST
    when they added "under God" to the Pledge.  I remember being annoyed, even at that tender age, because I had learned it in kindergarten without the "under God," and then had to remember to add it when I was in first grade.  Little kids don't like change- or maybe I was a left-wing civil libertarian even way back then.  ;-)


    Parent
    In my short career at two public (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:19:58 PM EST
    schools in my first grade year, I had to say the pledge every morning and I worried that God was going to fall on top of me.  I took the words "under god" quite literally at the time.  I was relieved when I entered private school where I didn't have to worry so much about being squashed.  

    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:31:04 PM EST
    That never did worry me, but I can see how a little kid could easily form that perception.  Kids are literal beings.

    Parent
    Your private school... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:50:47 PM EST
    didn't mandate or encourage a daily loyalty oath? Sounds like a cool school.

    Not that big a deal, but the whole concept of an allegiance pledge strikes me as unamerican...the true beauty of this country is you don't have to pledge allegiance to sh*t.  "under god" is just especially egregious.

    Parent

    It was a very cool school. (none / 0) (#55)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 03:55:07 PM EST
    Was founded in the 1940's and one of the founding principles was that it was to be an integrated school.  We were encouraged to be independent thinkers, to explore and learn about the world.  Interestingly, all I remember learning at the two public schools was a series of very rigid rules.  But I remember tons of things I learned about math, science, ecology, French and thinking at the private school I went to in 2nd grade.  Totally different worlds.

    At that first public school in particular, I would bet money that that teacher as obsessed with rules and punishment as she was would have loved it if I was afraid that god would fall down and squash me.  She used every arrow in her quiver to keep us under control and walking in perfectly straight lines...

    Parent

    times changed (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:59:31 PM EST
    or maybe it's just a factor of location.

    When I was growing up in public school, not only had my parents firmly instilled in me the importance of not saying that part of the oath, but I also distinctly recall teachers at the beginning of each school year telling the class that no one was required to say that part of it.

    They did teach us how to say it in Spanish though.  More proof of the demise of western civilization :)

    Parent

    Amazing how things change. When I was in high (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 03:11:59 PM EST
    school, back in the late '60s, a public high school, kids were suspended for not saying the Pledge of Allegiance at school assemblies. No suggestion at all that saying the Pledge was a personal choice.

    In my Catholic grade school we started every morning by pledging allegiance to the flag, then pivoting to pledge allegiance to the cross. Covered all the bases.

    Parent

    In 10th grade at one (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 03:55:22 PM EST
    school assembly in the late 60s, my ultra-conservative HS civics teacher -- I mean a real mouth-breather Pat Buchanan ca 1969 type -- caught me being a rebel and literally sitting out the Pledge.  He angrily pulled me out, and gave me a grilling for failing to stand.  No further repercussions though.

    And, no, not one time in all my public schooling years (K-12) did I ever hear a teacher say the Pledge was optional.

    Parent

    to be more clear (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 04:07:20 PM EST
    the "under god" part was optional.  Not sure you could sit the entire thing out, you just didn't have to recite that part.

    Parent
    Y'know, it was back in 1943 (none / 0) (#98)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 09:08:14 PM EST
    that the Supreme Court in the Barnette case ruled parents and children had a First Amendment free speech right to decline, silently and politely, to be compelled to recite the Pledge.  It guess it took a few decades for some school districts to catch on.  (Note that the attached S.Ct. decision also describes the then-prescribed physical manner of reciting the pledge -- with the "right arm extended, palm upward."  Soon changed to the hand-over-heart method that would resemble less a Nazi salute.)

    Parent
    I'm going to have to ask my mom (none / 0) (#99)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 09:40:54 PM EST
    if she remembers the old "then-prescribed physical manner" :) Very interesting.

    iirc, when I was in 4th-5th grade, most of my classmates went to a 'religious hour' (for lack of a better term that I can remember!). I was allowed not to participate along with a very few others. I also didn't do the pledge . . . which is kinda funny considering how shy and not wanting to rock the boat/call attention to myself I was :) They had also just started letting girls wear certain types of pants or shorts (under their dresses). Boy style jeans were not allowed. Yes, I wore them . . . they fit the best! Yes, it became an 'issue'. Small town school and I didn't work too well . . .

    Parent

    Here are links to two versions of the history (none / 0) (#100)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 10:13:18 PM EST
    I'm no expert, and in no position to suggest whose version may be more accurate.

    Parent
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#102)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 10:31:13 PM EST
    Interesting. I don't remember being taught this in school . . .

    Parent
    Started school in '38 (none / 0) (#159)
    by the capstan on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 05:07:57 PM EST
    and we did the hand over heart salute.  Members of my scout troop during WWII, when uniformed, were allowed to do the military salute when the flag passed in parade.

    The pledge was amended after I graduated from college, I believe.  Ever since I have felt uncomfortable tryng to recall the added words at football games.

    Parent

    Ironic that it was my civics (none / 0) (#104)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:54:23 PM EST
    teacher who was the one trampling on my rights as a citizen!  But there you are, and it was during the thick of the antiwar protest 60s, with political passions running high on both sides.  If I'd been better versed at the time as to the law, I probably would have been nervy enough to toss it right back in his face, but I wasn't and wouldn't learn about it until much later -- certainly not in his class.

    As for the old right arm extended version, here it is in action, from 1940, with the lovely Judy Garland and George Murphy taking the Pledge for their induction as American citizens.  

    Parent

    Forgot to note-- (none / 0) (#106)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:57:42 PM EST
    on the above movie link to Little Nellie Kelly, skip to the 8'30" mark for the old flag salute.

    Parent
    In the Public Schools (none / 0) (#160)
    by Amiss on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 01:06:22 AM EST
    I attended all through grade and high school, it was REQUIRED to read a daily devotional from the Bible and say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. I was even chosen to read the devotional a few times in High School. Course back then it was thought to be an honor.

    Parent
    If you had gone to public schools (none / 0) (#57)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 03:58:20 PM EST
    prior to 1962/3, you also would have been instructed to help recite The Lord's Prayer at the beginning of the school day -- before or after the Pledge, I forget.  The two words added in the Pledge were nothing as compared to having to do the Prayer thing.

    Parent
    I went to public schools (none / 0) (#69)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 05:34:25 PM EST
    at that time, and never once did we have to say the Lord's Prayer.  The Pledge, yes, but no prayers.

    Parent
    I would have been (none / 0) (#73)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 05:56:11 PM EST
    in the midwest at that time, in 2d or 3d grade by the time the Sup Ct ruled to disallow them.  Modern progressive-minded elementary school for its time and place, but still we had to recite the prayer if memory serves.

    Not sure, but my suspicion is some sort of morning school prayer in the public schools was, if not the practice in every school in every city and town, probably still more the norm nationwide than not.

    And I note that the state law being challenged in the SupCt case was from NY, a non-Bible Belt state.  Also, it was a big enough deal when the decision came down that Pres Kennedy saw fit to comment on the ruling (neatly both disagreeing with the ruling and also committing to support it), something a prez doesn't do with a decision affecting few.

    Parent

    Well, I was in the Midwest (none / 0) (#78)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 06:43:33 PM EST
    St. Louis County, to be exact.  But then, St. Louis (and to a certain extent, Kansas City) was always the anomaly in a pretty conservative state.

    Parent
    THat's where I learned (none / 0) (#107)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 12:03:36 AM EST
    the Lord's Prayer.  Never even heard it before, but I sure learned it fast when I first went to public school (in Cambridge, Mass.!) and it was said at the beginning of the school day.

    I remain vehemently opposed to prayer in public schools as a result of that experience.  As a child, you think there's something wrong with you and your family that you don't know it.

    Parent

    Went to Catholic school (none / 0) (#118)
    by sj on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 09:17:59 AM EST
    for first grade where all we said was morning prayers.  Was very confused in second grade when everyone knew the pledge but me -- and then didn't say prayers?  

    Now that you mention it though, that confusion probably has a lot to do with why I won't say the pledge now.

    Parent

    Thats a new low... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:50:00 AM EST
    for sufferers of kick the dog syndrome.

