Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread

Lura Lynn Ryan, wife of imprisoned former Ill. Governor George Ryan has passed away. While the courts repeatedly refused to allow him to visit her, the Bureau of Prisons showed more compassion and allowed him to visit four times, including last night when she passed away.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Interview With Jurors in Rod Blagojevich Retrial | Tuesday Night TV and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Has she put her... (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:28:32 PM EST
    Herbie Hancock on any official documents yet? :)

    When we were at the beach (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:41:27 PM EST
    I was soaking up some sun when Josh announced he was upset that Megan Fox sat out the new Transformers. In spite of the conversation on here about Megan Fox, I'm a little bit of a slow mom because I was shocked to know that Josh knew her name. How can I be the mother of an eleven year old boy and be this slow? Then my husband chimes in that it was really disappointing too how Megan let them all down. I couldn't help myself, I had to tell them both wait a minute and then I told them about the Shia LaBeouf comments about car washing and sticking your chest out more requests made distastefully. Joshua was upset, he is boycotting the movie in theaters but I'm sure we will watch it on cable. Anyhow, I see that Shia LeBeouf has decided to stick a fork in his own eye again. Quick please, someone get Ruprecht a cork for his fork.

    Dirty rotten scoundrels. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:55:56 PM EST
    a classic.

    Well played.... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:56:54 PM EST
    with the "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" reference:)

    Just wait another year or two, our little hero is gonna know all the Hollywood Hotties, the dawning of impure thoughts is at hand!

    My 12 year old niece is celebrating the end of school with a pool party today...with boys!  I can picture my brother in law chaperoning with a Louisville Slugger:)


    Love it! (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Nemi on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 04:19:29 PM EST
    She walked up after one of them, and asked him to wait for her and walk her home.
    She sounds great. :)

    Somehow this reminds me of the scene in "Juno" where Juno walks up to her friend Paulie Bleeker and tells him straight out that she's in love with him. One of the most beautiful, and straight forward love declarations I ever saw on film. Imagine if we were always that honest when love was involved. ;)


    Cheers to the happy... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:51:36 PM EST
    young lovers...your daughter's beau hit the jackpot, and I'm sure he is very grateful she made the first move!  I'm sure I speak for most dudes...we love that sh*t.

    And her parents live in Hawaii...uber-jackpot!


    Being at the beach in Panama City (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 04:13:50 PM EST
    is a study in frantic parenting at the moment too if you do a little people watching. Being about 15, on the beach, away from home and stuck in a hotel with other 15 year olds can give the old people designing these vacations more gray hair.

    I don't know, but by my count (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:45:49 PM EST
    that's two blunders for Bachmann in the first 24 hrs of her official campaign rollout.

    Iow, she's on a Gingrichian pace to being laughed out of the race, with a little Palinesque doubling-down on a blunder thrown in.

    Fortunately for her, she isn't nearly as despised as the Gingrich and so has some wiggle room.  And she operates within such a fact-free, ahistorical party structure that she'll probably be allowed a few more of these before someone in the establishment decides they've had enough.

    She or her campaign adviser Ed Rollins apparently aren't regular readers of TL, where yesterday I tried to encourage her candidacy by noting how refreshingly un-Palin like she seemed with the way on at least one occasion she acknowledged the error of one of her historical faux pas.  Looks like I might need to acknowledge I was wrong.  

    And Then There's (none / 0) (#78)
    by The Maven on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:26:51 PM EST
    the whole lying/misleading about the extent to which Bachmann and her husband have benefitted from government aid from programs she's repeatedly decried:
    While Rep. Michele Bachmann has forcefully denounced the Medicaid program for swelling the "welfare rolls," the mental health clinic run by her husband has been collecting annual Medicaid payments totaling over $137,000 for the treatment of patients since 2005, according to new figures obtained by NBC News.

    The previously unreported payments are on top of the $24,000 in federal and state funds that Bachmann & Associates, the clinic founded by Marcus Bachmann, a clinical therapist, received in recent years under a state grant to train its employees, state records show. The figures were provided to NBC News in response to a Freedom of Information request.

    The NBC News story also makes reference to her partnership in a farm that's received extensive federal subsidies.  Let's see whether these hypocrisies dog her at all or simply disappear down the memory hole as inconvenient truths.

