Friday Night Open Thread

Some SOPA changes, but still not enough. It's still a censorship bill.

A judge has refused to add Newt, Perry and Huntsman to the Virginia ballot.

What else happened today? This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< John Edwards Trial Postponed, Heart Surgery Next Month | Costa/ Carnival Luxury Cruise Disaster: Titantic Redux >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    You missed the Biggie: (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:23:55 PM EST
    Be still my life endangering (but no need for medical intervention any time soon, or even in a couple of weeks, pencil me in for, say, maybe in a month) arrythmiac heart:

    Obama administration says Constitution protects cell phone recordings

    Here is a little musical prelude to the Broncos- (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:31:04 PM EST
    Patriots game this weekend. Jimmy Fallon channels a Tebow-Bowie mash-up. Meet Tebowie!

    Watch this video.

    Duh of the day. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 04:42:23 AM EST
    About those soldiers who were relieving themselves upon the corpses of the dead Taliban soldiers:

    The Times has it all figured out.

    It seems that,

    "There is a risk when troops in their teens and early 20s are thrown into nerve-racking battle, experts say."

    A risk.
    Ya think?

    I would add that ultimately the buck stops with the policy-makers. World War 2 certainly should have shown us that people - ordinary people -  can be made to do absolutely anything if they are properly programmed. They can learn not to feel. They can laugh when they should cry. This is true for soldiers, and it is true for citizens made to fear for their lives. Agenda-driven politicians, aided by self-serving media, can whip us all into a frenzy and dispatch us into a numbing rage from which we do not awaken until we are allowed to do so.

    I can't know for sure, but I sense that the fact that the goals in adventures such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan are ill-defined, and the reasons for our presence are mutable according to politics and industrial interests, and the definition of "success" is not clearly known - these would all factor in to the sense of madness that might possess people placed in the center of it all.

    Additionally, (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by DFLer on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 11:30:58 AM EST
    when other contemptuous behavior is overlooked, condoned, if not encouraged (Abu Ghraib..torture etc.)the buck should stop with the policy makers, as you say....and/or the blame.

    I wouldnt say World War 2 (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 09:13:23 AM EST
    is the best example of the point you are trying to make.  it certainly can not be said that there were no clear goals there.
    a far better example IMO would be Vietnam.  I had friends come back from there who had to share stories of things they had done  had to share them - sometime only after great quantities of alcohol or other substances - that will not only haunt them for the rest of their lives but will haunt me and anyone who heard them.  because I knew these were good men.  smart tolerant creative and truly good men.
    I am old enough to remember people who came home from WWII.  and you, comparatively, heard far fewer haunting stories.  which is not to say they didnt exist but I dont think anyone who remembers both would disagree there was far less soul wrenching doubt and shame.
    and I believe your point is correct that they did not bring them home because they were fighting for a clear and just cause. far easier for your conscience to forgive you if you are fighting for what you and everyone around you sees and a just cause.

    I used WW2 (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 09:31:30 AM EST
    because of what soldiers under the Nazi regime were conditioned to do. Ordinary folks in normal times. Satanic and Sadistic when reprogrammed. Emotional and feeling in one context. Numb and without feeling in another.

    And in modern times, look what we were made to feel about the "shock and awe" campaign being leveled upon innocent people by us in Iraq.
    It was portrayed as something akin to a light show. A spectacle. A trade show for "smart" weapons.
    All the while people were being torn apart. Children were being torn apart. Children were being orphaned. People who had committed no crime. And we were told to cheer. For nothing.

    And Afghanistan - ongoing.

    I can't condemn the soldiers involved even as I condemn their behavior. They are victims. Someday they will awaken and scream at what they were made to do and endure. And we will deny them adequate medical care and we will shun them.

    And spineless leaders will urge us to "move on".


    I dont disagree (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 09:34:44 AM EST
    with a single word of that

    You're using different age groups (none / 0) (#30)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 11:04:32 AM EST
    by different countries in this debate, the point about age being made in the argument quoted.  

    It's interessting, then, to know that the average age of U.S. troops in the Viet Nam War was 19 years old, compared to mid-20s (I forget the exact number, somewhere in my notes) in U.S. troops in WWII.  By comparison, the average age of German troops (not all Nazis, but German troops) was 19.


    To which I would add that (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 11:09:36 AM EST
    the NYT would have done better to use the data as evidence to support the argument, data that I imagine its "experts" had and probably cited or could have been asked to cite.  But we get soundbytes, not sound arguments -- not that we are prepared to actually act on that evidence and stop sending children to war.

    We learned in the Viet Nam era that sending children to war has too many ramifications, such as having to change our Constitution to redefine adulthood for voting purposes, rather than stop sending children to war.


    Yes, and the four Marines, (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 12:50:32 PM EST
    plus the person who shot the video have not yet been named.  So, we do not know the ages of those involved.  And, there has not yet been confirmation that the corpses identified in the video as "Taliban fighters" were, in fact, Taliban fighters.  

    To my knowledge at least (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 01:29:19 PM EST
    two of the soldiers in the video are scout snipers.  It is no small or common thing to become one.  You had to excel at everything you touched and did.  Here is a write up about some of the required training, but scout snipers are also there to gather intelligence.  I know that each unit's indoctrination is somewhat different but scout snipers are very highly trained and there is no room for failure during the training, sort of like SEALs when it comes to intolerance of failure.  These guys are not new or common unskilled/unschooled infantry.

    Hello Tracy (1.00 / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 01:39:51 PM EST
    What this post reveals about your (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 09:20:58 AM CST
    personality and mental machinations, well I'm glad my stomach is only on coffee so far this morning.


    I trust you didn't puke too much. Hurling is just sooooo messy.

    Let me remind you that war is about killing and destroying to accomplice our national goals that could not be accomplished through diplomacy.

    We were very good at that in WWII. Since then we have tried to be "half good."

    That doesn't work in life. It especially doesn't work in war.

    We should never, never, never, never send troops in harms way unless we are absolutely committed to  use every resource we have to insure they come back and the enemy is dead.

    Showing disrespect to the enemy is a time proven way of discouraging them from continue fighting.  

    War is not a sports event. Real people get killed by stupid actions of their leaders and by people who think we should play "nice nice" to the enemy.


    So desecration of enemy corpses ... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 04:31:54 PM EST
    ... is a legitimate, "time proven" tactic in war?

    Guess you had no problem with the US soldier's bodies being dragged through Somalia ...


    It is a violation of the Geneva Conventions (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 05:23:02 PM EST
    It is also a violation of the UCMJ.  These soldiers knew all that.  I feel no need to even listen to Jim's drivel.  The whole civilized world agreed on what constitutes war crimes and our military was a part of all that long ago.

    One other thing that Jim easily forgets too (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 05:32:08 PM EST
    It was a soldier who blew the top off of Abu Ghraib.  It was also probably a soldier who blew the lid on this.  The soldier out there acting like a humane being, he's essentially screwed as far as Jim is concerned.  He's on his own trying to stay sane while everyone else gets a pass from Jim on how nuts they want to get during a war.

    If we didn't know better, (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 05:55:00 PM EST
     I'd swear our "Little Corporal" was doing a caricature of a Michael Savage fan on SNL. The closest he came to war was fighting a baby-back rib and heart burn.

    Anyone who's  even pecked at a typewriter during war would retch at the stupidity at those armchair soldier's blather.