    Greek Default and Our Recession (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 12:43:28 PM EST
    It looks almost certain that there will be a Greek implosion which will impact all of the EU and trickle over to us.  In the demands that Obama or the GOP or whoever "Fix" our economic woes, you rarely hear any real analysis on how effective those efforts are in light of what is happening abroad.  

    We are very tied to Greek and Ireland. I think the US economy in the next 2 years depends as much on events outside of our shores than it does on what is happening here.

    If one entity in the global (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 03:23:14 PM EST
    shadow banking system defaults, I get the notion that it will start a chain reaction of defaults because of all the currency swaps the countries did with each other to try to hide their horrendous insolvencies.  Hurry, some genius try to write an algorithm already and sell $hit to someone or else :)

    Parent
    That's actually right (none / 0) (#61)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 04:23:38 PM EST
    There is someone somewhere who is going to become rich because he/she sees what is coming and is buying or selling in the right places because of it.

    Honestly, I can't really hate them for it.  It's not like we can't all see the disaster coming.  If everyone on an island knows that a hurricane is coming and only one person is smart enough to buy sandbags at a discount, you can't get mad at him for being smart enough to act on what everyone knows.

    Parent

    You really are crazy (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 06:34:09 PM EST
    I know it looks sexy and all, and some people who sit at a desk and produce nothing other than the buying and selling of nothing are making a killing....but I wonder how blameless everyone is going to feel about it all when the defaulting starts?

    Parent
    Never said (none / 0) (#85)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 07:43:31 PM EST
    I won't feel for the people impacted a Greek default would directly impact me. But it is not fair to demand that no one make money on perceptive investments and strategies. If you bought apple or Microsoft stock decades ago, you invested in companies putting people out of work. If you work for or invested in Lockheed or Haliburton you invested in wars and deaths in an indirect way.  If you own stock in Wells Fargo or work as a branch manager at a bank, you contributed to the mortgage fall out in some way. If you you invested in the stock of AOL at one point, your windfalll indirectly put a bunch of postal workers out of jobs.My problem isn't with investing on things that negative have negative impacts on others because that is what good investments do. They take advantage of loopholes and market imperfections. The problem is investments whose primary functionisto damage or injure.

    My bet is that the investments that take advantage of the coming crisis involve predictions of the bond and securities markets and investing in assets with little value now that will have real value when the crisis hits.

    That's not evil, that's fair and smart. It's when the investments and actions were specifically deigned to hurt others that a moral problem arises.  that is why I can oppose what happened in the finance world from a thousand feet but give the guy who believes that Goldman Sachs was a great investment a decade ago a pass. The intent is different.

    Again that belief does not mean that I care nothing for those hurt. It just means that there is a limit to the reach of the blame I extend to every person engaged in some way in activities that cause issues.

    There are a lot of good and honest and hardworking people working for evil wall street. The blame they have depends on a lot of factors and fairness dictates that we see that.

    Parent

    LOL, taking lessons from BTD? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 08:36:58 PM EST
    Investing...aka...gambling....lol

    I truly believe MT knows the difference between investing, and that which is taking the world into the abyss. And, I also think MT has no problem with people "Investing" their money in a company, which, after due diligence, study, and research, offers an opportunity to grow and prosper in the future. And, I'm pretty sure I can speak for her on this, she also has no problem with the company earning a reasonable profit, hiring ever more workers, and providing goods and/services which add to the wealth and benefit of society.

    THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM HERE!

    Criminal activity, creating products under the auspices of "investing," which mathematically could not pay their clients off should market forces go against their judgment. (gamble)

    The products they created, and marketed as insurance, were no different than a Ponzi Scheme. They "insured," by a factor no one has been able to determine yet, so much more than they could possibly pay out that I, and many, many economists consider it a fraud i.e. criminal. (I'm sure MT concurs)

    And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

    And that's what MT was talking about, I'm pretty sure.

    Parent

    Geez (none / 0) (#108)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 12:06:18 AM EST
    There are also lots and lots fo hedge funds, etc., who have nothing to do with creating these bets but are willing takers of them because they can see what's coming, even if others can't.

    Read "The Big Short" some day if you don't know how it works.

    Parent

    I appreciate your comment, gyr (none / 0) (#154)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 01:14:55 PM EST
    But, in keeping with my New Year's Resolution to be nice in `11, I'll just say thank you for your advice.

    As an "insider" for over 45 years, and one who sat with my brother (the Harvard "Quant") and a whole group of private hedge fund owners as we utilized a ten million dollar Cray super computer to device algorithms seeking pricing, volume, and volatility discrepancies to arbitrage inter/intra market opportunities, I thank you again.

    Once again, there's a difference between outsmarting the markets, and rigging the markets.

    Michael Lewis analyzed a market, and made a successful bet. He did not buy any "long" real estate derivatives from Goldman Sachs, however. He knew what the criminals were doing and bet accordingly; he did not join them in their criminal enterprise.


    Parent

    You may be correct (none / 0) (#110)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 12:34:20 AM EST
    In guessing what she is talking about and the distinction between legal and illegal.

    But I never mentioned anything illegal.  My examples and original statements said nothing about illegal activities, which would certainly be wrong.

    I was thinking of actions that were completely legal, I am betting she would still have an issue with that.

    Parent

    O.K. If the issue is (none / 0) (#111)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 02:26:11 AM EST
     whether investing in some type of financial instrument (e.g. buying put options, shorting futures or indexes, or other forms of hedges,) when anticipating negative returns in some markets, as a way to protect current investments, or just to profit from anticipated market movements, I have no problem with that. Some people do have a sense that its somehow morally wrong investing ones money, and profiting from that investment, due to the hardship it causes those on the losing end. I can't speak for MT on this issue, but as I said, I don't have a problem with it.

    But, somehow I think MT was talking about the much greater issue regarding the worldwide financial collapse (which, BTW, is by no means over) and the charlatans that engineered, and marketed, financial products that smart people warned could only lead to catastrophic results. Their hubris (I would call it insanity) grew to such an enormous level that even as the instruments they created were having the inevitable, predicted results (financial Armageddon) they went so far as to create even more esoteric products, designed to fail, and selling them to unsuspecting customers, while simultaneously taking out bets to profit from the resulting crash....and the wipe-out of their customers' positions.

    That's not investing........that's crime, big time.

    Parent

    Greece could also give up (none / 0) (#79)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 06:44:02 PM EST
    its ties to the euro, similar to what Argentina did some years ago with the dollar:

    Greeks are starting to question whether there might not be an easier way out of their crisis. And inevitably, Argentina's experience a decade ago has been attracting plenty of interest.

    In the three years leading up to its crisis the Argentine economy struggled, contracting a total of 8.4% by the end of 2001. Strains became so great that the country defaulted on its sovereign debt, causing its economy to slump another 11% in 2002. But the unshackling of its currency from the dollar and subsequent devaluation also reignited growth. Since its 2002 low, Argentine gross domestic product will have expanded by an average annual 7.4% by the end of this year, according to IMF data. Crucially, Argentine output was back above its previous peak within three years of default [...]

    Barry Eichengreen, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, famously argued that a euro-zone country couldn't leave the single currency because to do so would trigger "the mother of all financial crises." Long before the long political process necessary for any euro-zone country to leave the single currency was concluded, investors would have voted with their wallets. They'd dump the country's sovereign debt and flee its banks.

    But this is pretty much what has already happened to Greece. Two-year Greek debt yields 28% while 10-year bonds are trading at less than half of face value. And for months now, depositors have been pulling funds out of Greek banks. Only the lifeline of yet more EU and IMF loans is keeping Greece in the euro. Loans that will have to be paid back.

    If Greeks come to think they're already near or have reached the worst-case outcome of a euro exit but are getting none of the upside, they may well start to agitate to leave the single currency.

    Wall Street Journal op-ed.

    If Greece allows itself to be held hostage to the demands of the EU, nothing good is going to happen.

    Parent

    What to the people of Greece really have (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 07:00:53 PM EST
    to lose by defaulting? Not much as far as I can tell. Yes, Greece has internal problems, like the very high rate of wealthy tax dodgers, but they can work on those problems without the European Union's help. I think reverting to the drachma would be a better choice for the Greek people going forward.