    There are more facts to that (none / 0) (#84)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:56:23 PM EST
    "story" than is being presented by NBC.

    A little research wouldn't go amiss.


    Do tell (none / 0) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:37:33 AM EST
    Appsterdam (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:09:52 PM EST
    I have been lazily learning the Apple iphone/ipad development environment in my spare time. Maybe I will step up the pace - this looks like a good way to spend the rest of my career.

    Can I come too? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:26:05 PM EST
    Please do! (none / 0) (#50)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 04:50:45 PM EST
    BTD's meta diary at DK has over (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 05:59:40 PM EST
    800 comments, none of which I have read.  

    Really (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:27:13 PM EST
    there's nothing new. It's devolved into personal stuff. I do think that a lot of people over there take any criticism Obama personally.

    Assumed so re "nothing new," after (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:28:39 PM EST
    slogging through the back and forth comments to the SCOTUS diary.

    Interesting diary (none / 0) (#61)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:29:38 PM EST
    I am scanning the comments now.  I think this is the exchange of most interest

     This diary would be more convincing (4+ / 0-)
    on the question of "insult and ridicule" vs "find common ground" rhetoric tactics if you would recap your own early years at DailyKos, the days when other Kossacks needed to put on asbestos shorts before getting into a "discussion" with Armando, and attempt to assay which style was more influential in the end.

    by HiBob on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:43:32 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

      I assumed (11+ / 0-)
    most people were familiar with my history.

    But maybe you are right.

    by Armando on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:44:59 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

      Over 300,000 users now (3+ / 0-)
    Your legacy is not all that.

    by PsychoSavannah on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:03:09 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

      Yes it is! (15+ / 0-)
    by Armando on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:15:03 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

      Heh I think that's the right word (3+ / 0-)

    by NearlyNormal on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:27:55 AM PDT
    [ Parent ]

    so far, anyway.

    I think the diary makes an interesting point about persuasion.


    The actual (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:35:14 PM EST
    crux of the diary is good but I'm not sure the comments help much. It's more like Obama is bad on issues (which I basically agree with) and Get Ready for President Bachmann if you don't agree with me.

    I'm as guilty as the rest of them in my prior life as a Dkos regular about the President Bachmann stuff but honestly I can't say that with a straight face anymore. If you've got Dems doing things like the Stupak Amendment and Bob Dole's HCR, how on earth are you ever going to really convince people to vote for Obama other than threats? I'm just not into threats anymore.

    Sometimes there are advantages to living in a red state during a presidential election. It's not going to matter what I do anyway.


    Yes. Sigh. (none / 0) (#72)
    by lentinel on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:13:55 PM EST
    If you've got Dems doing things like the Stupak Amendment and Bob Dole's HCR, how on earth are you ever going to really convince people to vote for Obama other than threats? I'm just not into threats anymore.

    That's the way I feel.

    But it seems that that's all the dems have: threats and fear.

    On a semi-related note: It seemed to be that the only person to get a response from Obama was Trump when he was harping on the birth certificate issue. Boom! There it was. The birth certificate - or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

    We need a progressive Trump to move Obama to the left.
    I don't know what that would be.
    He certainly pays no attention to the average person. Even the average rich person.
    Maybe it has to be someone with a lot of money who also has a popular television program with a national following.

    Any ideas?


    Funny exchange. (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:41:56 PM EST
    Worth it! (none / 0) (#89)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 11:06:12 PM EST
    I don't think Obama's going to have much trouble with the blogosphere.  Although it will be gratifying to see how he approaches it.  The OFA is going to be a shadow of itself (watch me eat those words...).  

    Half the arguments I have here are about his legacy.  Looking forward, what do progressives want to make clear they are disappointed by?  What do they like?  It's not just about 2012, but it's also about 2016.  I feel like the Democratic Party certainly didn't show up to play like I wanted them to, but I also think the ACA is law, so now is the time to make it better.

    If we can hold the cynical teasings from the Administration about the public option over their heads, maybe something good will happen in the future that wouldn't have happened otherwise.  Who knows.