    As a veteran, it was bad enough being involved iin things I didn't think I was capable of so I know what those soldier's mindset was, and I won't condemn them. Those that sent them, yes. Lines have to be drawn. We accepted civilian control of the military, we swore to defend and protect our country, we knew what we did was wrong, we didn't care. And, if by some macabre magic, I was called up again and sent over there, I'd do it again. I'd do it again because the guy who's typing this post wouldn't be the guy doing those things.

    I said it before, crazed people doing crazy things in a crazy war. Donald was right, you wanna stop atrocities, stop the biggest atrocity of them all....war.

    Young guys forced into an insane situation is one thing. A senior citizen, sitting in his lazy-boy egging them on.......disgusting.


    What gobbledegook you all spout! (1.00 / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 06:42:26 PM EST
    Shooter, I have never claimed to have done anything beyond serving a bit more than 10 years in Naval Aviation. Did you serve? If so, I thank you for your service and glad to see you survived. Some of my friends didn't.

    Tracy. I hate to tell you this but the GC has been totally ignored by the enemy. This is an asymmetrical war. The enemy isn't in uniform, etc., etc.

    Capt., can you  tell me what you are Captain of? Or were? I never said anything about rape and pillage, that's merely you trying to reframe the discussion. I merely said that all this trying to not insult the enemy is highly stupid. The enemy only respects strength. Worrying about "dissing" corpses sends a signal of a weakness.

    And Shooter, you have a point as did Donald. Stop war and none of these bad things happen....

    Now, can anyone tell me how this can be done???


    "People get killed" (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 06:56:09 PM EST
    Showing disrespect to the enemy is a time proven way of discouraging them from continue fighting.  

    War is not a sports event. Real people get killed by stupid actions of their leaders and by people who think we should play "nice nice" to the enemy.

    ... when the US is blamed for the disgusting actions such as these soldiers, or the guards in Abu Ghraib.  "People get killed" by adopting the attitudes of armchair warriors with Clint Eastwood complexes, who think they have the slightest clue about how wars should be fought - from the comfort of their Lazy Boy.


    "what you are Captain of" (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 07:19:28 PM EST
    I am the captain of my soul.  and the master of my fate.

    heh (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 07:41:03 PM EST
    perhaps context is warranted.  sounds a bit grand.
    I have always loved this

    Out of the night that covers me,
    Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
    I thank whatever gods may be
    For my unconquerable soul.

    In the fell clutch of circumstance
    I have not winced nor cried aloud.
    Under the bludgeonings of chance
    My head is bloody, but unbowed.

    Beyond this place of wrath and tears
    Looms but the Horror of the shade,
    And yet the menace of the years
    Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishments the scroll.
    I am the master of my fate:
    I am the captain of my soul.

    William Ernest Henley


    You know very well Jim (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 09:25:20 PM EST
    That our military will not be defined by the lack of standards of an "enemy".  We have different standards, they are ours and they define who we are.  We signed onto those long ago too with other nations.  They will be upheld.

    I know these soldiers will be investigated and prosecuted.  After it is done, the military leadership will acknowledge that for the military there is no other way.  But it is reassuring knowing that many people in the U.S. want their soldiers home and consider that they have been through too much.


    Good article on the subject ... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 08:27:13 AM EST
    Very good write up (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 10:19:10 AM EST
    Gets to the heart of the matter.  I don't want my husband's life put at risk any more than it needs to be completing the mission in Afghanistan.  When your family member is deployed in the combat zone all of those things keep you awake at night too.  And if troops begin to lose their way, laugh at rules, lose their moral bearing while Americans cheer them on, how low do they go and what will happen to those among them who want no part of losing their soul and losing their morals and losing their minds?

    Tracy (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 12:46:29 PM EST
    I understand your interest and your position.

    I have no problem with it.

    But the facts remain. Trying to play nice-nice to the other side in an asymmetrical war doesn't work.
    No matter what you do or don't they will hate just as much and do what they do.


    Yes Jim (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 01:48:31 PM EST
    Hunting them down with snipers and drones and killing them is playing nice-nice.  I'm on the verge of needing an aspirin approaching this subject with you.

    My husband tells me that (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 02:00:29 PM EST
    it is being reported that we just killed THE Taliban leader in a strike.  The Taliban said that they would discuss peace with us but would not call for a cease fire.  The war was still on and obviously playing nice-nice is not one of our problems.  See Jim, we don't need to trash our morals and the Geneva Conventions to fight the Taliban.  We never did.

    wonder if the talks (none / 0) (#140)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 04:57:52 PM EST
    are still on

    Funny how we found him like that :) (none / 0) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 06:36:18 PM EST
    Let's see, the Taliban is building an "embassy" in Qatar.  Hmmmmm, we have Taliban connections, and then there is the Taliban who doesn't want the war to end and there is the Taliban who will tell us where he is because they are ready for this to be over now.  We wouldn't have hit him otherwise.  I'm willing to bet some of his buddies turned his whereabouts "in".

    thats an interesting possibility (none / 0) (#147)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 06:46:31 PM EST
    I had not thought of that.

    in other news are you watching the globes?

    as someone who knows nothing and pretends to know nothing about fashion may I say I love the resurgence of fish tails.


    I missed the Globes for family night (none / 0) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 02:42:56 AM EST
    But it is cool to read what you guys all saw.  I'm sad that I missed the dresses, it is one of my favorite shapes and drapes too.  It's better than my butt falling out of all these low riding britches all day, that's for sure.

    found a write up about this (none / 0) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 05:27:43 PM EST
    What you understand (none / 0) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 06:36:15 PM EST
    but don't want to admit because it does not fit the image you want to project is this.

    To win the war we must kill them and convince the rest that we are too strong for them to defeat us by merely hanging on.

    Remember, that was the North Vietnamese's strategy. The terrorists know that.

    And it worked.

    Only this time we have not just the peaceniks and assorted Fellow Travelers involved, we have the SecDef and SecState. I find that sad.

    What I find even sadder is that American troops are being sacrificed in this disgusting attempt by our politicians to pander to their base and thus aid the enemy.


    As If you ever single handedly (none / 0) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 06:37:34 PM EST
    won a war, let alone voted for and supported the guy who DID get Osama bin Laden :)

    seriously (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 06:45:13 PM EST
    what planet are we talking to.

    and why are we wasting time doing it.


    Killing Osama bin Ladin (none / 0) (#149)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 11:34:37 PM EST
    doesn't appear to have won anything.

    What I can't figure out is why all the "treatment" we gave his body so as to not offend.

    Really?? We should give a flying flip about insulting someone who is a friend/supporter of bin Ladin???

    Catch a clue. We're not going to win this war by being nice.


    What I find "even sadder"... (none / 0) (#148)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 07:11:09 PM EST
    ... is American troops being endangered by the actions of a few, irresponsible Marines and the  winger, armchair warriors who try to defend the indefensible.

    No one is suggesting ... (none / 0) (#133)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 12:53:20 PM EST
    ... we play "nice nice to the other side"...

    ... but those straw arguments are a lot easier to knock down than the real ones, huh, Jim?


    no (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 06:55:19 PM EST
    what you said was

    Showing disrespect to the enemy is a time proven way of discouraging them from continue fighting.

    what I said was

    raping their women has been a big [way of doing that] in just about every war. (which it has)
    how do you feel about that?

    and its a valid question.  exactly how much disrespect do you think it is acceptable to show.  clearly lots of russians thought what they did was fine.

    as far as this

    Worrying about "dissing" corpses sends a signal of a weakness.

    that is exactly what I would expect a neocon armchair general to say.
    I disagree.  I think worrying about dissing corpses sends a signal of compassion, civility and humanity.  war is a barbaric thing but that doesnt mean we should accept unnecessary barbarism.