    As far as I can tell, the austerity measures being demanded of Greece will do nothing to help Greece, but rather, will hurt Greece for decades to come.

    Why should the Greek people sacrifice their lives and the lives of their children and grandchildren just to save the necks of big bankers who made wild and reckless bets?

    Default, Greece!

    Parent

    They need the EU (none / 0) (#86)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 07:45:43 PM EST
    Mre than the eu needs them.  You can't abandon the folks lining up to bail you out.

    Parent
    Bail you out? Or (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 08:09:58 PM EST
    strip you of everything you have left, and starve you in the bargain?

    I think you have it backwards. It's the EU that will suffer the most if Greece defaults, more accurately, the banksters and their enablers.

    Parent

    Cruel and Unusual... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 07:42:13 AM EST
    punishment at Rikers...female visitors are being forced to cover up with an ugly xxl t-shirt if the screws deem they are dressed too provacatively.  And no wedding rings allowed.

    Are prison officials trying to instigate a riot?  And why aren't male visitors forced to cover up if showing equal skin or form-fitting clothes?  Kinda sexist if ya ask me.

    Wow (none / 0) (#119)
    by sj on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 09:20:03 AM EST
    more than just kinda sexist.  And the article was even worse.  They actually said they are "covering up the skanks".

    Parent
    The policy is sexist... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 09:54:38 AM EST
    and far worse than the choice of words in the article...though I agree calling all female visitors forced to don the t-shirt "skanks" in the article is outta line.

    The sexism is different rules for different plumbing.

    Parent

    I bet (none / 0) (#157)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 03:02:30 PM EST
    If male visitors to a womenss prison were walking around in thong underwear, they'd make them cover up too.

    Of course, women aren't as visual creatures as men, so maybe that kind of thing wouldn't drive the female inmates wild. (It would definitely turn me off).

    Parent

    No mention... (none / 0) (#158)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 03:13:50 PM EST
    of female visitors showing up in thongs...just spandex, torn jeans, low cut tops.  I bet dudes are still allowed in with tight tank-tops exposing mad skin.

    First they came for prisoner's smokes, then the prono mags, now their significant others cleavage...like I said they are asking for a riot up at Rikers...its not the clink my pops did his time in anymore. And that hurts us all, inside and out.

    Parent

    For the low, low price of only $185,000 (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 10:38:08 AM EST
    Starting about the end of 2012, instead of being limited to .com, .net, .org, .biz, .us, and so forth, you'll be able to register almost any top level domain name you like for a website.

    For example you could have Talk.Left instead of TalkLeft.com or Ante.Medius instead of Antemedius.com or White.House instead of WhiteHouse.gov

    Corporation names to become the new dot coms

    The Internet body that oversees domain names voted on Monday to end restricting them to suffixes like .com or .gov and will receive applications for new names from January 12 next year with the first approvals likely by the end of 2012.

    And they can be in any characters -- Cyrillic, Kanji or Devanagari for instance, for users of Russian, Japanese and Hindi.

    "It's the biggest change I think we have seen on the Internet," Peter Dengate Thrush, chairman of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), told reporters.

    "We have provided a platform for the next generation of creativity and inspiration."

    The new gTLD, or generic top-level domain, program was approved by 13 votes to one with two abstentions by the board of ICANN at a meeting in Singapore.

    [snip]

    Besides the $185,000 to apply, individuals or organisations will have to show a legitimate claim to the name they are buying. ICANN is taking on hundreds of consultants to whom it will outsource the job of adjudicating claims.

    It should put a big dent in the business of Cyber.Squatting

    Far.Out

    Yes, practically (none / 0) (#52)
    by Nemi on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 03:47:59 PM EST
    a bargain. ;)

    Parent
    You never know though... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 04:17:24 PM EST
    Some of them might get snapped up pretty quick...

    Jera.Lyn?

    Arman.Do?? ;-)

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#62)
    by Nemi on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 04:33:33 PM EST
    The possibilities are countless and the only limit is your imagination.

    But seriously - except for someone possibly making money from this - I fail to see the advantage. Of course there is the element of "It could be fun to call my site ..." Not unlike licens plates with your own name. But apart from that?

    Parent

    dotcom.bubble? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 04:43:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Of course there is that, lol (none / 0) (#66)
    by Nemi on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 04:53:54 PM EST


    Parent
    supreme court (none / 0) (#2)
    by CST on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 10:49:05 AM EST
    ruled against the walmart plaintiffs.

    "The court ruled unanimously that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. cannot proceed as a class action, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The lawsuit could have involved up to 1.6 million women, with Wal-Mart facing potentially billions of dollars in damages."

    "The justices divided 5-4 on another aspect of the ruling that could make it much harder to mount similar class-action discrimination lawsuits against large employers."

    No surprises there.

    to clarify (none / 0) (#3)
    by CST on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 10:50:10 AM EST
    there was no ruling made on whether walmart had discriminated against these employees.  The ruling was about whether it could proceed as a class action of this size - it cannot.

    Parent
    CST... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 10:55:32 AM EST
    quicker to the draw...but if this were Walmart I'd get the promotion anyway:)

    Parent
    hah! (none / 0) (#6)
    by CST on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:14:01 AM EST
    jinx you owe me a coke.

    Honestly, I've never shopped at Walmart before.  I'd like to think it's out of some grand political statement, but the reality is I have no idea where the closest walmart is - must not be very close.

    Parent

    Good for you... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:22:52 AM EST
    whatever works to stay away from the Walmart plague.

    And double plus good for you, USA defeated the Reggae Boys...trash-talk at will:)  Rematch with Panama up next in the semis...Bradley's job still on the line, anything less than the finals is an utter epic fail.  They can't come out flat again after getting spanked by the Panamanians, can they?

    Parent

    ya man (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 12:54:16 PM EST
    I think Bradley is toast either way.  But less than finals is an epic fail for sure.  That being said, I don't see us beating Mexico if they make it.  Hopefully I'll be proven wrong.

    In other soccer news, "FIFA have confirmed that vice president Jack Warner has resigned from all his positions in international football and that an investigation into bribery allegations against him have been dropped."

    The best part is: "As a consequence of Mr Warner's self-determined resignation, all ethics committee procedures against him have been closed and the presumption of innocence is maintained.''

    Since he resigned, they're dropping the case.  But of course, we are all just supposed to accept that he's innocent.  I know I know, presumption of innocence is important.  But let's be real here, he resigned, and because he resigned they are no longer investigating him - smells pretty fishy to me.  I think FIFA is gonna have some 'splaining to do as to why they are dropping the investigation.  Not that FIFA really seems to care what anyone thinks.

    Parent

    FIFA sure gives... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:17:25 PM EST
    the IOC a run for their crooked money...futbol's governing body needs to be blown up and replaced in the worst way.

    Parent
    Do they allow them where you are? (none / 0) (#10)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:27:48 AM EST
    NYC wouldn't allow them in :)

    Parent
    I just did some googling (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by CST on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 12:33:04 PM EST
    apparently the closest one isn't that far, only 10 miles or so.  But really, I've never felt any burning desire to hop in the car and drive to walmart.  Boston does appear to have some kind of ban, whether it's in law or just in practice (BRA "authoritaye") is unclear to me.  That being said, apparently there may be one "small" walmart coming.  Which makes me think it's a generic size-based ban.

    We do have a Target.  Which I occasionally shop at...  I always wondered why Walmart has such a bad rep, as compared to Target.  I'd love to think it's because Target has some higher moral ground, thus making me feel better about occasionally shopping there.  But I have a sneaking suspician they're just less famous.

    Parent

    A WalMart is a mile away from me (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Towanda on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:09:36 PM EST
    but I just go against my usual grain of trying to save the environment by expending less gasoline.

    In the case of Me vs. WalMart, I'll literally go quite the few extra miles to try to save the world.

    Same goes for Sam's Club.  Dropped the membership, joined Costco instead, and just organize better for fewer trips, farther that they are.

    I wish I had a discount store closer to home.  But the presence of WalMart seems to not only run out the smaller stores but also keep out the larger competitors.