    So, anyone watch Weeds last night? (none / 0) (#1)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:23:36 PM EST
    Without giving many spoilers....interesting time shift.

    oh man (none / 0) (#3)
    by CST on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:25:27 PM EST
    Weeds is back?  I bit the bullet and dropped Showtime for HBO.  But I loved the way the last season of Weeds ended...

    True Blood is back on.  Interesting time shift there too.


    I wasn't too thrilled with (none / 0) (#5)
    by dk on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:30:15 PM EST
    True Blood on Sunday..but it was the first episode of the season and with that time shift they had a lot of plot to cover.  Hopefully it'll pick up a little more in the next episode.  We really enjoyed it last season.

    episode 2 (none / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:14:54 PM EST
    is on demand.  Or at least it was yesterday.  Not sure why they did that, but my friend gave me the heads up and we watched it last night.

    It's better than the first one.  Although I'm not sure how I feel about the ending, or the fact that everyone and their brother is now supernatural.  I liked it better when there were a few actual humans around.


    True Blood has been a (none / 0) (#24)
    by dk on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:18:35 PM EST
    rollercoaster for me.  Really liked the first season, HATED the second season, and then really, really liked the third season.  Keeping my fingers crossed now.

    I was sick for about a week (none / 0) (#25)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:25:40 PM EST
    and didn't have anything else I could really do or concentrate on so I purchased the 3rd season and watched it all in the span of 2 days earlier this month.  During the 3rd season I thought things kind of went haywire towards the end but this time around it seemed more coherent (to my ailing mind, anyway).  I like all the vampire politics stuff so I thought the 4th season premiere was promising.  

    Season premiere last night (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:34:21 PM EST
    Since all of this happens in the first minute, I guess it is not really a spoiler. It is 3 yrs later and Nancy is leaving prison for a halfway house in NYC. Hijinks ensue.

    Joshua had twin friends stay the night (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:32:59 PM EST
    I fergot, I'm going to find it On Demand hopefully right now.

    I have a very conflicted realtionship with (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:39:22 PM EST
    Nancy. Last season the characters opened up and told her what I really feel about her, so that was satisfying! I'll keep watching.

    I was slowly starting to hate her (none / 0) (#22)
    by CST on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:13:09 PM EST
    and then boom - she takes the fall for the whole family.

    Very conflicted.  Although I think the show did a good job of opening up the other characters to make you like them more.  Remember how much of a dingwat Andy was at first?  Just worthless, with Nancy holding it all together.  So it was a bit of a role reversal, which I didn't mind.  You need at least one sympathetic adult.  Sylas is kind of filling that role.


    Yes - her one constant redeeming quality (none / 0) (#74)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:17:40 PM EST
    is that she does love her family on some level even though she makes every bad decision possible for their well being. I loved this new episode in which she one by one repeats nearly every mistake she has ever made. Oh Nancy, let's see how this turns out.

    really stretched (none / 0) (#83)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:54:17 PM EST
    credibility since she's supposedly let out of federal prison to a halfway house on parole. They even had a parole hearing. But there is no parole in the federal system for crimes committed after 1987. The Parole Commission still exists to handle those serving sentences under the old law and Nancy doesn't come close to fitting that category.

    They sure disposed of Esteban quickly -- in one sentence.

    Looks like it's going to be another dark season on Weeds. I have a feeling this will be its last one. Of course I wouldn't miss an episode, but Breaking Bad is really so much better.


    She was trying to weasel out of the statement (none / 0) (#10)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:43:41 PM EST
    that the Founding Fathers had worked to end slavery, but what she said about JQA was remarkably accurate (that he was a boy at the time of the Revolution, but later worked against slavery, long before the Civil War - all true), and cannot fairly be described as a gaffe.

    Well not as I heard it -- (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:56:02 PM EST
    with Steph she ended up with JQA as either a Founding Father or a Founding Boy who was "actively involved" either at the time of the Rev War in ending slavery or in fighting that war, or actively involved later in ending slavery -- a bit confusing what exactly JQA was actively involved in doing at what stage of his life.

    I think she must have gone to the books (i.e., wiki), or Rollins did, and found out about the correct timeline for JQA, discovered his young age at the time of the RevWar, then tried to spin something acceptable within that framework.  Comes out as a muddle though.