    And trying to say that wars are won (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 10:40:50 PM EST
    by being nice nice to the enemy is exactly what I expect from you.

    And one more time. You made the "rape and pillage" up. Problem is, that's your fantasy and nasty working.

    And "war is a barbaric thing but that doesn't mean we should accept unnecessary barbarism."

    Really? You actually believe that our enemies don't think we are weak?

    You know, I wish I believed that you weren't so naive as to believe that. But I don't. I believe you actually do. And that's sad. And scary when I consider how many others suffer from the same.


    "I believe you actually do" (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 08:06:52 AM EST
    well this is an important moment.  you are actually correct about something.  I do not believe our enemies think we are weak.  and if you are talking about militant terrorists I would say Obama has done far more to persuade them of that than W ever did.  as he put it so well, "ask Osama Bin Laden".  I do not approve of many of the tactics used to convince them of that but the fact is inarguable.  except for  you of course.

    but what I find fascinating is that you seem to believe that urinating on a corpse is somehow a demonstration of strength.  


    Nope, I haven't said that (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 08:33:05 AM EST
    What I have said is that getting in a snit and everyone apologizing convinces them that we are weak.

    When in a fight, groveling is a no no.


    Actually, you said much more than that (none / 0) (#112)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 08:50:00 AM EST
    You attempted to justify the desecration of enemy corpses by claiming its a legitimate and "time proven way of discouraging them from continue (sic) fighting."

    BTW - Good article from a combat vet's perspective


    I've told you this before, (none / 0) (#90)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 07:47:03 PM EST
    whatever you did, in battle, or in some other way, I'm certain you did it with diligence, and with honor.

    I'm not the best person to discuss this topic with as with me, there is no line between instinct, and humanity. So, any hint of a possible deadly confrontation will get a gutteral reaction from me.

    Let's get back to Sarah Palin:)

    p.s. Are you in Tennessee?

    If so, I'm gonna be your neighbor.....yeah!


    I am hopeful the state (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 10:42:08 PM EST
    can stand the shock.



    Can "I" stand the shock (none / 0) (#101)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 10:47:15 PM EST
    In NY we say, "Hi, how are you?"

    In Tn, They say, "Hi, when were you saved?"

    Nice to have folks worried for me...lol


    Actually that was a funny snark (none / 0) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 08:38:13 AM EST
    And I know you know that is not true...

    Probably what will happen is that a some point someone will say about something you have said or done:

    "He can't help it. He's a Yankee."



    I gotta admit it, (none / 0) (#128)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 12:20:58 PM EST
    The folks in Tennessee have been nothing if not downright friendly, and welcoming. The only times I sense a little, uhm, discomfort, is when I don't wave back, and say "Hi" fast enough......, to perfect strangers.

    Spending my formative years in the Bronx, this is gonna take a little getting used to. And, fwiw, the Hi's seem to be genuine. I got my B.S. detector turned on and, so far, it hasn't beeped.


    people in the south (none / 0) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 12:29:23 PM EST
    are genuinely and welcoming in a way people in other places simply are not.  the south has its problems and I expect you may eventually encounter them but the friendliness is real

    Yeah, everybody speaks and waves (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 12:41:48 PM EST
    it is a cultural thing. Don't know why.

    True story:

    Years ago we moved from Seattle to Denver just at the collapse of the mini oil boom in the early/mid 80's. The area had been inundated by Texans.

    A few weeks after we moved in I took my lawn mower down to a local repair shop.

    After listening to me describe what I wanted done the owner looked at me and said, "What part of Texas you from?"

    "I'm not from Texas," I replied.

    He paused for a minute, looked me full in the face and replied, "Yeah you are."

    I explained the difference in accents but I don't think he ever believed me.


    true (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 05:27:36 PM EST
    Showing disrespect to the enemy is a time proven way of discouraging them from continue fighting.

    raping their women has been a big one in just about every war.  very big in WWII.  thousands of german women were raped by russians when they entered Berlin.  and supposedly it was encouraged.

    how do you feel about that?


    IMO (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 05:52:19 PM EST
    if you think pi$$ing on corpses is ok its a fair question.  

    25 million Russians, (none / 0) (#87)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 07:38:59 PM EST
     military and civilian, were killed during WW2. Don't remember the number of wounded and unaccounted.

    With that kind of unspeakable savagery from the Germans, the horrific revenge on the part of the Russians was a foregone conclusion.

    But, it's a good point. On a much smaller scale, the microcosm of what the Americans did to the Taliban should be self-evident. What they did was wrong, no doubt, but what sort of revenge they've given birth to should surprise no one.

    p.s. (I know you weren't asking me)


    agree completely (none / 0) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 07:45:48 PM EST
    its weird when you read about that its, even now at least for me, hard to pity the germans.  and for me that was a very uncomfortable feeling.  not to get to heavy on the literary references but it is the literal razors edge.

    26 of my family (none / 0) (#91)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 08:00:46 PM EST
    killed by the Nazis. All my uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents....dead. The only survivors, my mother, father, brother, and me.

    My father screamed in his sleep till the day he died, remembering his sisters who wouldn't come with us when we fled Poland into Russia just befor the invasion. We ended up in Stalingrad, and right after my birth, the Siege ended, and we retraced our steps in the opposite direction. First, running away in front of the Germans, then running after them, kicking some nazi ass.

    During the war ending confusion, we were able to sneak through the "Iron Curtain" into Austria. ("The Russians were no match for a few war weary jews) There, my Pops says, "Screw this, two wars, two sons, and I ain't even 35 yet....America, here we come!"


    jesus (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 08:14:25 PM EST
    I have absolutely no idea what to say to that except welcome to america.  glad you made it.

    Yeah, well, (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 08:41:29 PM EST
    I just wanted to get out that, like most Russians, I'm one big emotional collection of DNA. Work hard, play hard, drink hard, and, never......never hold a grudge:)

    Oh, and thanks. Yeah, I like it here, think I'll stay a while.

    Now, go ahead and say something stupid so's we can get back to ripping each other's throats out.



    And then you served? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 09:51:59 PM EST
    Oh, your poor parents, after so much loss.

    Thank you -- for your service, of course, and for sharing your family's story.  So sad that it is too similar to stories in my spouse's family and so many families that had unimaginable loss but whose survivors showed unimaginable strength.


    Yup, two terms (none / 0) (#97)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 10:20:34 PM EST
    After Rockefeller closed the mental hospitals in NY, and dumped those poor mentally ill indigents out onto the streets (community housing, Hah!) my mother & father adopted a young African American girl, "Dolores."  She grew up as my sister, and no two people were closer than she and I. (Her and me? I dunno)

    Anyway, she had four older brothers, and as we all know, the poor, and minorities are the first to be drafted. Three brothers were drafted right away (the fourth two years later), and Dolores was so petrified that something bad would happen to them that we were really worried for her health.

    So, ole softy, stupid Shooter told Dolores that I would go over there and watch over them. Ripped up my student deferment and signed up. I figured I'd get an education and experience in heavy equipment operation while there, but there was a trick. (of course) The guarantee that I'd be accepted to that school was only if I signed for four years. Crap! I didn't love bulldozers that much, so I signed for two years, they handed me a rifle, a compass, and said, "jungle, that-a-way."