    Parent

    lucky me (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CST on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:56:45 PM EST
    I don't have to make that choice.  I would have to expend a lot more gasoline just to get to a walmart.  Also, I'd never even heard of Sam's Club or Costco before I moved for college.

    Honestly, these stores are pretty irrelevant for my life.  I don't own a car, I don't have kids, I work in the city, and I live in an area that is "walking" distance (I like to walk - distances) to many grocery/convenient stores.  So the need/desire/abililty for me to go shopping someplace like that is almost nil.  The only time I even go to target is when I'm moving, and I don't really see that happening again since I've gone from the "aqcuiring necessary items" stage, to the "getting rid of unecessary cr@p" stage of my life.

    Also, I find that shopping at stores like that I tend to spend more money, even if items are cheaper, than I would if I went to a store that didn't sell everything under the sun.  Especially places like Costco.  What the hell am I gonna do with 12lbs of spare ribs, even if it is cheaper than buying them individually.  I don't think I've eaten that many spare ribs in the last 5 years.

    Parent

    I understand (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Towanda on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 02:35:28 PM EST
    as I walk only a few blocks to work and to most of what else I need in this life.

    However, those stores near me, in a dense urban area with many people who do not drive, do take advantage of us in terms of prices on many items.

    So I give the locals my business on some things to keep them in business and for my convenience -- but for my budget, I do drive to stock up on basics.  And that is in a household for just two of us.

    I think that you are not quite familiar with Costco.  There are many, many items designed for and at considerable savings for a small family.

    And I like Costco's politics.  

    Parent

    the biggest deterrent for me (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CST on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 03:26:52 PM EST
    is not having a car.  In a weird way, comparing prices, it is cheaper to pay more for items I can get by walking, in the sense that it's a lifestyle choice I made when not buying a car.  I do want a car, I just made the "lifestyle choice" to have disposable income instead, so I can pay more for laundry detergent I guess.

    The only thing I remember about costco is feeling completely overwhelmed by it all, and buying a bunch of cr@P I never used.  But fair enough, that's probably my own fault and I shouldn't blame them for my inability to control myself when faced with giant bags of candy - especially as I was college freshman shopping for myself for the first time.  I probably bought 12 lbs of spare ribs, despite living in a dorm with no stove, and then had to eat only ramen noodles for 12 weeks because I spent all my food money on those spare ribs at the beginning of the year.

    Parent

    Much more physically fit that way too (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 03:34:28 PM EST
    I used to live close enough to places to shop that I could ride my bike.  I used to grocery shop every other day and backpack it home, everything was fresh then too.  There is no way to take a bike from my house now though.  I'm five miles out on a two lane highway that doesn't even have a shoulder on the side of the road.  It's too dangerous.

    Parent
    I've noticed that (none / 0) (#26)
    by sj on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:04:32 PM EST
    the primary city centers of most large cities are, relatively speaking, delightfully free of Walmarts.  They're usually located out in the suburbs somewhere.  

    Target does have a bit of higher moral ground: they have the Target Store Grants which is dedicated to giving back 5% of their profits to the community.

    Parent

    But only a bit higher moral ground (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Towanda on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    and not sufficiently higher for me, sadly.  I liked Target.

    But do look up the politics and donations by the current management, a guy named Steinhafel.  I have seen quite a few exposes.  

    Parent

    True dat (none / 0) (#101)
    by sj on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 10:16:57 PM EST
    that's why I said "a bit".  Moreover, I've just remembered this:  

    I used to occasionally shop at two different Target stores for a particular guilty pleasure from the grocery section that I had a hard time finding at a real grocery store.  It was consistently a full twenty cents higher at the urban store (close to home) where the customers are predominately African American, than at the suburban store (close to work) where the customers were mostly white.  

    The stores were only about 10 miles apart.

    Parent

    Higher prices at (none / 0) (#105)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:56:54 PM EST
    urban stores is hardly unique to Target, unfortunately.  It's also true of grocery chains, drug store chains, etc.  They defend the practice by saying their losses from shoplifting are much higher at these locations, but it's also true they have a largely captive population they can get away with ripping off.


    Parent
    yep (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by sj on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 09:09:10 AM EST
    Also, I'm glad you commented.  I wanted to tell you how important to me our little comment chain about my Dad and the clotted cream was this Father's Day weekend.  I kept going back and re-reading and each time it sparked more wonderful memories.  It was a great way to honor him.

    Thank you.

    Parent

    The thing I learned (none / 0) (#164)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 10:04:48 AM EST
    when my dad died suddenly much too young (62) was that to my surprise, his death didn't somehow erase the wonderful times we'd had together, it just meant there weren't going to be any more of them.  So my dad really does live on in my heart and mind.  I miss him, acutely sometimes even after 35 years, but I feel more strongly very happy and grateful that I had him in my life for as long as I did.

    Hope that make sense.

    Parent

    Here is more on Target (none / 0) (#58)
    by Towanda on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 04:02:19 PM EST
    and its "cheesy anti-union video" that is required viewing for all employees.

    Before I even saw that, though, I had to decide to not darken its doors again owing to Steinhafel's corporate donation (and his private donations are worse) to anti-gay groups.

    Not the way that it used to be for a Twin Cities company but now run by one of those ultra-right Wisconsinites coming across the river to mess up Minnesota, too.  I have fond memories of many a Target on a couple of continents, but especially the very non-suburban, multi-level headquarters store in the all-season, downtown Minneapolis mall.  However, I also recall that store and every place of business on the mall and throughout the city posting the "concealed carry" signs.  Those told me that the Twin Cities were not what they used to be in their liberal heyday.

    Maybe that part of the world will come to its senses again someday and will win back my business.

    Parent

    In this case (none / 0) (#16)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 12:03:37 PM EST
    good for NYC.

    Parent
    Purportedly, neither would India. (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:01:21 PM EST
    However, at the flag lowering ceremony at the India/Pakistan border, I sat next to a woman from U.S.  Her husband was regional manager of Walmart in the area.  I think what he managed were small venues, more like 7/11s.  

    Parent
    I grew up in a small town in the 40's (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 09:48:56 AM EST
    and early 50's.

    All the stores were locally owned and while it's true that the local stores employed local people, so does Walmart. While it is true they were locally owned, local people own Walmart stock.

    The local store owners were the second part of the "gentry." You had them and the land owners. To fill out the foursome there were the poor white farmers and poor blacks. The local bankers, doctors, lawyers, teachers and law enforcement worked as management.

    The stores's merchandise selection was poor, the quality low and prices high.

    If you were white you escaped by saving enough money to buy a small piece of land and farming it while renting additional land. Your wife worked at the local shoe, shirt or coat factory. Of course this was possible only if you had an impeccable reputation and had never failed to pay back a loan.

    Blacks could do that too but the odds were way higher that something would happen, an arrest for being uppity, etc., that would suck up resources needed otherwise.

    I know this because I lived it.

    Now I have no love from Walmart, or any large corporation for that matter. But do be careful what you ask for when you wishfully remember the small shops and local ownership and hope for a return to yesteryear. You probably won't like what you get.

    Parent

    I don't think anyone (none / 0) (#162)
    by CST on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 10:14:53 AM EST
    wants to go back to the 40's and 50's version of social structure.

    I also don't think Walmart, et. all are the solution.

    Times have changed.  This "scenario" you bring up would not happen, for one thing, because Americans for the most part don't farm anymore, or live within strict social structures.

    This whole comment is just weird to me.  Small shops with local ownership are not the reason social structure $ucked back in the day.  They were just a symptom of a much larger problem.

    Parent

    Oh, I agree (none / 0) (#163)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 10:59:23 PM EST
    that we don't, for the most part, farm anymore and heaven knows there aren't many factories left for people to make a living working in.

    But in small towns, small shops with little competition is not the answer. Even worse when the cost of transportation keeps climbing.

    This is not necessarily true in larger cities and the Internet will come into play.

    And as I noted, I'm not a fan of any corporation. But they are no more cold hearted than the small shop owners. Difference being is the corp doesn't know the workers as well.


    Parent

    Walmart has friends... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 10:52:26 AM EST
    in high places...class action lawsuit for gender discrimination shot down by high (or is it low?) court.

    If that ain't sexism, it's one helluva corporate handj*b...but probably a little of both.