    She should have simply admitted she confused the two Adams -- most people would have bought that -- then said the son of that Founding Father went on to work tirelessly to end slavery.


    At that stage of his life (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:58:26 PM EST
    JQA was in Europe with his father, before spending 3 years at the court of Russia as an assistant to someone trying to get recognition for the US from Russia.

    He was in Europe long enough to learn French and Dutch, a smattering of German.


    Actually, (none / 0) (#12)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:52:35 PM EST

    several founding fathers did work to end slavery.  Sadly their efforts were unsuccessful.  Steffy was off base.



    That is factually incorrect (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by me only on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:31:33 PM EST
    Uhhh... (none / 0) (#36)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:50:58 PM EST
    are you referring to the articles of confederation, in which state laws concerning property were the laws of the individual states, or to the 3/5ths Compromise, as being not factually correct?

    Not all African Americans were slaves. (none / 0) (#44)
    by me only on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 04:19:46 PM EST
    I don't recall (none / 0) (#45)
    by CST on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 04:22:25 PM EST
    him ever writing "all" African Americans.

    He said African Americans (none / 0) (#47)
    by me only on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 04:28:33 PM EST
    what he should have said is slaves.

    I guess you'll have to (none / 0) (#68)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:04:26 PM EST
    attach a "snark" tag henceforth, Donald.   ;-)

    Then don't judge (none / 0) (#81)
    by me only on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:44:11 PM EST
    This part of the thread was in response to Cal, not directly to you.  Maybe you are overly sensitive?

    Err, check that CST (none / 0) (#82)
    by me only on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:53:13 PM EST
    not Cal.

    So by being inaccurate (none / 0) (#41)
    by me only on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 04:13:46 PM EST
    in a thread making light of Bachmann's gaffe, everything is right in the world.

    Besides the southern states were really only less populous if you believe that slaves are not people (I am counting Maryland as part of the South here because it was a close third in terms of numbers of slaves).  Otherwise the 5 southern states had 48% of the population.


    Slaves (none / 0) (#99)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 07:42:15 AM EST

    Slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of census-taking, primarily to give the less populous southern states greater representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.

    Slaves, regardless of their coloration, were counted at 3/5 rather than as whole persons to reduce the slave states representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.

    The slave states wanted slaves counted as whole persons for the purposes of representation.  It is a wee bit odd to see so called "progressives" taking up the same position as that of the slave holders.


    As compared to when the first black pres (none / 0) (#87)
    by Rojas on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:02:07 PM EST
    was finished with 'em in which they were three quarters of the prison population?
    Bless your own ass Mr. senior assistant....

    Is Obama done? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 10:16:24 PM EST
    AAs are 3/4 of the prison population?

    Actually about 2/5 (none / 0) (#96)
    by Rojas on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 06:43:10 AM EST
    A damning indictment of the civil rights generation by any measure....
    Nonetheless, I fully expect all the supporters of the hillbilly messiah will be pontificating once again as the true voice of liberalism.  

    Oh, ... so it's just another lie ... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 07:07:10 AM EST
    ... from a CDSer with an overactive imagination.

    Figured as much.

    BTW - The incarceration rate for AAs when "the first black President" took office as it was when he left it, yet you blame him for it.

    You Clinton-haters are funny ...

    ... and transparent.


    The condescending (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 07:13:18 AM EST
    statements from The Whole Foods Nation really turn people off from the party.

    Being accurate after being caught (none / 0) (#21)
    by observed on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:12:36 PM EST
    doesn't mean much.
    She shoulda just said she misremembered what her teacher learnt her in school.

    It's a wonder anything stuck... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:25:52 PM EST
    with the all-mighty yapping in her ear constantly...work for the IRS, get on the school board, run for office, do this, do that...does that guy ever stfu?

    What's the deal with Herman (none / 0) (#18)
    by observed on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:08:07 PM EST
    Cain's campaign managers quitting?
    Not enough pizza?

    I think (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:45:33 PM EST
    it's called the GOP Georgia Curse. You know, first Gingrich now Cain...