    Kept my head, and a$$ down pretty good for those two years, and, of course, brother #4 then get's his letter. And Stupid Shooter stays for two more years.

    Long story short: Kept my big mouth (and a$$) hidden well enough that I, and my four bro's all got out unperforated, and realizing how much I love life, and in spite of all it's flaws, America.

    Or, is it, Muhrica?


    p.s. would love to hear your story some day soon....if you would, please?


    thats quite a story (none / 0) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 07:37:44 AM EST
    its always interesting to hear whats behind a screen name but that one more than usual I would say

    Rape of anyone by anyone (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 10:44:55 PM EST
    is something you have brought up.

    I won't honor such an obvious strawman with an answer.

    Concentrate on soldiers killing people in battle using what resources they have. That's the subject.


    "......using what resources they have." (none / 0) (#102)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 10:52:12 PM EST
    Does a dik count?

    BTW, rape is a part of military strategy for some armies.


    if you count all the (none / 0) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 07:40:40 AM EST
    of them since, say about, Alexander the number for which it was a part of strategy would far outnumber the ones for which it was not.  in fact it probably wouldnt even be a contest.

    shooter....Capt (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 08:26:45 AM EST
    Rape has not and is not part of the US military's strategy. Bringing it up in this context is a strawman.

    I am not surprised at you, Capt. I am surprised at you, shooter.


    Really?!? (none / 0) (#113)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 08:53:02 AM EST
    Rape has not and is not part of the US military's strategy. Bringing it up in this context is a strawman.

    ... and urinating on enemy corpses is?

    Heh, heh, heh ...


    I didn't mean (none / 0) (#130)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 12:35:43 PM EST
     it was "Pentagon Strategy." Like the City has "Street Justice," soldiers in war make their own "justice."

    P.B.S. did a documentary recently about the Russian/German part of WW2, especially the final days. They said that when the Russian troops entered Berlin the rapes numbered in the tens of thousands. It wasn't just some drunk soldiers getting their jollies; it seemed to be a systematic, empirical, engineered plan. After what they, and their families suffered through, they wanted to make sure that not a single, female member of the "Master Race" escaped the "Length and breadth" of their fury.

    What I saw in Nam, and our G.I's, was just soldiers ripping off prostitutes. No systematic, revenge rape,


    this is from the BBC (none / 0) (#135)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    Based on contemporary hospital reports and on surging abortion rates in the following months, it is estimated that up to two million German women were raped during the last six months of World War Two, around 100,000 of them in Berlin. One woman remembered hiding in the loft of her apartment block, ready to jump out of the window if she was detected, whilst her best friend was being gang raped by Soviet soldiers in the apartment below.

    I was looking for the history channel thing I saw just recently that also said many thousands died in the process and many of suicide after.  but I cant find it.


    Follow the logic (none / 0) (#111)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 08:42:15 AM EST
    You tried to justify the desecration of corpses by claiming that:

    Showing disrespect to the enemy is a time proven way of discouraging them from continue fighting.

    Capt. Howdy brought up an obvious - if you justify the use of disrespect and humiliation to an enemy as a legitimate war tactic to "discourage them from fighting", why not raping and pillaging?

    I won't honor such an obvious strawman with an answer.

    The reason you won't answer the question is because - using your logic - you can't answer the question and remain consistent.


    From the discussion last thread (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by brodie on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 10:10:30 AM EST
    re FLs and the comparison by one poster of ER (the best) and Jackie (low ranking, in that person's opinion, wrt her substantive influence).

    Jackie had a lot more influence in the WH than just fine arts and making the intellectual life respected and honored, though that alone was no minor undertaking given the strong traditional streak of anti-intellectualism in this country and given she followed 15 years of social and cultural conformity in the land and overall mediocrity being rewarded in the two prior post-war White Houses.

    Important too was her quiet behind the scenes influence on JFK on personnel matters, both in hiring and in deciding whether an aide needed to be moved out.  She had a keen instinctive sense of whether someone would be the right person for the job and once there whether the aide was acting in the best interests of the admin.  JFK highly valued her input on these non policy matters and when it was possible, acted upon it.

    She was also almost always there at the end of a workday for the president to talk about what had occurred and so she was probably even better informed about the daily concerns in the WH than ER was, Eleanor not being truly a full fledged spouse (had her own separate room in the WH) and often a nonpresence with her many trips domestically and abroad.

    ER I too rate highly but her influence on Franklin is overstated and she couldnt budge him on big issues like civil rights for blacks and increasing immigration of Euro Jews.  Her radio broadcasts and daily news columns were mainly an outlet for her to gently express occasionally some different views but had little impact on admin policies.  Had she and Franklin had a true marital relationship it's probable she would have been more effective in influencing the WH.

    But she was still a force to reckon with and so ranks high in my book, along with Jackie and Hillary.

    Interesting. I'm the poster (none / 0) (#33)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 11:16:04 AM EST
    with whom you disagree.  And I don't see your evidence -- who was the aide?

    You understate what I said about Jackie Kennedy to make your argument -- and you opt to leave out thhat I said that she had only three years to have influence as First Lady vs. fourteen years for ER.  That is a rather remarkable difference, no?  

    And, of course, you misstate what I said about ER's career and influence, as I did not link them as you do; those were separate points.  So you use that misuse of my argument and evidence to ignore what I said about her influence on his appointments.  (As for arguing that his affair made a difference in her influence, that is . . . well, an interesting argument about marriage and sex, as most of us know those are related but not as interrelated in the case of this interesting marriage that became a political alliance.)

    In sum, I'm glad to have this debate, one that I've enjoyed with historians, but only if argued reasonably.  


    I wasn't referring (none / 0) (#43)
    by brodie on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 01:32:01 PM EST
    to a single "aide" but generally to the fact -- as reported by Schlesinger and Sorensen, iirc, and definitely as displayed in the recent oral history tapes release -- that she was usually on top of situations involving appointees or aides that needed attending to or ousting.  As with the negative comments (taped oral history) re the US Ambassador to Pakistan and similar remarks about SoS Dean Rusk.  Kennedy I think acted on the former but, while he definitely agreed with her about Rusk, said he couldn't act until after 1964.  These weren't the only two appointees she commented upon, just examples.  She and Jack also exchanged similar dim views of VP Johnson.

    Re my supposedly understating your views about Jackie, what I saw as your rather dismissive view of her or her influence came from both what you wrote and from the undertone of your last para on her -- if only she'd had a second FL term, you seem to be saying, so she could have really accomplished something/been more influential/made her mark.  I just wanted to make the case for how influential -- mostly in unknown and substantive ways -- she already had been in the 2.75 yrs she was given as FL.  

    When the tapes came out last year and revealed how opinionated and influential she was behind the scenes directly in chats with JFK, even mainstream CW types like historian Michael Beschloss had to concede Jackie was far more the influential political figure than previously thought.

    Re the short time in office, I've always thought that quantity (time office, bills passed) is overvalued, certainly as to overall assessments of her husband.  A lot was accomplished even in that short time, including saving the world in the Missile Crisis, which should count just a little bit.  And at that time Jackie was there supporting her husband in all the ways she could.

    But perhaps you could flesh out and clarify what you meant in your previous post about ranking her low.  Was it just on the narrow matter of comparing how many people she brought to JFK's admin as compared to ER?  Not entirely sure on what basis you're judging Jackie.