    Deputy Bankster... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 12:00:37 PM EST
    please report for duty...Deputy Bankster.

    Uncle Sam f*ckin' with legal medical marijuana dispensaries yet again....using Deputy Bankster to do the dirty work this time, wonder if the DEA is worried about the banksters cutting in on their tyrannical action.

    The CEO of my wife's bank... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 12:09:53 PM EST
    ...was interested in getting into this market, but the CFO begged him out of it for these tyrannical reasons.  But go get all the liquor store biz you want.  Sick and stupid and inexcusable and beyond any rational defense.

    Parent
    VISA.... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    it is nowhere near where I wanna be.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#19)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 12:13:16 PM EST
    would have to have concrete undisputed evidence before making that statement

    Tongue in cheek?

    Palin Emails/Shakesville (none / 0) (#23)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 12:48:45 PM EST
    Malissa at Shakesville said the following in response to the release of the Palin emails:

    "I am not looking forward to the enormous heaploads of revolting misogyny and classism which will indubitably accompany that information and the subsequent discussion."

    As I suspected, that didn't happen. Actually, the emails seem pretty boring to me and they don't tell us anything really shocking.

    In any event, the Shakesville folks can often be frustrating because they take a good thing (calling out sexism, racism and classism) push the sensitivities so high that everything is sexist, racist or classist, which helps no one, but makes those doing it feel good about themselves.

    They don't realize how much that mentality isolates them long term from having a meaningful impact on societal discourse.  Too bad.  Those folks over at Shakes are really smart IMHO.

    The way I read your (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by sj on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:20:21 PM EST
    comment, it sounds like you're still pretending she said the emails themselves would display misogyny and classism.

    It's much too soon to declare that said misogyny and classism did not occur in discussions subsequent to the release.

    And trust me, putting your oblivious and patronizing comments aside, being wrong about it would be gratifying to Melissa.

    Parent

    To be clear (none / 0) (#37)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 02:02:33 PM EST
    I am saying that this enormous heaploads of revolting misogyny and classism did not accompany the emails and the subsequent discussion.

    Parent
    Was there any discussion? (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 02:11:09 PM EST
    All I remember is this uproar about a certain NY guy . . . .

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#39)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 02:18:55 PM EST
    Weiner was part of it.  The other part of it was that there just wasn't much there.

    Parent
    Little coverage that I caught.... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 02:31:57 PM EST
    said the email release makes her more intelligent that she lets on...a net gain for Palin's image amongst the rational...but signs of intelligence or eloquence could hurt her with her base:)

    Parent
    seems a bit early to say. There (none / 0) (#45)
    by observed on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 02:53:16 PM EST
    are a lot of emails.

    Parent
    No One Cares (none / 0) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 03:46:44 PM EST
    They been out for weeks in a searchable format, if no one discovered anything so far, it's just not there.

    The little I read and saw quoted is pretty much what anyone's work email would contain, mountains of boring non-sense sprinkled with stuff that makes one look good and bad.

    Unless they dig up some crazy illegal activities, I could care less and as quick as the story died, seems like that is a common sentiment.

    Parent

    To be clear (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by sj on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 02:48:22 PM EST
    I'm saying that "subsequent" is not over.  When there is actual discussion you may be vindicated.  But declaring yourself vindicated at this point in time is really quite silly.

    Parent
    Melissa has a created a safe place (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by itscookin on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 03:29:51 PM EST
    on the internet for people who have been physically or emotionally injured. While I think that she polices her blog for insensitivity to the extreme sometimes, there are lots of other places on the internet where those of us who can handle a little more roughness can go. There's no need for us to invade their space. If I want a more no-holds-barred discussion of feminist issues, I prefer Dr. Socks or Twisty. But you wouldn't last 5 minutes at either place. Re: Sarah Palin's emails - any further discussion of them just makes her look better and the people who went after the emails more stupid. They should be thankful that Weiner posted those pics.

    Parent
    I am curious (none / 0) (#63)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 04:35:35 PM EST
    I wouldn't last in those places because I would be intellectually outclassed or because they wouldn't allow a guy to come in and make unpopular points.  I thoroughly enjoyed the Twisty discussion on oral sex and how those who enjoyed them or wanted their partners to provide them were mysoginists but I read that discussion way after it was over.  I've been wanting to discuss that one again for months, but it turned into the third rail for a lot of sights.

    In any event, I have attempted to comment on a number of feminist sites because I am very interested (forboth personal and professional reasons) about the intersection of racism and sexism and in particular the divide between notions of feminism in the black and white communities. I was very involved in feminist causes in college because of my associations with an all-black college for women, and was shocked at the mainstream brand of feminism that I was exposed to leading up to the 2008 election.  It was alien to me (to my wife who models herself as a feminist) and to many african americans concerned with women's rights.

    I have yet to find a feminist website where the commenters can avoid calling anyone who disagrees with them a sexist. Perhaps I should give Dr. Socks or Twisty a try but my sense is that the skin of their commenters is just as thin.

    When the discussion devolve to "you hate [women/blacks/gays/whatever]", you know you are dealing with people who have lost their ability to intelligently debate.

    That's what makes Shakesville ridiculous at this point.  I vistied the other day and the first 7 posts I read had abundant trigger warnings. To each his/her own, but geez. They are free to do that, but I think we should stop pretending that its a place that fosters any real discussions.

    Parent

    Well, I can only go by your posting (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 05:04:35 PM EST
    pattern here, in which your comments so often seem designed to provoke and push buttons and get people riled up, such that it is hard to take seriously your claim to be interested in honest and intelligent discussion.

    If that's how you're posting over there, I can understand why you haven't gotten quite the warm, welcoming reception you thought you should have been afforded.

    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#68)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 05:30:15 PM EST
    I piss you off because our feelings about Obama are diametrically opposed and anyone who doesn't believe as you believe is trying to be antagonistic.

    So yeah, in a world where "I disagree with you and I think my game is tight enough to justify the reasons that I disagree" is a position that pisses people off, then people are going to think I am there to bug them.

    In a world where people don't feel like they have to have people echo their own thoughts to have a discussion, people love me.  I push hard, I don't back down and my skin is thick as hell so nothing anyone says is going to stop me from trying to make a point I believe in.

    You should want me on that wall Anne.  Instead, I am the dumbass who likes Obama so you think I am antagonizing you.

    I don't want to antagonize anyone other than stupid people.

    Parent

    The problem isn't that we have (5.00 / 7) (#77)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 06:36:14 PM EST
    different opinions about Obama or anything else, it is that most of the time I don't find you able to discuss or debate honestly - and I'm not alone here in that opinion.  You have repeatedly shown yourself to be indifferent to the facts, stubborn to the point of intractability in not doing the homework/research or supporting your declarations with any outside sources.

    You throw a few catchphrases into your comments to try to convince people you know what you're talking about, you will hand out a compliment ("I have a lot of admiration and respect for....") and then proceed to state something that shows just the opposite.

    In this case, you have at once praised the intelligence of the Shakesville commenters and damned them for their inability to appreciate your point of view.  "They're really smart, but it doesn't matter because they can't see the truth."

    A perfect example is the last sentence of your comment: "I don't want to antagonize anyone other than stupid people."  Aside from the question about why you would want to antagonize anyone, you have, by setting me up as someone you're antagonizing, just called me stupid.  You did something very similar the other day, when you started a comment to me with  "Let me make this idiot proof for you:" - which is the equivalent of calling me an idiot.

    People can see through that crap, ABG; maybe somewhere people are dazzled by your brilliant discourse, but here - and other places - where people can and do back up their comments, not so much.

    Parent

    The point of a discussion, (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 07:25:33 PM EST
     among secure & honestly open adults anyway, should be to learn, to teach, to vindicate and/or corroborate, and to correct, or be corrected.

    Unfortunately, to many (most?) its to win.

    And that's why I rarely take on some of the so-called "wingers" who comment here. When there is zero chance of changing/correcting a mind, and the reciprocal consists of stale, warn out talking points, I don't see why anyone would engage them.

    Me? I choose to scroll on.