    Too much cholesterol. (none / 0) (#19)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:09:50 PM EST
    Today in history (none / 0) (#29)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:35:55 PM EST
    I'm embarrassed to say I read that today is the anniversary of the Treaty of Versailles. I knew the armistice was signed on November 11th, 1918. But I had incorrectly connected the Treaty with that date. Learn something new/old every day.

    the real embarrassment (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CST on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:42:42 PM EST
    there would be the actual Treaty of Versailles.

    meh, the treaty was never ratified (none / 0) (#33)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:43:14 PM EST
    by the US... so it never played a big part in our history books.

    Yes, the Treaty of Versailles (none / 0) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 04:37:20 PM EST
    was signed on the fifth anniversary (June 28, 1914) of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the Duchess Sophie in Sarajevo.  And, in those five years there were about 38 million casualties (military and civilian)--about 17 million killed and 21 million wounded.  With upheavals and revolutions occurring left and right. But, it was the one of those wars that would be over in weeks not months, and would be the war to end all wars.

    And... it flared up (none / 0) (#49)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 04:47:20 PM EST
    again 20 years later. WWII in Europe was a direct consequence of that treaty.

    True, and we are (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 05:19:22 PM EST
    still very much living with the decisions made in the aftermath, particularly in the drawing of lines and boundaries, the importance of the  Balfour agreement and the establishment of "countries" out of the Ottoman, Russian and Austia-Hungary Empires.  While it might be nice to know the hometown of John Wayne or the different contributions of John and John Quincy, it is critically  important for a presidential candidate (not mention a president) to know the causes and effects of the first World War.

    You are correct to a point (none / 0) (#67)
    by nyjets on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:58:08 PM EST
    You are right that WWII can be traced to that treaty. However, that is not the only reason.
    THe fact is that England and France, and to a certain extent the US, recognized that the treaty was harsh and some attempt was made to mitgate the treaty. One of the reasons why England and France allowed Germany to annex territoy was the honest belief that Germany was in the right.

    In fact the primary reason why WWII start was Hitler. Contrary to the opinions of some, Hitler wanted war. When England and France negotiated with Germany, they never realzied that until Germany invaded Poland. (There are some people that belief including a college professor whose opinion I trust said that Hitler wanted war over Czech republic one year earlier).

    SO while the treaty bear responsiblity, it is not the only reason.


    The role of the Versailles (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:27:09 PM EST
    Treaty in subsequent events in Europe is complex and, not unexpectedly, is suffused with various perspectives.  The customary thinking is that the harsh terms of the Treaty were a primary cause. These terms  required the admission by Germany that it started the war along with Austria Hungry and allies (a difficult admission) and involved German territory losses, and reparations that involved provision of resources such as coal and money.  The reparations were pegged at about $32 Billion (about $450 Billion in today's dollars). Not paid off until 2010.  Keynes, who was the British financial representative thought it was too  much to extract, particularly given the dire straits of the German economy, and the impact it would have on inflation.

     Others felt it was fine, and was no worse than what Germany started to extract from Russia before the end of the war, and was akin to what was the historic reparation Germany imposed on France after the Franco-German war in 1871.   No doubt there was some French revanchism at play by short-sighted politicians.  The Great Depression is often offered up as a reason for Hitler's rise to power exploiting the the psychology of the Treaty and promulgating nationalism.  But, the state of Germany after the war was bad, the revolution had reached Berlin and food shortages abounded. Indeed, the Kaiser abdicated a few days before the end of the war, and headed for neutral Holland where he was unable to be extradited for war crimes.  Wilhelm died there in 194l.  


    I think the argument would be... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Dadler on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:07:39 PM EST
    ...that with a more humane and intelligent treaty, it is arguably likely that Hitler never would've risen to power.

    True (none / 0) (#77)
    by nyjets on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:24:15 PM EST
    On that point, there is some validity. I would have to agree.

    if anyone is interested (none / 0) (#51)
    by CST on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 05:09:03 PM EST
    in some "light" reading about WW1 - I really liked Fall of Giants.  Definitely a different perspective than the one you're used to seeing.

    Also - I really love the title.


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#54)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 05:25:54 PM EST
    Fall of Giants was a very good read.  "To End All Wars" by Adam Hochschild is excellent, a difficult read of one of the most senseless spasms of carnage and graphic depiction of the insanity of war.