    As for my comments about the nature of both FLs' marriages and how that probably mattered, I stand by the common sense observation that Jackie with the closer emotional relationship and being present more consistently to chat with, advise and support her husband in all ways, was better positioned day to day to be a more influential advisor-spouse in more ways than ER, despite Eleanor's 9 more yrs in that position.  But I probably view ER and FDR in a more emotionally distant and business-like, arms-length relationship (even with some moderate underlying affection betw the two) than you might.


    Mainstream Media catching up to reality? (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 12:17:30 PM EST
    Interesting FT interview of (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 02:11:54 PM EST
    Interesting stuff in there... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 02:29:23 PM EST
    We return to the subject of ignorance, which Brzezinski lists as one of America's six "key vulnerabilities" in his book alongside "mounting debt', a "flawed financial system", "decaying national infrastructure", "widening income inequality", and "increasingly gridlocked politics".


    Brzezinski looks pensive. "The question is, `Does Obama have it in his guts to strategise as well as sermonise?' " he asks. "I don't know the answer to that. I really don't know."

    Brzezinski quotes a senior Chinese official who reportedly said of America: "Please don't decline too quickly". He then lampoons the standard American candidate's response to any talk of decline, which is simply to assert that America's greatness will return if only people would believe in it. " `Help is here. Smile a lot. Everything will disappear. It will be fine' - well, sad to say, it doesn't work that way. People are ignorant and scared. It will take more than that."

    Zbig (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 04:18:25 PM EST
    is an interesting fellow.  I almost always agree with what he has to say.  almost.

    I can't get upset about what (2.00 / 1) (#4)
    by observed on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 05:16:36 AM EST
    happens to corpses in war time.
    Anyone else feel the same?

    Paula Deen is going to endorse a diabetes medicine.

    Really!!! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by loveed on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 07:43:46 AM EST
     When they return home they become our neighbors.
    Marry our daughters.
     This tells you a lot about a person.

    Well, the corpses don't become our (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 08:21:45 AM EST
    neighbors, or marry our daughters, but the soldiers who think it's okay to desecrate them do, which is another excellent point to consider when asking whether it matters.

    The bigger question for me is, apart from the fact that the Geneva Conventions says it matters, do we - as a people - want it to matter?  

    I would hope we would.


    It matters all the way around. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 01:11:31 PM EST
    The psychological scars on the perpetrators, themselves, in the form of guilt and the repercussions and the violation of the laws of armed conflict. But, more importantly, the scars on the national interest and the undermining of the US blood and treasure expended in  counter-insurgency (the slender reed of military strategy).

    thought experiment (if feasible) (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 08:24:00 AM EST
    try imagining one of the "corpse" was your father, brother, son or lover

    That's why I reminded people in an (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 08:44:30 AM EST
    earlier thread about the outrage felt in this country after the dead American soldiers were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu; maybe someday I will understand how people can never seem to look past the ends of their noses to see the big picture, but, on the other hand, maybe I don't want to get to that point.

    thank god (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 08:45:21 AM EST
    you cant understand

    To be blunt, (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 09:20:17 AM EST
    during the Nazi regime, when they ran out of poison gas, they just said fk it and tossed babies into the fire alive.

    You may not think so, but I think it is a series of small steps - incrementally taken - when we shrug at desecration of the dead, a small jump to shrugging at, ridiculing and laughing at live soldiers being tortured, another small leap to shrugging at all civilian casualties, and another small step to shrugging at killing millions at a time using nuclear weapons.

    We should be aware, in my opinion, that governments - including our own - are busy conditioning us to accept the unacceptable as a price for "keeping us safe". All this while they are putting us in danger.


    Agree with your slippery slope (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by brodie on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 10:32:47 AM EST
    and social conditioning points.  

    Seems too that the US through its military collectively and in individual atrocities is compiling quite a negative record wrt how we are being perceived in the Arab/Islamic world, actions which, according to the universal laws of cause and effect as I understand them, will one day, probably sooner rather than later, be repaid in full against us on our own shores.  For our own security if for nothing else we should be greatly concerned when our troops disrespect the locals abroad, dead or alive.

    Until we remove all our troops from all countries in that region, and stop arming and enabling Israel and other countries, we will likely continue to hear about such US atrocities and continue to be threatened here by revenge seeking terrorist elements from over there.  But we will probably only learn the hard way, years from now and many US domestic deaths later, that there is no military solution to the problem


    One of the things that some people (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 09:53:46 AM EST
    seem to conveniently forget or deny is they want to be able to kill and pi$$ on people and then call them terrorists when they get upset and fight back.

    I wonder how many new America Hatin' "terrorists" were created in Afghanistan by this incident that will conveniently be used to justify keeping the WOT rolling along.

    How can they have a WOT without creating as many terrorists as possible to justify it after all?


    It is war (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 10:30:13 AM EST
    What we consider acceptable behavior matters, when fighting for your life and the danger is killed or passes we are left with huge emotions, and the rules allow us to find our way back home.  You can't undo some things later either once done.  What you do on the battlefield stays with you always.

    There must be lines, the Marine snipers crossed it and they did so boldly and confidently.  The book must be thrown full force.

    And the goals in Afghanistan are very clear, they have been since Obama took over.  Our very dear friend just left for there, he spent over a month being schooled and briefed on the goals and the mission.

    I'm very disappointed, shamed, and hurt by what the pissing Marines decided was their right to do.  And our peace talks with the Taliban could have been greatly damaged.


    Not to mention (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 10:30:41 AM EST
    They even pissed on the Geneva Conventions

    What are the goals and the mission (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 10:52:19 AM EST
    in Afghanistan?  

    The rules of engagement are classified (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 10:58:29 AM EST
    Simply because our leaders are tired of the Taliban using our publicized goals and mission against them.  Since it has been all classified, suddenly the Taliban is serious about talks.  If they can't easily predict our next move suddenly negotiating matters.

    I know the rest of America feels left out in the dark.  And I can't help that, but we all want to leave Afghanistan right?  Or at least everyone except whoever uploaded that video.


    And this much I can tell you (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 10:59:50 AM EST
    We are looking to leave.  Whoever uploaded that video probably knows that too and isn't happy about that.

    The only other thing I can think of that (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 11:11:52 AM EST
    happened is that a fellow soldier reported these guys for what they did and was ignored.  Perhaps command decided they didn't want to create an "incident".  I can see where a frustrated soldier would do something like this if that is what happened. But that is never supposed to happen, and a command isn't supposed to make those sorts of calls.  If that is what happened, then a command placed the mission in jeopardy (among many other violations) and they will have to discover how far up the coverup went.

    That is an interesting point (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 11:28:33 AM EST
    about the possible layers upon layers in the story behind this story; thanks.