    BTW, I'm not referring specifically to ABG, who may be intransigent, but is not a winger. And, I'm certainly not singling you out as a protagonist. To me you're the dream conversationalist/debater. Just that your volley with ABG reminded of things, and I just piggy backed on here.  

    Parent

    "Unfortunately, (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Nemi on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 07:41:31 AM EST
    to many (most?) its to win."

    Or as a commenter at "I Blame The Patriarchy" puts it

    I love how dudes always seem to think a comment thread on a blog is a competitive game where they can "win". The concept of sharing experiences and learning from others does not seem to compute.

    Not that I think this is reserved for "dudes", though.

    Parent

    Hey, Shooter, I don't disagree with (none / 0) (#92)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 08:16:47 PM EST
    what you're saying; I should probably just ignore ABG altogether - perhaps my engaging him just guarantees he will keep showing up with his BS.

    At the moment, I'm still shaking my head  - and chuckling - over his latest response to me...oy.

    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#141)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:34:00 AM EST
    I'll show up regardless of whether you read me or not.

    You are giving yourself too much importance in my world.

    Again, I'd love to engage you in discussions, but if you can't handle that, so be it.  Don't read me.  There are others here that I can engage.

    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#87)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 07:52:00 PM EST
    Bottom line: who made you the arbiter of fair debate. I think your style of discussion is very unfair because yur assumptions are facts while mine are just conjecture. No one here has magic powder that allows their unprovable assumptions to go without question.

    If my statements are wrong, explain why. If I challenge you I will do the same. That's what's air debate is. Tell you what, next time I debate unfairly you point out what fact I used that is unsupportable. If I give support and you still disagree, understand that two people cam view the same facts completely differently.

    That's really the issue. You want your perception of facts to be the TRUE one.  That's just not going to be the case lots crimes.

    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#120)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 09:48:11 AM EST
    The possibility that you discount is that I simultaneously:

    1. Think the Shakers are really smart people,
    2. Believe that what they are doing has real value, and
    3. Completely disagree with portions of their view of feminism, equality, victimization and various other matters.

    A person can think that people they respect and even like are completely wrong and narrow minded.  At least I can.  The problem you seem to have with reflects the fact that you can't seem to.

    Parent
    ABG, someone who says he doesn't want (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 10:30:20 AM EST
    to antagonize anyone other than "the stupid people" doesn't have much credibility in the honest discussion/debate area, at least not with me.  "Antagonist" is just a $5.00 synonym for "troll," as lilburro so correctly identifies.

    I'm well aware that it is possible to respect and acknowledge the intelligence of those with whom one disagrees, but your version of respect seems to be of the token variety that only appears in the muddle of backpedaling and double speak that ensues once you have been called on your BS.

    You aren't fooling anyone here.


    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#129)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 10:36:06 AM EST
    The stupid people comment was a joke Anne. Geezus. Lighten up.

    My apologies if I have offended anyone here who is a card carrying and open member of the Stupid People's Union.

    I don't have to fool anyone. Why do I have the need to fool anyone. That's what's ridiculous about your whole angle on me.  What secret society of Obamabots do you think I represent. I give you my positions, they are what they are and that's it.  I don't know you from Adam either.  

    I just read what you write and if i disagree with it I say so. That's it.  Psychoanalyzing someone anonymous on the internet seems like a ridiculous hobby, but knock yourself out.

    If you think I am not being honest or something, good for you. It seems to me that teh level of debate in the comments woud be better if you just dissected my arguments instead of my motivations.

    We've spent half a day arguing about the way we discuss issues instead of the issues themselves.

    I am not a card carrying member of the above mentioned Stupid People's Union, but this line of discussion feels like something that would happen at one of their meetings.

    Just discuss issues and leave the rest aside. That's my suggestion. Or ignore me. Either way. I'd rather discuss, but it's up to you.

    Parent

    You say of yourself (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by sj on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:33:42 AM EST
    I am not a card carrying member of the above mentioned Stupid People's Union

    Maybe you should consider getting yourself certified to join.  I think you've shown your eligibility.  If you need someone to vouch for you...

    Parent

    sj (none / 0) (#142)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:34:53 AM EST
    oh you got me sj. You called me stupid.

    I SEE WHAT YOU DID RIGHT THERE!

    Hilarious.

    Parent

    There's all different (none / 0) (#144)
    by sj on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:43:39 AM EST
    types of stupid.

    Parent
    I just dont understand (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Amiss on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 01:54:45 AM EST
    why it took you 4 out of 5 of the previous posts entitled "Anne" to say what you had to say to her.

    Parent
    And to be honest (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 05:36:52 PM EST
    I didn't last over at Shakesville because I said that there are progressive and feminist women out there who are comfortable with porn, and they went to DEFCON 6, alarms started going off and I was escorted from the premises with the quickness.

    Sex positive women aren't part of the in-crowd over at Shakes-central.

    Lot of repression and such going on over there.  More power to them, but honestly, their version of feminism, which ignores the fact that people are (gasp) attracted to each other because of the way they look and dress, etc., isn't realistic and will remain an increasingly small and disconnected part of the internet from this point out.

    If sex positive people are going to frustrate you, the future isn't going to be a very happy place, because as women become more and more powerful and more and more comfortable with themselves, they are going to be less open to that sort of thing, not more open.

    Let's just say that these concepts did not go over well in a forum where saying "boobies" or "pee pee" results in a trigger warning.

    Parent

    Shakesville (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:38:45 AM EST
    does what it does.  There are plenty of "sex positive" blogs out there where you can discuss things with a group that holds the majority view that p*rn is not necessarily bad, etc.  Shakesville likes to deconstruct and document.  It attracts a lot of GLBTQ folks who challenge categorization and are extremely concerned with language.  It embraces people with radically different perspectives and gives them a platform.  So...the fact that you as a straight man enter that conversation extolling p*rn, and you didn't get a great reception ...you were surprised at that??  The fact that you think of them as "unrealistic" because they don't necessarily agree with your views on sex is troll worthy.  Truly troll worthy.  Half the reason places like Shakesville exist is to counter the line of argument that there is some essential truth about sex.  

    And the fact that you would call the people at Shakesville repressed is offensive.   Sometimes liking p*rn and giving head is as much (if not more so) a sign of repressed sexuality as sitting at your computer deconstructing gender norms.

    Parent

    lilburro (none / 0) (#122)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 09:51:02 AM EST
    I perhaps overstated. I wasn't over their saying porn is the greatest thing ever.  My point was that there are plenty of normal, well adjusted women who are smart and capable of making heir own decisions about such things (men too) and that the condescension with which they treat all women and men who don't share their views belittles smart and good people who aren't sexist in any real way.

    I was challenging the world view that says if you don't believe in my ideals, you have been brainwashed by the Patriarchy.  There is something frighteningly cult like about that.

    Parent

    well like I said (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 10:17:19 AM EST
    Shakesville is what it is.  Same with the Internet generally.  You're never going to reach some big consensus, and people are invariably going to insult you.  You seem hurt by the reaction you received at Shakesville when it seems to me that it was completely predictable.  Not every corner of the Internet functions as an arena where you can have some knock-down, drag-out fight - sites serve specific needs.  Shakesville's not trying to win the Internet.  

    Parent
    Not hurt (none / 0) (#130)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 10:49:19 AM EST
    More disappointed that people so smart would be so unwilling to engage in a real discussion.  I liked reading their articles and enjoyed learning over there.  

    I believe my first question over there about a porn subject was something along the lines of "can a married couple who enjoys porn do so without being sexist" and I was absolutely hammered.  It was not pleasant and I asked the question with no evil motives at all. It's a question I've always wanted to ask a group like that and within an instant, folks were calling for a ban.  I survived for a few weeks after that by self censoring and asking nothing at all interesting, and then someone started bashing Mad Men's writers,who are primarily women (and not only women but openly feminist women), and I asked a similar "are those women sexist comment" and that was it for that.  Out I went.

    I thought it was a fair, legitimate and interesting discussion to have.  To this day it's disappointing that I couldn't have it there.

    But am I hurt? No.

    An ABG has to have thick skin.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by sj on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:25:59 AM EST
    Condescend much?  Oh wait, I know the answer to that.  What a bunch of hooey you're writing to justify your poor internet manners and behavior.