    And more Today in History... (none / 0) (#85)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:59:05 PM EST
    Jun 28, 1953:
    Workers assemble first Corvette in Flint, Michigan

    On this day in 1953, workers at a Chevrolet plant in Flint, Michigan, assemble the first Corvette, a two-seater sports car that would become an American icon. The first completed production car rolled off the assembly line two days later, one of just 300 Corvettes made that year.

    Remainder at Link

    An American icon.


    I've had two Corvettes and loved them (none / 0) (#101)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 04:15:26 PM EST
    Meh. (none / 0) (#102)
    by Zorba on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 04:34:14 PM EST
    I could take Corvettes or leave them.  What I want is a '57 Chevy Bel Air.  Fully restored and drivable.

    And whining (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 04:25:03 PM EST
    Being energy use conscious is important to me. I put the CFL bulbs into everything in our house, and then found out they are packing mercury. My husband told me though that soon LED bulbs would arrive for everyday use. We went to Lowes last night and yes...they are here now and they cost about $20 a piece. Am I paying for the extra cost of producing them, or are they soaking me because they last 25 times longer than a $1 incandescent and that is supposed to make me excited to replace 30 light bulbs in my house right now? And the energy savings is some kind of icing on a $600 light bulb cake.

    Is (none / 0) (#75)
    by lentinel on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:19:37 PM EST
    the problem with the mercury in CFL bulbs the disposal of them, or do they leech mercury in some manner when in use?

    I have a number of them and was unaware of the mercury issue until I read your post.



    The whole "mercury in CFLs" thing (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:40:45 AM EST
    is a whole lotta dumb alarmist hype.

    No, they don't leach mercury under operation.  If you drop one and it shatters on the floor, there's a very small amount of mercury you'll need to wipe up.  Not a problem for anybody, as long as you don't do it with your tongue or your nose.


    This reminds me of one of my (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 05:05:23 AM EST
    friends who was a realtor. She sold the house of someone I was dating and when she handed him some paperwork to sign about some kind of property safety and lead she told him that "this is about why we should not lick walls and mini blinds".

    Heh. (none / 0) (#100)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:42:29 AM EST
    Love that!

    LEDs - good. CFLs - bad (none / 0) (#86)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 08:01:12 PM EST
    Poor Nancy Pelosi buying into the CA hype on CFLs.  Shoulda done more research before pushing that down people's throats.

    It's stupid to the point of insanity (none / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:43:40 AM EST
    Electricity usage through lightbulbs is trivial in comparison to the energy problems we have.  I keep thinking how much good the money going into government CFL programs could actually do if it was applied instead to, say, helping to fund insulation retrofits on homes.

    The CFLs are such a pain in the neck if you have older lamps and fixtures, as most of us do, that they won't fit into that it gives the whole idea of energy efficiency and conservation a bad name.


    Insulating the uninsulated (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 05:06:14 AM EST
    would save tons and tons

    death bed visits for prisoners (none / 0) (#52)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 05:18:09 PM EST
    The federal Bureau of Prisons allowed ex-Gov. Ryan 4 visits with his dying wife?  That's three more than I've ever previously heard of them allowing anyone.  And when they allow a death-bed visit at all, the inmate is ordinarily required to choose between that and funeral attendance.  

    If it is a precedent, (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 05:39:09 PM EST
    I think it is a good one.

    The cruelty of most (none / 0) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:45:21 AM EST
    courts and prison boards on this is just infuriating.  It's not good enough to lock somebody up for years but you have to punish both them and their family members by denying visits to peole who are dying?  What is this?

    site violator (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:17:32 PM EST

    Two good pieces by a childhood friend (none / 0) (#64)
    by Dadler on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:46:36 PM EST
    Interesting... in my city (none / 0) (#65)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:47:27 PM EST
    Two out-of-towners decided to ride Wal Mart's electrical scooters home. Funny, they got caught pretty darned close to the Wal-Mart.

    And it seems they were sober. That's what surprised me.

    Only (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:08:41 PM EST
    in Alabama I guess? I wonder if the out-of-towners were from GA?

    One from Tennesee and the other (none / 0) (#71)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:10:06 PM EST
    from South Carolina... cousins.