    The caption that went with the original (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 11:32:13 AM EST
    download read something about how the poster thought that Marines were always supposed to do the right thing when no one is looking.  If I'm not mistaken that is a sort of creed among Marines.

    the news (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 02:50:04 PM EST
    about Paula Deen's coming endorsement is repulsive

    this comment, even more repulsive:

    I can't get upset about happens to corpses in war time.

    talk about "ugh"


    I had to google to know who Paula Deen (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 03:28:45 PM EST
    cooking show, right?  sincere question - why is it repulsive?

    completely agree about the other thing.  almost seemed like really dark and not particularly funny humor.


    because Paula Dean (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 04:00:42 PM EST
    is pretty much the public face of a cooking style that can cause Type II diabetes & a number of conditions that make a person susceptible to that disorder

    as for the other thing, my sense of this commenter is that he wasn't even trying for humor, dark or otherwise - i think what he said is an unvarnished expression of his views on the matter - i'm only surprised that he didn't add a supercilious, self-righteous cultural put-down to his remark about Paula Deen


    got it (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 04:06:28 PM EST
    about Deen.  makes sense.  my sister is a sufferer of both diabetes and Deen style cooking.

    on the other thing, complete concurrence  


    the trouble (none / 0) (#65)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 04:27:57 PM EST
    with Paula Deen-style cooking is that it tastes so good to human beings

    we're still biologically programmed to crave fat, salt & sugar, & our bodies are programmed to store fat

    that's because, in a biological sense, we have not evolved far from the days when fat, salt & sugar were treats to be consumed on rare occasions

    i'm sorry about your sister - she & millions of others have been dumped in the tough spot created by the intersection of biological evolution, industrial food production, & entertainment


    reflecting on what I just said though (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 04:39:32 PM EST
    from a twisted marketing standpoint it makes perfect sense.  her audience is going to be the people who need it.

    oh (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 04:41:54 PM EST
    and about the "tastes so good " part.  believe me I know.  in fact I just returned from my sisters house with a big tupperware thing full of what she calls "mexican chicken"  I try really hard to NOT do that sort of thing too often.  I want to live.

    lawsuit in Iowa (none / 0) (#6)
    by desmoinesdem on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 08:16:35 AM EST
    The Workers' Comp Commissioner is suing the governor and several state officials for defamation, breach of contract and discriminating against him. (His attorney is Roxanne Conlin, a well-known trial lawyer and former Democratic U.S. Senate candidate.) Seems to me he was treated unfairly, but I don't see any evidence supporting the discrimination claim. Looks more to me like the governor took his marching orders from business leaders.

    Tebowie (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 08:46:05 AM EST
    Too bad he's such a nit... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 09:16:07 AM EST
    ...that he needs to shill for Capital One, a horrible institution that turned predatory lending into an art form.  Why a guy like him can't do his homework a little, why he needs more money when he's got enough to last ten lifetimes, oh wait, it's all about making sure his face is out there as much as possible.  Put your face someplace respectable, Jimmy.  Stop whoring for Richard Fairbank.  That said, pretty funny bit.  Too bad I can't give him credit for being anything but a tool.

    Why his Capital One spots are so absurd (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 09:22:58 AM EST
    They all focus on this "Do you want 50% more cash?" referring to miniscule cash back credit that increases the more you use the card.  Reality is, for almost everyone, this "cash back" amounts to pennies.  Capital One spends millions on a commercial campaign, hires a star, all in the service of communicating to the public that, hey, when it comes down to it, all we really have to offer you is peanuts, but we'll give you ten instead of five.  So ridiculous I laugh every time I see them.

    no love for capital one (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 09:27:22 AM EST
    actors act.  and I imagine he got a very large sum of money for that.  I would expect him to shrug at the idea he wouldnt do it and ask how they are different from any other card company.

    one other thing (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 09:38:35 AM EST
    I have known many actors from fairly famous ones to waiters and they all would have the same thing to say about you above comments I think.  which is that show business is the most fickle mistress in the world and when you are hot you take every job that doesnt involve promoting nazism because you may not be hot tomorrow. you work all you can while you can.
    I suspect he is might still new enough to the national consciousness that he would do exactly that.

    Nah, I get why he does it (none / 0) (#40)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 01:04:21 PM EST
    I get the money issue.  I get it, my dad was an actor, woulda taken a big commercial if he'd have gotten the chance (he did some locals, nothing national), and he took plenty of bit parts on tv and stuff funded with money that isn't any more pure.  

    But still...come on, Jimmy...

    That's all I can offer. ;-)


    I actually like the one (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 03:33:29 PM EST
    with the little kid who throws the fire extinguisher.  cute kid.

    oops, 10 peanuts is being generous (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    Cap One would give you seven point five.  ;-)

    evangelicals and Romney (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 10:19:10 AM EST
    this yesterday in the Free Republic would mesh perfectly with the anecdotal stuff I have been hearing and passing on here.  it is spot on:

    Romney has an additional problem because he is a Mormon. In a June 2011 Gallup Poll,Twenty percent of Republicans and Independents indicate they would not support a Mormon for President. Romney's religion was a factor in his poor showing in Iowa. A December Pew Research poll examining Republican voter attitudes about the candidates found "high negatives for Romney among white evangelicals." One evangelical predicted, "Eighty percent of evangelicals will not vote for Romney in a contested primary, and 20 to 30 percent will stay home or go third party in the general election because of the Mormon issue and because they see him as an advocate of abortion and gay marriage."

    Election campaign news... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 10:45:50 AM EST
    "How's this for an endorsement? Prostitutes at the world-famous Bunny Ranch Brothel in Nevada have endorsed Ron Paul for president. They said it was not an easy decision. They said it was hard to overlook Newt Gingrich's solid record of adultery, but still they had to go with Ron Paul."
    --Jay Leno

    Late-Night Political Jokes

    As for the NFL playoffs, (none / 0) (#45)
    by brodie on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 01:48:47 PM EST
    no strong feelings either pro or con about any team except my 49ers.  Problem is, I think realistically they are the only home team which is likely to lose this weekend, even with a pretty healthy Frank "Don't Call Me Lesley" Gore.  They're probably though only a year away from being a true SB contenda.

    Pats should put an end to the season of Tim and his Tebows.  NE 41 Denver 24.

    Ravens should eke out another one thanks to their defense.  Joe Flacco -- still no better than his name suggests.

    G-men:  Close but no cigar.  Packahs move on at Lambeaux.

    I'm watching whether the Pack (none / 0) (#47)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 02:22:52 PM EST
    is going to be rattled by the sad events of this week, when losing their crucial offensive coordinator for any reason has to take a toll -- and interviews with Rodgers and others suggest that doing so because of such a tragedy, having to go to a funeral (for the first time, for some!) has had impact.  

    And now, they also have to play on two Lambeau fields at once?!  And only one has been cleared of the snow that also complicated this week there.  (Once again providing the story and photos of the townspeople/owners turning out to shovel it out.)


    I'm always either (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by brodie on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 03:23:23 PM EST
    misspelling the name of that stadium or referring to it as "Lambert" Field.  Not quite sure why the latter.  But it does amuse me to try to further Frenchify a place named after some old school football guy called Curley.

    You and Kerry (none / 0) (#58)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 03:38:54 PM EST
    but it cost him votes.

    And yes, the nickname is an odd fit, but so was his first name; at least his middle name was French.  However, I'm another one typical of the region with quite the multicultural mix in names -- and it also seems especially common among us part-French Canadians to have nicknames.  His is at least explicable, if ever you have seen a photo, while some of the nicknames defy reason.  (My favorite, a friend of my father's, was "Aa.")

    Still not ever explained in the Packer lore in which Lambeau played a role is that loss in the last game of their first season in 1919 -- and, as we're talking 'bout names here, the name of the opposing team that took the perfect season from the Pack:  the Beloit Fairies.  I actually have looked and looked for more to explain that!


    That is, I meant to add, that (none / 0) (#60)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 03:42:19 PM EST
    this hardly is an attempt to "further Frenchify" a city that was and is decidedly French Canadian, but perhaps you don't know that -- and that the entire region was French for longer than it has been American?  I do wish that the city still had its name of Euro origin given in the 1630s, when Nicolet landed there:  La Baye.  

    One upside for your 49ers (none / 0) (#49)
    by BTAL on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 02:29:54 PM EST
    The Saints have never one a road playoff game in franchise history.