    You were definitely trolling over there.  That's a behavior I've never understood.

    Parent

    Me too - know the answer (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Nemi on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:52:06 AM EST
    I thought by now most commenters had caught on to these tactics (or is it strategy?)
    I survived for a few weeks after that by self censoring and asking nothing at all interesting ...

    I'm surprised that commenters here keep taking the bait and can't quite make up my mind if it's that TL commenters are more overbearing or more eager to debate. But I know it's not cluelessness. ;)

    Parent

    Strategy/Tactics (none / 0) (#148)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 12:07:43 PM EST
    assumes there is a goal or something I am trying to accomplish.

    Please tell me what that is so I know what I am working towards.

    Then again, don't.  I'd rather not know.  It will be more fun to have me surprise myself with the scheme i am working on that I have no idea about.

    Sincerely,

    Me, myself and I

    This is lunacy, obviously and the end of my comments here.  I'll go back to making points on other chains and apologized to all that this devolved into an ABG focused chain.  My bad for taking the bait to defend myself from stupid attacks. I'll just ignore from now on and keep it moving.

    Parent

    Promises, promises ;) n/t (none / 0) (#152)
    by Nemi on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 01:08:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#132)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:00:54 AM EST
    Shakesville is very ideological.  I think those questions are interesting but they'd probably get more play somewhere like Pandagon.

    Parent
    more open, not less I mean (none / 0) (#71)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 05:37:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Be glad that you were online (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Towanda on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 06:13:56 PM EST
    or you could have gotten a real trigger warning in some women's places I know, if guys did that frat boy talk about female body parts.

    And sorry to say it, but as long as rape and other forms of sexual assault continue at the current rate, or not even that awful, there are going to need to be safe places for people who are not "sex positive."  Not after what they went through.

    Parent

    I am all for safe places (none / 0) (#89)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 07:58:04 PM EST
    More power to them.  But don't simultaneously put your site out there as a place of real discussion. Just call yourself a support group and agree that we will categorize the opinions coming out of that site appropriately. I don't turn to porn sites for a nuanced view of women's equality and I don't go to trigger safe sites for real debates about women's issues or issues of equality. Either the forum is open for a respectful debater it is not.

    You don't have a discussion forum that is open if the admin hammers anyone that raises a point that is not disrespectful but raises a contrary point.  

    Parent

    That's an interesting point (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Towanda on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 08:23:16 PM EST
    but I just find that if a blog is not for me, it's not for me.  And it's also not for me to tell a blogger whether to be technically open to all (for reasons that I can understand) but not as open to others not understanding the blog's community.

    There are so many out there. And life is so short.

    Parent

    Towanda (none / 0) (#124)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 09:56:43 AM EST
    Fantastic point.  I was focused on Shakesville for a time because other bloggers I respected linked to her.  The place just wasn't for me and I should have understood that and left immediately. Not doing so was a mistake.

    I now find Malissa unreadable and believe that while the site helps the people in that community, it is detrimental to the cause long term.  When anti-feminists like Palin point to the extreme nature of some forms of feminism, they have places like Shakesville in mind.

    It is frustrating that I have to begrudgingly agree with some of those criticisms.  But it is what it is. Same thing in the black community. For every Al Sharpton who has started taking fairly reasonable positions over the last decade or so, you have more militant types who give the other side ammunition. It is what it is.

    Parent

    I am 100% sure (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 10:32:22 AM EST
    that Palin has never, ever read Shakesville.  And I am more than 100% sure that Shakesville is not Hurting the Feminist Cause.  Shakesville is just a place where like-minded people get together and discuss things.  The suggestion that they ought to stop makes me wonder who died and made you the King of the Internet.

    And you do realize Al Sharpton's sphere of influence is about 1000000000 times larger than Shakesville's, right?

    Parent

    I don't think they should stop (none / 0) (#131)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 10:51:16 AM EST
    People enjoy the site and are being helped.

    But in terms of being an agent of actual change in the broader society, I do believe that they hurt the cause.  Just my humble opinion. I am the king of my keyboard and that's about it.  Others disagree and more power to them.

    Parent

    What about someone who says (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by observed on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 06:18:51 PM EST
    anyone who disagrees with him is a PUMA?

    Parent
    And who say's HRC's only experience (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 08:32:29 PM EST
    was her husband's . . . .   :)

    Parent
    Not anyone (none / 0) (#127)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 10:30:51 AM EST
    But if you come with the "Obama stole the election/Hillary was the savior" crap, then you are PUMA all day/every day in my book.

    Anyway, that's 2008. We've got bigger fish to fry.

    Parent

    "Not anymore"? Since when?!? (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:01:14 AM EST
    You make that argument regularly, and no one has claimed "Hillary is a savior".

    Obama, on the other hand, .... well ...

    ...that's a different story.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#135)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:25:34 AM EST
    The next time it happens, I will highlight it. If it doesn't happen again, even better.  Obama's not my savior. He's just a pretty good president IMHO.  

    And its not even worth it giving you the "Hillary/Goddess" links. We all know that they are out there.

    I am the only person on the forum regularly defending Obama so I understand how that comes off as being Obama worship.

    But it is not.

    I hate everything he's doing on the wars right now and am more interested in what he'll say tomorrow than anything he's said in a while.  

    He's not perfect.  He's just pretty good.

    Parent

    BS - No "we all" don't (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:49:51 AM EST
    And its not even worth it giving you the "Hillary/Goddess" links. We all know that they are out there

    Let's see 'em.  Unless, of course, you're just making it up as you go along ...

    ... again.

    BTW - Wonder how the new chapter in the Bible is coming along ...

    Parent

    Yes, if that were how you used the epithet, (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by observed on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:22:04 AM EST
    you MIGHT have a point.
    I think anytime a woman criticizes Obama, you bring out the PUMA card.
    It's not a surprise   you are called a sexist, IMO.

    Parent
    Prove it (none / 0) (#137)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:29:27 AM EST
    Instead of accusing me of this stuff with no support, give proof of when it has happened in the past or when it happens in the future.

    I believe you are obviously wrong.  I raise PUMAs whenever anyone makes a very particular claim.

    1. Obama stole the election/broke the rules
    2. All would be far different if Hillary was POTUS
    3. Sexism was the primary reason that Obama won
    4. The DNC conspired to prevent Hillary from winning

    Believe any of 1-4 again, and I think you are PUMAs, male or female. That simple.

    But again, this is all old stuff that it does little good to rehash.

    Parent

    1, 2, 3, 4 Straw men (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by sj on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:32:20 AM EST
    Well, maybe only three.  If you change "conspired" to "broke their own rules" number 4 wouldn't be a straw man.

    Parent
    Incorrect (none / 0) (#143)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:37:40 AM EST
    1-4 have been proposed by commenters here and that's when I call PUMAs.

    Don' believe me then hold me to it in the future. It'll happen again.

    Parent

    You do realize the P-word usage has been (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:49:29 AM EST
    discouraged by J don't you? So it may not be in your best interest to continue to sling it at folks 'round here . . .

    Parent
    I had no idea that it had been discouraged (none / 0) (#150)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 12:11:06 PM EST
    No idea why but OK.

    I'd note that I wasn't the one who introduced it into this chain.  Observed did.  Perhaps he/she would be a better target for your reminder.

    Parent

    I think I've mentioned it to you before (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 02:43:54 PM EST
    and Observed wasn't calling anyone the P-word iirc. You do and I believe that's where the problem is.

    Parent
    You raise it to throw a rhetorical (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 12:10:03 PM EST
    Molotov cocktail into a thread when you can no longer dodge requests to back up many of the things you present as facts, and it becomes blindingly obvious that in spite of being afforded tons of links, to excellent sources of information on multiple occasions, links that would allow for a more informed debate, you have no intention of taking advantage of them.

    I know it's painful to revisit the shameful way in which the Democratic Party and, on more than one occasion, its preferred candidate, conducted themselves in the 2008 primaries, so I can understand why you would want to let it go, but I guess that ol' PUMA label just comes in too handy for you to live by your own suggestion.

    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#151)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 12:14:41 PM EST
    Do you think that the DNC or Obama stole the election from Hillary.