    But, I hope they do today - speaking as a down trodden Buccaneers fan.


    Looks like it's time (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 03:12:48 PM EST
    for Obama to go give another support speech to AIPAC...

    WASHINGTON -- Agents with Israel's Mossad agency posed as American CIA agents in operations to recruit members of the Pakistani militant group Jundallah, a report in Foreign Policy magazine said Friday.

    Using American dollars and US passports, the agents passed themselves off as members of the Central Intelligence Agency in the operations, notably in London, according to memos from 2007 and 2008, said the report.

    Jundallah (Soldiers of God) says it is fighting for the interests of the southeastern province's large ethnic Baluch community, whose members, unlike most Iranians, mainly follow the Sunni branch of Islam.

    The Baluch straddle the border with neighboring Pakistan and Afghanistan and Jundallah militants have taken advantage of the unrest in the region to find safe haven in the border region.

    In July it claimed responsibility for attacking the Grand Mosque in the provincial capital Zahedan, reportedly targeting members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards Corps, killing 28 people.

    --RawStory - Report: Mossad agents posed as CIA to recruit anti-Iranian terrorists

    News Flash from repuglican inlaw: (none / 0) (#55)
    by the capstan on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 03:36:10 PM EST
    "This Sunday, Fox News is going to air a very
    important documentary about Barack Obama, Sunday night at 9P.M. Eastern."  (Has the label 'Hannity' attached and promises revelations about socialist ties.  (New nonsense?)

    I hear he has (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 03:38:46 PM EST
    crossed orchs with goblin women and is breeding an army that can move in daylight and travel great distances at speed.

    oh wait

    thats Saruman.  I always get them confused.


    if evangelicals make and endorsment (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 03:36:30 PM EST
    in the forest and no one is watching . . .

    Evangelical leaders back Santorum

    A group of 150 influential Christian conservative leaders on Saturday backed former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum as their choice for Republican U.S. presidential nominee.

    "What I did not think was possible appears to be possible," said Tony Perkins, leader of the Family Research Council and spokesman for the group.

    it will be very interesting to see if this makes any difference over the next few days.

    Perhaps this clinched Santorum's (none / 0) (#67)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 04:36:57 PM EST
    endorsement by those Christian leaders:  Last Thursday, Santorum argued for a candidate who can draw a clear contrast with President Barack Obama.  Romney isn't the one, Santorum said, "we need contrasts, not just a paler shade of what we have."

    there is some truth to that (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 04:44:21 PM EST
    at least in that community.  I hear that a lot that Romney is Obama lite.  and to them no matter how much he protests they will always see him that way.

    politicians had a much easier time of it before video.


    yikes (none / 0) (#71)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 04:46:10 PM EST
    what's next?

    does someone need to darken Romney's photos?


    that did sound sort of like (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 04:57:29 PM EST
    I am way whiter than he is didnt it.

    but I have noticed that Romneys complexion is darkening.  starting under his eyes.


    Peace Symbol (none / 0) (#59)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 03:39:21 PM EST
    Wow, googling around about the Peace Symbol is truly fascinating. Symbols as a pictorial language are very powerful. I can't imagine why Gerald Herbert Holtom, Bertrand Russell, or Philip Altback were thinking. I was right in my initial reading of it being the cross of St. Peter (see how easy it is to read a pictorial language?). It is a Cross of Nero and it was seen as a symbol of the persecution of christians in Rome. So it has been commonly read as anti-christian or a symbol of anti-christ for centuries.  But before that, and inverted it was a symbol of life. But that is the inverted form. The symbol with the arms "broken" and pointing down has always, as far as I can tell, been a symbol of death. And, yes, possible links are fairly creepy.

    So why was it "created" as a peace symbol in 1958? Yeah, lots of conspiracy theories. My opinion is that it is simply the arrogance of late modernism. "I'm creating a brand new symbol and it will mean just what I say it does and history begins now!" sort of attitude.

    Oddly the hand peace gesture of a "V" with palm out is rather problematic also, but much less so. And I love the number 5.

    there were (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 04:16:56 PM EST
    many "taboo" symbols adopted by the mid/late 20th century counter culture.  the ankh. fto a lesser extent the maltese cross.

    I suspect as much as anything because they were taboo.

    after some one else was talking about this the other day I googled and was reading a very interesting tak on it which is pdf so I cant but and paste but in a nutshell

    these objects become signs of forbidden identity,

    The swastika is and was prominent in (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 06:16:16 PM EST
    Hinduism long b/4 Hitler.  

    true enough (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 06:33:07 PM EST
    but how many bikers do you think are referencing Hinduism when they use them?

    actually the nazis obsession with symbols is a fascinating subject.  they certainly got how powerful symbols could be.


    absolutely true (none / 0) (#96)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 10:06:53 PM EST
    and I've been reading about it. The "peace symbol" was also a nazi symbol, tho not as common as the swastika. I think it will be hard to turn the swastika back into a goodness symbol in the near future. It really reads as death now. Same with the Nero Cross or Broken Cross too. They were seen as symbols of evil and now it is the peace symbol. But Broken Crosses were as bad as swastikas for many many centuries and then became less potent and became ripe for take over. Who knows, maybe the swastika will become a symbol of love and peace in year 3,956 (rounding out Nero's Cross to 60ce). They'll be whispering "you know, the swastika was once a really bad symbol". How odd that symbols of life and death are so closely related.

    But remaking symbols is not owned by the "counter culture". My daughter, nieces and nephew and their buddies were over tonite and I introduced the subject (they are OK with that as some are media studies majors, and english majors) and they were all like "OK" with it. Someone mentioned that Grandpa (my dad) says "ONLY SAILORS DO THAT" every time he sees one of their tatoos. (Thank god he can't see them all or all the piercings too.) Perhaps symbols are not inherently "good" or "evil" but are simply powerful. And as such are a great treasure to be fought over. So, perhaps a true peace symbol is, as CH implies, a reclamation and a re-assigning of meaning of an older established symbol. Not a simple updating, like "this was a nice symbol and now it is also a nice one", but "what was evil is NOW a pathway to goodness". Or some such.  If you think this has nothing to do with real life, then think again. Nazis used symbols very effectively. Any political power that is very successful does. The Obama poster said in a glance everything there was to say.


    when I was in college (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 08:24:48 AM EST
    (for 15 minutes) I had a WWII era professor would wouldnt let me wear my peace symbol in class I assumed because of its SS associations.  typical of me at the time I just left instead of taking it off.

    but since I never asked it could also I suppose have been a christian thing since it was also called the Nero cross representing the inverted crucifiction of Peter.

    neither of which had the slightest bearing on why I wore it or slightest relation to my life experience.


    In all my years reading about (none / 0) (#119)
    by brodie on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 09:47:09 AM EST
    the Nazis , watching films and docs, I've never come upon anything asserting or showing the modern post-war peace symbol being used originally by the Nazis or SS.  And I couldn't find much googling except for some suggestion the SS would use an inverted (arms upward) form, supposedly from an Old German Runic symbol, on SS gravestones.  Couldn't find any pics of this.

    In any case it seems like a very obscure symbol, if true, and thus not the sort of common association which should cause a college prof to prohibit it in the classroom.  Especially without explaining the unfortunate association to the student.


    pretty easy to find (none / 0) (#120)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 10:01:43 AM EST

    "Adolf Hitler ordered this symbol be placed on German death notices, as well as the gravestones of Nazi SS officers.

    This same symbol was used by Hitler's 3rd Panzer Division from 1941 to 1945.  The image on the left is the regimental 3rd Panzer Division symbol. Soviet, Polish, and Hungarian citizens, having suffered from the Nazi massacres, undoubtedly struggled with Holtom's use of the symbol as a thoughtful way to communicate peace. The symbol can also be found on some of Hitler's SS soldiers' tombstones.8

    The first cite you (none / 0) (#123)
    by brodie on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 11:25:24 AM EST
    give is useless.  A website I've never heard of, an article with no author name attached with no sources cited

    At least the second cite, again written by anonymous, has sourcing.  And it tends to buttress my suggestion that the Nazi use of the symbol was a rather obscure one and was only one of several insignia apparently used by the 3d Panzers.  I noticed too that the BBC news article cited, written to note the 50th anniversary of the peace symbol, makes no mention of its prior use by the Nazis.


    I am not going to waste time arguing with you (none / 0) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 11:43:46 AM EST
    I have heard and read this connection for years.  every place from the history channel to alternative newspapers in the 60s and 70s.

    people can make up their own mind if they want to believe you or a site dedicated to nazi information with a page on the site loaded with sourcing.

    the second site is called Teach Peace and is also well sourced and as far as I can see offers absolutely no reason to doubt it.  believe what you like and the rest of us can do the same.

    Im done.


    oops my mistake (none / 0) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 11:47:01 AM EST
    the first linked site Grand Distraction is not dedicated exclusively to nazi information that was another site that came up in the search I did but I decided the links I made were more specific to the subject.

    I am sure you can find it if you wish.  google is your friend.


    but here an idea (none / 0) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 11:49:02 AM EST
    instead of pulling stuff out of your butt find something that contradicts this

    This same symbol was used by Hitler's 3rd Panzer Division from 1941 to 1945.  The image on the left is the regimental 3rd Panzer Division symbol. Soviet, Polish, and Hungarian citizens, having suffered from the Nazi massacres, undoubtedly struggled with Holtom's use of the symbol as a thoughtful way to communicate peace. The symbol can also be found on some of Hitler's SS soldiers' tombstones.8

    I really liked CH's links (none / 0) (#139)
    by ZtoA on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 02:19:34 PM EST
    And the second has lots of citations which are fun to follow. I'm not as good a googler as CH, and the sites I looked at are definitely much more out there than his, but the Nazi connection seems quite common.

    I've never questioned the symbol before and honestly never even gave it a thought. But when I look at it, especially without the circle in its "raven's claw" form I can easily see the negativity of it. From Nero's Cross, Broken Cross, the Norse Death Rune, Germanic Rune of Death, to the Nazi Dead Man Rune, it then becomes a disarmament /peace symbol. I think CH's point about the counter culture of the 60s popularizing it as other negative cultural signs were reinvented is also very astute. I wonder if some of the earlier meanings of the symbol will reassert themselves over time.


    I thought the (none / 0) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 04:58:30 PM EST
    teach peace site was pretty interesting

    Was it not in the alternate (none / 0) (#82)
    by BTAL on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 06:41:49 PM EST
    rotation/orientation of though?

    great idea (none / 0) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 06:01:05 PM EST
    Pro-Gingrich Group Asks Romney for Help in Identifying 'King of Bain' Inaccuracies

    In the letter, Phillips calls on Romney to answer the following questions:

    1. When did you leave Bain for good -- full time or part time?2. When did you relinquish controlling interest in Bain, any Bain projects or Bain funds?3. When did you resign as the CEO?4. When was the last Bain document submitted to the government denoting you as an executive at Bain?5. When did you receive the final check from Bain for any investment in which you had and interest?

    Romney should be careful what he wishes for about recutting it.  I saw the guy who made it talking about what I believe is the most damning incident in the whole affair - shorting the pension of a company so that tax dollars had to be used to prop up the seniors so Romney could walk away with more millions - which was not in the original film.

    that story has broken in SC I was reading about it yesterday.  the reedited film would almost certainly include it.

    kos actually has a good explanation (none / 0) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 06:34:23 PM EST
    SOPA (none / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 08:55:14 AM EST
    just watching a very interesting conversation about this on Chris Hayes show.  he has some internet people who oppose it and the Executive VP of NBC Universal who supports it.  many interesting things so far.  for one the fact that it has had virtually zero coverage from any news outlet.  one small segment on cnn.  another is the odd cross party divisions on this issue.  as I said I had not been following this much but I have to say the NBC guy is making a much better argument in support that the others are making against it.
    he keeps saying two - if true - very important things over and over.  one, it will only effect websites outside the US and two, it will only effect websites who only exist to facilitate illegal things.  like the ones in the far east with stolen films and such.
    the opposition cant seen to really make a cogent argument.  its just bad, why is it bad. well, it just is.

    I come to this without a real opinion except that I oppose anything that curtails free speech.  but I encourage you to watch this segment when it come up on line.  probably later today or tomorrow.  the white house issued a statement that was, surprise, rather vague saying that the legislation should not in any way effect free speech.

    Hayes is doing good work on his weekend show.  even if the name, UP with Chris Hayes, always makes me expect banjos and backup singers.

    The NBC guy is either completely (none / 0) (#115)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 09:02:39 AM EST
    uninformed about SOPA, or he is lying through his teeth. SOPA affects all websites regardless of their physical location. Also, the definition of "websites who only exist to facilitate illegal things" is very broad.

    Read this to get a more truthful understanding of what SOPA will do.

    SOPA is just evil. And for the life of me I cannot understand why Al Franken supports it.


    someone is clearly misinformed (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 09:26:20 AM EST
    he was asked about this

    we could not ever link to another website unless we were sure that no links to anything that infringes copyright appeared on that site.

    he flatly denied it and gave explanations why it was incorrect.  I am not going to try to requote them from memory but like I said, you should watch the segment.

    about Franken, honestly that is one of the things that gives me pause about jumping totally on the hysteria bandwagon.  dont get me wrong.  not a thing wrong with warranted hysteria.  as someone who had not followed this it honestly seemed to me that there was a lot of misinformation about what the law actually does.  and the guy did a pretty good job of shooting down the bumper sticker stuff like, "its like shutting down ford because a mustang was involved in an accident".
    he was quite specific the opponents were not.
    I am not in any way supporting the bill.  just reporting what I just saw.


    also (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 09:27:51 AM EST
    Al Franken for
    Michelle Bachman against.



    also probably worth mentioning (none / 0) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 09:41:16 AM EST
    the guy who runs Reddit

    Boing Boing will join Reddit and other sites

    was one of the people on the show who was not making particularly convincing arguments.


    the segment (none / 0) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 11:16:07 AM EST
    of UP is up

    would love to know what people who may know more about this than me think about what was said.


    I watched the segment again (none / 0) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 11:51:46 AM EST
    and while the old guy is clearly a corporate tool I heard the Reddit say something I missed before that I thought was interesting.  

    something about if sites publish information on circumventing the law they would have problems.


    but the old guy made it sound like even then all that would happen is they would be told to stop.
    he was not exactly specific about what happens if the did not stop but the did talk about "no secondary liability"


    Just to remind everyone (none / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    In case you are wondering why I don't respond to Yman, remember that my New Year's Resolution was to ignore him and not respond.

    I know that gives him the opportunity to take cheap shots and make inaccurate statements but he would do that anyway.


    Sounds like a response (none / 0) (#136)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 01:20:40 PM EST
    ... as well as a false accusation.

    Not that you make any other kind ...