    That would be an unusual position to have because someone I know claimed less than an hour ago that such an assertion was a strawman.

    So which is it? Did the guy from Chicago steal the election or not?

    Parent

    Oh for crying out loud (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by sj on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 01:09:25 PM EST
    Will you stop throwing that accusation around?  As if the DNC actions were "the election".  Holey moley.  They subverted the nomination process by breaking their own rules.  That's not "the election".

    You just love to defend your straw men.  Holy crap.  Maybe you should join that Union.

    Parent

    Well maybe not so much 2 (none / 0) (#138)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:30:48 AM EST
    I take that one back.  You can believe Hillary would have done a better job without being PUMAs.


    Parent
    No trial today (none / 0) (#24)
    by loveed on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 12:50:26 PM EST
    discovery violation possible contempt charges against the defense.

      I don't understand, if the judge ruled all experts must give a report and deposition by Feb.
      1. why should the defense and prosecution have to tip there hands?
      2.Question that came up in the prosecution case, how can they be answered with experts, if the question has not been asked?
      3. The prosecution did not depose these witnesses(there choice). Which restrict the expert to there reports (seems to be the strategy of the prosecution).
      4. I thought the photo-shop picture of casey caylee morph into a skeleton with tape over the mouth an nose, was extremely prejudicial to the defense. The expert presented this display 30 mins. before his testimony. Defense never saw it before court. The judge allowed it. A rebuttal to this witness. The prosecution deposed him Sat.
    The lead prosecutor wants to wait to Tues. to question him. Why so long?

    Let's see (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 02:59:18 PM EST
    why should the defense and prosecution have to tip there hands?

    Because that's the law and the judge ordered it?  Attorneys don't go into court like Perry Mason and big surprises are pulled like a rabbit out of a hat.  Discovery ends before the trial starts - per the Rules of Evidence.

    The prosecution did not depose these witnesses(there choice). Which restrict the expert to there reports (seems to be the strategy of the prosecution).

    Because the expert turned over a report that was his conculsion that was a half page long - there was no information with which to ask.  You couldn't even summarize the methodology in a couple of paragraphs, let alone methodology, issues, and conclusions.  The expert did shoddy work - either he's just a shoddy report writer, he got lazy, he doesn't know better (which brings into question how he's an "expert")or he didn't really want to put his conclusions in writing and be held to those.

    Parent

    Sequestered jury (none / 0) (#32)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:24:23 PM EST
    People are locked up.  The goal was to make the trial run sort of efficiently so the serfs could get back to their lives.

    Parent
    David Flores case update (none / 0) (#40)
    by desmoinesdem on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 02:29:51 PM EST
    Apologies if someone else posted about this in a different thread.

    Justices' decision moves Flores closer to new trial

    Relatives' efforts to free David Flores, convicted in a 1996 murder in Des Moines, are expected to pick up steam this week after the Iowa Supreme Court refused to take further action in the case.

    The move means Flores, 34, who has been serving a life prison sentence in Fort Madison since 1997, now has a clearer path to the new trial he was granted in rulings by a district court and the Iowa Court of Appeals.

    Flores has been in legal limbo since 2009, when Polk County District Judge Don Nickerson granted him a new trial based on evidence pointing to another possible shooter and questions about whether Flores' then-lawyer, public defender John Wellman, had access to a report that named the other possible shooter.

    Wellman died in 2006.

    Friday's Iowa Supreme Court decision eliminates a hoped round of appeals for Polk County Attorney John Sarcone and moves the Flores family one step closer to resolution. The clock on Flores' right to a speedy trial is expected to begin ticking once the Iowa Court of Appeals issues its "procedendo," or the formal order carrying out its decision.

    That order had been delayed pending the Supreme Court's decision.

    If Flores' family can raise $500,000 for bail, he may be released from prison pending a new trial.

    Weiner's MIL a Muslim agent (none / 0) (#53)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 03:48:18 PM EST
    I suppose it was inevitable that the wingers would try this one on for size.

    Oy.

    Sarcasm meet Reality (none / 0) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 03:51:53 PM EST
    From Sunday June 12th Sarcasm

    Amy Winehouse to start a 12 concert tour in Europe covering 11 countries over a 60 day span beginning June 18.

    There is still no betting line available on her completing the tour sober.

    All those that bet against Amy cashed in today as the tour was cancelled. Her show in Istanbul tonight was cancelled after...

    This performance in Belgrade

    where it appears she couldn't walk or talk clearly on stage

    That is just sad, really sad. (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 04:47:46 PM EST
    What a waste of talent.

    Parent
    Whenever I see a picture (none / 0) (#72)
    by Nemi on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 05:49:30 PM EST
    of short, chubby, pasty faced, bald, akward Prince Albert of Monaco with his gorgeous looking, amazon like, angel faced bride-soon-to-be I can't help thinking "Do you feel lucky ... punk!"

    But watching part of an interview with the both of them, I was reminded of Prince Charles's infamous remark "Whatever love means", when P. Albert said that they would 'spend time together for ... emm ... a long time' and she chimed in that whatever happened 'they would always stay friends.' Anticipating the divorce even before the wedding? Whatever happened to 'forever after' and romance, hmmm?

    Sounds like someone with a royal (none / 0) (#80)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 06:51:47 PM EST
    bloodline to continue needs to produce an heir, and quickly.

    I never understood the attraction to either Prince Albert or Prince Charles. And I don't think that's because I am a lesbian. They are both fairly non-appealing men, other than the whole prince-and- heir-to-the-throne thing. Have I got this all wrong? Are they totally attractive, and I am just blind to it?

    Now Prince Harry- he's a cutie. He and his brother have benefitted looks-wise from having an attractive mother much more than poor Albert did.

    Parent

    You're (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 07:30:28 PM EST
    not missing anything IMO. After seeing Prince Albert's sisters I was shocked the first time I saw a picture of him. Both of his parents were very attractive but apparently Albert got none of that.

    Parent
    No interest in Prince Albert (none / 0) (#109)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 12:14:09 AM EST
    but when he was mature but still youngish-- ie, 30s, 40s-- I thought Charles was very appealing.  He surely was never handsome, but he always had an intelligence and an odd sort of charisma that I liked very much, not to mention real physical grace.


    Parent
    Since watching (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Nemi on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 06:43:49 AM EST
    the now infamous clip of Charles, 3 years old, grandma in hand at a train station welcoming back his parents from a 2 month travel abroad, and his mom, after having hugged and kissed her own mom, bends over the little cute guy, who seems oblivious to who she is, and hesitantly pecks him on the cheek with a begloved index finger ... since then I don't have it in me to be too hard on the guy.

    I've also seen footage of him joking and making sketches with his soldier buddies, not much different from what Monty Python did. He's hilarious and has great timing.

    His sons so obviously loving him, even when amiably poking fun at the "old man", is for me also a plus in his favour.

    I think many, if not most, of those royals, especially the 'throne heirs' would have led a much more happy life, had they been allowed to choose their livelihood and not having their whole life/ obligations carved out for them since birth. What a burden it must have been/still be.

    Parent

    The sooner McCourt is sent packing, (none / 0) (#97)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 08:48:24 PM EST
    the better for the Dodgers and all of baseball. Why he was allowed to bleed the franchise of so much of its assets before MLB stepped in is beyond me.

    And if the McCourt's free-spending, the team is our ATM ways have not inspired federal investigators to take a closer look, well, what are the feds waiting for?

    Live Blogging the NordNorge (none / 0) (#113)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 06:47:47 AM EST
    Our favorite Norwegian cruise ship is now making its way along the northern coast of Finland. I think it may reach Kirkene later today or tonight. I have not watched the whole voyage for what I hope are obvious reasons (ie. I'm not insane) but what I have seen has been gorgeous and interesting. Perhaps brought out by the live telecast, local townspeople along the way have come out to greet the ship when it pulls in to various ports.Yesterday my office mate and I watched a school band and baton twirlers, and various other local dignitaries from a small town along the western coast of Finland.

    From the little I have been able to make out - i'm sure there is an English language report someplace, but what is the fun of that? - it is a big hit!

    Monday Morning Open Thread | 158 comments (158 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment