Friday Night Open Thread

Newt Gingrich's poll numbers drop.

Do we really need to hear the 911 Demi Moore call? Why are they even public records when no crime is involved? How many people are less likely to call for help if they know their call will be spread over the internet by the local fire or sheriff's dept?

Yesterday it was Google, the day before Facebook and today it's Twitter on the hot seat. Seems Twitter is going to start censoring tweets in countries that ban publishing on certain topics when they receive a takedown request. Examples: France and Germany restrict pro-Nazi content. [More...]

Reporters Without Borders, a group that supports free speech and journalists worldwide, also urged Twitter to reverse its decision. "By finally choosing to align itself with the censors, Twitter is depriving cyberdissidents in repressive countries of a crucial tool for information and organization," wrote Olivier Basille, the group's director. "Are you going to block tweets about the demands of Turkey's Kurdish minority? Will Russian Internet users see their criticisms of the government censored?" he asked.

There are now more than 100 million twitter accounts, only 30% are in the U.S.

I hope they don't stop the #Anonymous tweets. If they need to ban someone, make it Kim Kardashian who yesterday spread a false rumor about Cher's demise to her 12 million followers. There should be a penalty for that. Like no tweeting for six months.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< FBI Soliciting for Apps Capable of Massive Social Media Datamining | New Zealand Paper Criticizes Megaupload Raid >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Global Warning (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 08:24:15 PM EST
    The WSJ has found sixteen scientists who were willing to sign an oped disputing that human caused global warming/climate change is a fact of life.

    That must be close to at least .01% of the scientists in the world?

    Whew. That was close. I guess we can all relax now and have a pollution party.

    Maybe you need to expand your reading (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:03:28 PM EST
    More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming "consensus" --


    And while you're at it, you might discover that Canada has withdrawn from the Kyoto Treaty.

    Of course, you do have your supporters.



    And the percentage of peer-reviewed (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by observed on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:16:14 PM EST
    articles on climate science which support you view?
    Is it higher than 1%? Last I read it was more like .01%.

    Perhaps you should read the link. (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 09:26:32 AM EST
    UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones "should be barred from the IPCC process...They are not credible anymore."

    And speaking of smart people you might want to look at David Evans while remember he has a very solid background in statistics (a M.S.). And, of course statistics is the base tool that the hoaxers used, to claim the rapid onset of MMGW. Of course they left out the Medieval Warming Period. It was just so inconvenient.

    Of course since Evans went from a believer to a skeptic you're not gonna accept him.


    YOU are the one who can't read. (none / 0) (#139)
    by observed on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 03:29:57 PM EST
    Intellectually, completely insane.

    What I undetrstand is that you (none / 0) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 04:09:28 PM EST
    cannot refute my points so you go into the personal attack mode.

    No big deal. And thanks for proving my point.


    YOu haven't even made a point. (none / 0) (#165)
    by observed on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 09:45:08 PM EST
    You sound crazier than Ron Paul.
    There are THOUSANDS of peer-reviewed articles on climate science, and you pretend not to this fact.
    Instead, you talk about Hollywood actors.
    Stupid doesn't begin to describe this level of discourse.

    At one time there were thousands of (none / 0) (#166)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 11:00:34 PM EST
    peer reviewed scientists who believed that blood letting was a cure doctor's should use.

    And just recently the same people who now tell us we have global warming told us we would all die from global cooling.

    Newsweek The Cooling World April 28 1975

    And I have never said that no scientists thought MMGW was real. Sorry if my pointing out all the Gollywood types who pretend to know anything that they haven't first read in a script as a means of getting publicity bothers you.

    Repeat after me.

    Consensus is not proof. Or else we would all be freezing now as predicted by leading scientists in 1975.

    And the use of theories and assumptions have proven unreliable in the extreme. Even the main hoaxers know this and admit this.

    There are lots more remarkable revelations in the CRU e-mail cache like this -- all pointing to the disturbing politicization of the scientific community today. Maybe the most egregious e-mail of the whole packet is not CRU Director Phil Jones's "hide the decline" post, but one where he declares: "As you know, I'm not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political; it is being selfish."

    NY Post Link

    Think about that. That is Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia U's Climate Review Unit in what he thought was a private email admitting that climate change had not happened. And it was private until the hackers hacked the system and published them.

    So what's stupid? A belief in something that has not been proven... and the lack of proof even admitted by Dr Jones.... or someone who says, I don't believe because I have seen no proof..

    You pick'em. But if you pick latter then I seriously question your ability to logically look at it


    sounds like hoaxers to me (none / 0) (#168)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 04:57:59 AM EST
    "an advisory board of 11 retired flag officers concluded in a report issued Monday under the auspices of the Center for Naval Analyses, a non-profit national security analysis group. Climate change is happening, the blue-ribbon panel concluded, and is a "serious national security threat."

    (I don't have a link to this specific quote because I retrieved it from my documents folder. It's only one short comment sent to me from the library of correspondence I maintain with my veteran buddies. But, all you have to do is Google:  military, climate change and you'll get a treasure trove of the incredible investment our military is making in taking on one of the greatest National Security threats our country is facing. They also have set the goal of reducing carbon based fuel for alternative sources by 50% in less than ten years.)


    Of course "climate change" is happeing (none / 0) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 09:05:52 AM EST
    it's just that MMGW isn't happening.

    And speaking of boosters.... A group of retired military officers  deciding that it is a "serious national security threat." I mean, keep that budget money coming and don't forget my pension, eh??

    I wonder how many corporations that do business with the military these folks are associated with?

    These folks aren't scientists, just another group seeking to use "consensus" to get what they want.


    Buwhahahahaha (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 09:36:27 AM EST
    Yer killing me man.  The military's only interest in climate change is how it will destabilize the globe and its societies and cultures and the dangers that that poses to THE NATION they protect.  You are such a loon man.  This is the second formal notice that the American population in general has received from the military establishment that global warming is real and is a large concern.

    Granted, many times the military would rather overreact than underact, because when they underact heads roll.  Every officer understands that on day one.  But as far as the military goes (and I know it is hard to accept Jim because they are a part of society that you demigod) global warming is real and dangerous.


    Tracy (none / 0) (#177)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 12:13:16 PM EST
    After all the times I have heard Demos moan about the "Industrial Military Complex" are you seriously claiming that the retired flag officers have no self interest??

    BTW - Your potty mouth has become an insult factory. Have you lost your ability to make a logical argument?

    MWGW is a hoax. The only proof offered is statistics of past temps and we know that the hoaxers have played fast and loose with record. See Medieval Warming period and Mann's ignoring it. See Jones' "ignore the decline." See Schneider's "offering up scary scenarios...dramatic statements."

    And check out the fact that CO2 is a lagging indicator of temperature increase. CO2 increase is an effect, not a cause.

    And do some research and you will find that mankind has done better in warmer periods than in colder periods. So maybe, if you believe, you should be welcoming an increase and fighting those who, for political purposes only, want to use the false claims to increase their power and make money at society's expense.


    And my point was that (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 09:16:24 AM EST
    Dr Phil Jones is a scientist. In fact, he is one of the chief proponents of MMGW. So when he says he wishes climate change had happened.........that tells just that he knows it has not happened.

    Professor of "Civil engineering and (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by observed on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:57:54 PM EST
    biosystems", emeritus??
    Yeah, that sounds like someone who can judge climate data.
    If that's the lede skeptic, color me unimpressed.
    Peer-reviewed articles, anyone?

    Well, if I have to pick some who (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:14:19 PM EST
    is the smartest, a Civil Engineer would be my pick over a actor high school drop out.

    But hey, that's just me thinking it is harder and takes smarter people to get a CE degree than dropping out of school.


    What a weird world you live in: (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by observed on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 03:53:43 AM EST
    You get information from crackpot right wing sites and hollywood actors. Have you ever heard the words "peer-reviewed journal"?

    Non sequitur (none / 0) (#24)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:46:40 AM EST
    Well, if you are going to base your belief (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 09:09:32 AM EST
    in a claim because a group believes something true then you would be wise to pick a group that demonstrates some degree of intelligence/smarts in science/engineering over actors and high school drop outs.

    Maybe it's just me (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 01:53:48 PM EST
    but the evidence of climate change and man's role is supported by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.

    So who are you going to believe, a bunch of right-wing crackpots and the petroleum industry's bought and paid for engineers and "scientists" or the overwhelming body of the world's climate scientists?

    And tell me, why do you believe engineers should be cited as experts in climate science?

    There are many high school graduates and college dropouts who are deniers because they don't want it to be so.

    I could walk around most any neighborhood and accumulate a list of high school graduates and college dropouts who support the deniers.


    Speaking of actors (none / 0) (#131)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 02:00:35 PM EST
    why is it that actors/entertainers running for political office always seem to be Republicans -  from George Murphy and Ronald Reagan to Sonny Bono and that annoying little guy who played a role on The Love Boat?  Maybe it's the fantasy world they habit.

    Looks like (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 11:50:59 AM EST
    the petroleum industry has brought out its checkbook again.

    Organized denial to the extent of thwarting aggressive promotion of renewable energy is foolish, shortsighted, childish and greedy.

    Even if man isn't having an impact on climate change the promotion of renewable energy is vital to our long term well being.  Reducing the use of fossil fuel reduces our balance of trade deficits, reduces the level of unhealthful pollutants in the environment and aggressive development of renewable sources insures the availability of energy long after the last drop of oil is pumped out of the ground.

    In case you haven't noticed the population is rising and the demand for energy is increasing.  When I was born worldwide population was 2 billion, now worldwide population is nearing 7 billion.

    IMO, aggressively developing renewable energy is a matter of national security, indeed survival.

    But Conservatives with their foolish anti-government ideology are a threat to the nation they claim to love and much of denial is anti-government nonsense and greed.


    Well stated (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by brodie on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:57:13 PM EST
    I would add shifting now to clean fuel sources would reduce and eliminate our deep and dangerous national security investment re the Strait of Hormuz and other ME areas, places where the US military should not be.

    You also hit upon the major problem causing the climate upheaval, namely grotesque worldwide overpopulation -- an underlying ongoing cause which will always trump the minor reductions in fossil fuel use that some countries applaud themselves for having achieved.

    We need ideally a global population much closer to one billion at most along with a shift to deep geothermal with solar and wind completing the final 15%.  Iow, radical changes are needed on one front, while govt needs to partner with private industry to create technology breakthroughs in geothermal and related.


    The population (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 01:26:05 PM EST
    difference, 5 billion since I was born, is FAR more than the cumulative total of all people who ever lived on earth.

    And yet we have powerful institutions that forbid birth control.

    We live in a mad mad world where senseless, groundless ideology trumps reality.


    I'm not aware of any (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 01:59:59 PM EST
    great organized denial or check book but I am very aware of the need for the UN to garner power by claiming we must give them money and slow our economy by reducing CO2.

    But if you can have organized boosters then you certainly should be able to have organized deniers.

    And you don't have to be against wind, solar, etc just because you think MMGW is a hoax. The problem is that electricity generated by solar is around 300% more expensive than coal. Yet government is backing companies to produce a technology that has no market unless government skews the picture. Of course it doesn't hurt if the corp's main dude was one of the President's main bundlers.

    Wind power is even more unreliable than solar so a carbon based backup source is required. That means an expensive and environmentally destructive overlay of the distribution system.

    And if you really are worried about population explosions then worry about the third world populations in Africa and the Middle East which right now are stressing Europe's ability to remain Europe.

    People will leave carbon based power when its replacement's cost doesn't cost an arm an a leg.

    In the meantime, drill like crazy and research like crazy.

    But knock off the BS political solutions designed to make voting blocks feel good.


    Yes well, the government of Canada (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:24:16 PM EST
    is not known for its brains either...

    No, no, no, ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Erehwon on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:37:15 PM EST
    According to Jim (see second link), folks who support Al Gore are only high school or college dropouts, but 1000+ scientists (presumably with college degrees and other highfalutin credentials) agree that climate change is a bunch of baloney.

    What a bizarro world we live in!


    I see that my sarcasm and return shot escaped (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:57:32 PM EST

    Of course there are some uninformed lackey's of the United Nations and George Soros who also have degrees in such things as "How to BS the world and travel FC to meetings in exotic places."



    Well, when it comes to things like you like (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:53:18 PM EST
    let's try this:

    "To capture the public imagination,
    we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
    make simplified dramatic statements
    and little mention of any doubts one might have.
    Each of us has to decide the right balance
    between being effective,
    and being honest."

    - Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
    ( in interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989)

    That kinda sums up the hoaxer's code.

    And do you know who Dr Phil Jones of East Anglia University is??

    Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now - suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

    And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no `statistically significant' warming.



    One swallow ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by cymro on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 03:14:56 AM EST
    ... doth not a summer make [Aristotle].  

    It would be best to grasp the significance of that proverb before making an assertion involving statistical significance.


    Did you support Clark during (none / 0) (#32)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 06:33:22 AM EST
    the 2004 primaries?  Are you, like a lot of the people at Uppitywoman, a Global climate change denier because Gore had the nerve to endorse Dean during the primary?
    It's crazy but true, I guess you can find "science" to support any position you wish to take according to your political grudges.

    Sure can, Teresa. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 07:17:49 AM EST
    Once can find 'science' to support anything one wishes - no climate change, no evolution, no continental drift, intelligent design, etc - but it's so transparently political and agenda-driven that it's both laughable and tragic.

    Picture of Jim here... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 07:43:29 AM EST
    "What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"


    Not being Canadian I didn't pay a lot of attention (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 09:52:01 AM EST
    to their 2004 primaries. In fact, I don't even remember knowing they had them.

    As for "denier," I merely ask for proof and see a lot of smoke and mirrors by politicians in the universities and UN agencies.

    My background is engineering. Once upon a time I actually had a business card that said I was one. But I sold out to the commercial side and became a.....gasp..... sales type. And now I can't find my slide rule... but I still can think logically.

    And that tells me MMGW is a hoax. Mann started it with his ignoring the Medieval Warming Period to allow his "hockey stick" graph to get attention and attention ballooned when "researchers" realized that "there was money in them there green hills."


    Totally agree, Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:50:14 AM EST
    on the Demi Moore 911 call.  It's none of our darn business (and not particularly interesting, when it comes right down to it anyway).  There was no crime involved, no public interest, just a terrific invasion of privacy both for her and for her friends who made the call.

    Disgraceful, IMO.  Just pure voyeurism.

    Did J post it? (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:56:03 AM EST
    no I linked to an artiicle (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 01:22:25 AM EST
    about it so people who don't follow Hollywood, which is just about everyone here, would know what I was talking about.

    true (none / 0) (#145)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 04:17:27 PM EST
    & fear of publicity is why River Phoenix was left to die outside a club

    Rewatching The Jackal this morning (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 09:50:02 AM EST
    What is it with Bruce Willis?  Why is he sexy?  I mean, I think he's sexy, but he has no feature that I see that is particularly gorgeous.  He has kind of a common face.  Instead of a forehead he has a fivehead, and still he is sexy.

    A fivehead? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 11:48:43 AM EST
    Brains are sexy? ;-)

    The female protagonist of "1Q84," (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    a new novel by Murakami, is only attracted to older men with little or no hair on their heads, as she looks for the shape of the head.  

    Why? (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 01:52:38 PM EST
    Why do you feed this character?

    He comes in like the organ grinder, and you all dutifully take up your rolls as.......well, you know.

    See my comment to MT, (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 05:02:27 PM EST
    at #149, if you are interested in my take.

    The quiet was nice while it lasted, though, wasn't it?


    Yup (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 05:06:28 PM EST
    like with a headache; you don't appreciate being pain free until the old migraine strikes.

    Even better/funnier, I love how (none / 0) (#161)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 07:06:17 PM EST
    he uprates comments he's just finished slamming.

    Comedy gold, Jerry, comedy gold...

    [Seinfeld reference for those wondering]


    seriously? (none / 0) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 06:11:15 PM EST
    talk to her please

    Super Bowl Commercials (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 07:51:23 PM EST
    Super Bowl commercial hype is reaching new highs (lows?) with companies releasing teasers. I must admit that two of them could be fun.



    hey I posted a Q for you someplace (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 09:31:34 AM EST
    down there

    question for you.  I keep hearing all kinds of different things about delegates.  its winner take/its not winner take all.  some dispute about who is in really in charge because they were naughty so its not clear who is making the rules.

    what is the deal with the delegates?


    its hard to get real information about this (none / 0) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:06:26 AM EST
    every other piece is contradictory.  and while I have no doubt I could eventually dig thru it I was just hoping you could tell me.

    The winner of Florida's primary will try to spin his way into the frontrunner's position. But with only a fraction of total delegates awarded, is that anything more than a tall tale?

    Let's see if we can clear this up (none / 0) (#66)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:23:33 AM EST
    By GOP rules, Florida can't have their primary before March. Instead Florida scheduled it for January 31.

    By GOP Rules, Florida gets 99 delegates. Instead they will get 50 due to violating GOP rules and having it in January.

    By GOP rules, winner take all primaries can't take place before April. Florida says they will be a winner take all state.

    If the delegate count is close as the primaries wear on, expect court time on the delegate issue.

    Florida motto - Rules? We don't need no stinkin rules.


    excellent! (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:25:27 AM EST
    more vagueness

    I understood after all.


    Off the hook grooves (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 08:45:46 PM EST
    From the modern master of electro acid swing.

    Parov Stelar live - "Booty Swing" (LINK)

    And a preview of his new album and tour. (LINK)

    Oh to get to one of those Euro tour dates!  Peace and good weekending, y'all.

    Hey Dadler! (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:05:36 PM EST
    How goes the tournaments??

    Haven't played for a few weeks (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:43:43 PM EST
    Probably play another few in the coming weeks.  Might play a Bay101 WPT satellite down in San Jose. Thanks for asking.  Peace.  

    Got a shot a FR into a WP event starting (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:02:03 PM EST
    on the 7th. Becoming rich and infamous would be lovely. I could out Helmuth Helmuth.



    Good luck (none / 0) (#125)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 01:47:00 PM EST
    As an avowed agnostic (none / 0) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:52:09 PM EST
    I guess I have an excuse. Still, you'd think I would have read before today that Mormons like to baptize dead people. Even people that have been dead for over a year. Sounds a bit ghoulish to me.

    On the upside (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:16:29 PM EST
    of that practice, the requirement to research ancestors beforehand has been a boon to many genealogists, because the LDS have built an extraordinary archive that it makes available to anyone.  I live near one of the LDS research centers, and the records that I can access there are amazing.  

    If interested, also search for information on the extent of effort that the LDS have taken to safeguard the originals of the records in an underground archival site that I read about years ago.


    I imagine (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:19:45 PM EST
    they don't get too many who argue and get up and walk out on the baptism....

    Jewish and Catholic cemeteries are a (none / 0) (#15)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:34:27 PM EST
    favorite source of names of dead people that the Mormons then baptize. Jewish people have been protesting this practice for many many years, to no avail. The Mormon Church has agreed to stop the practice many times, but it continues. Hundreds of thousands of Holocaust victims, including Anne Frank, have been baptized.

    It is not just Jews that get this treatment. Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, they are all fair game. Buddha, Elvis, various popes, Joan of Arc, Shakespeare, they've all been baptized. In 2009 Obama's late mother was baptized in a baptism of the dead ceremony.

    And there is no baptize by date. The Mormons will baptize people who have been dead for years.


    I guess (none / 0) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:36:57 PM EST
    there is no expiration date once you're dead.

    It's kinda a (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:05:27 PM EST
    "Return To Sender" kinda thing.

    Even (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 08:21:56 AM EST
    more interesting is the reason why they have so many children. They believe that there are all these souls up somewhere maybe heaven I'm not completely sure about that but anyway you have to have as many children as possible because there are all these "souls" that are waiting to be born. It's also the reason they are against abortion because you are denying a soul it's right to have a life.

    It is always amuses me that (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 08:59:16 AM EST
    the non-believers have become more vehement in their attacks against the believers than the believers were against the non-believers.

    That neither side can prove their point seems to escape everyone so the issue becomes who is the most tolerant of the other.

    Let me know when the Church Police show up to put you on the bus.


    It never begins to amuse me how you (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by observed on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 09:05:37 AM EST
    simply make up offensive data out of nothing.
    So, does this mean that militant Islam is less of a threat than mean atheists?

    Open your eyes (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:26:19 AM EST
    You have millions of people who are criticized for saying "Merry Christmas" and lawsuits without end over creches on courthouse lawns...

    It seems that the fear of a state christian based religion is vastly overstated and becomes worse ever  year as the desire to wipe out the last 10% of the last 10% of the last 10%'s increases exponentially.

    I call it the EPA do gooder effect.

    And so far "mean atheists" haven't started stoning gays and roaming females or condoning "honor killing."


    Oh please, Jim. That whole (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:31:34 AM EST
    War on Christmas nonsense is just another Bill O'Reilly fevered dream. I don't know of anyone who criticizes those who say "Merry Christmas."

    And the lawsuits about the creches on courthouse lawns exist because the Constitution, you remember the Constitution, forbids the government from promoting a particular religion.


    you know (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:36:18 AM EST
    we are often dismissive of Jim but he is nice to have around because the truth is he often says what a lot of people believe.  
    most hear can dismiss what he says as ravings, and lets be honest jim - you rave as much as I do - but I live with people like jim.  there are vast numbers of them.  
    are there enough to get Newt elected running on a war on religion theme?  certainly not nationally but he is effectively workin that meme in the primary.  at just about every stop.

    damn spell check (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:36:59 AM EST
    most hear can dismiss

    most here can dismiss


    Capt (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:48:26 AM EST
    You live with social liberals??? People who want a single payer health care system, drug laws reformed and gay marriage legalized????


    Are you sure your neighbors believe that??

    Capt, you disagree with me because I am pro defense and recognize that there is a point beyond which the government should not go. School lunches and shutting down power plants come to mind.

    Have a nice day but don't misrepresent what I believe in. I'll call you on it ever time and give you the chance show I have commented otherwise.


    you would be surprised how many do (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:52:27 AM EST

    sorry.  I thought it was sort of a compliment.

    never mind.


    Uh, the suits and criticism (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:42:17 AM EST
    preceded O'Reilly. And you probably don't know anyone who voted for McCain, either.

    And putting up a creche is not exactly building a church....

    What we have here is the slippery slope theory expanded beyond the borders of commonsense.


    You must think I have a very narrow circle (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:51:08 AM EST
    of friends and family and acquaintances, Jim. Of course I know people who voted for McCain. I am related to people who voted for McCain.

    And what the hell does voting for John McCain have to do with the War on Christmas?


    let (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:51:26 AM EST
    me ask you this? Why does the government need to justify your religious beliefs? Is Christianity such a loser religion that it can't stand on it's own two feet and needs the government to prop it up? That's the continual message I'm getting from people like you. And the irony is that the Muslims (the fundamentalist variety you so loathe) think the same way you do.

    And the perpetual "Christian Victim" whine is beyond annoying. It certainly does not make Christianity an appealing religion to a lot of people and more people like you push it on people, the less people are going to want to be a part of it. Did you know that since the GOP has been pushing the fusion of church and state that attendance at churches had been declining and that  50% or more people under the age of 30 have never even been in a church? What do these people say? They see people like Tom Delay saying that we are a "Christian Nation" and then goes about stealing money from people. The fusion of religion and politics has only hurt religion not the other way around.


    Let ask you this. (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 11:18:22 AM EST
    Why do all those who don't believe continually attack those that do?

    Really, where is the Church Police?

    Secularism is now the state religion.

    And look at our society. Look at its coarseness. Look at all the problems we didn't have before.

    And I am NOT pushing religion. I'm pushing tolerance for religion.


    I think (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 11:48:23 AM EST
    there would be less attacks if there was separation of church and state. If you let the state do it's business and the church tend to its there would be less problems all the way around.

    There is plenty of church police. They actually come door to door asking you what you believe or wanting to tell you what they believe.

    The state should have NO religion. Apparently you see "secularism" as a religion and it as being a problem.

    Well, I have heard all kinds of people blamed for our society. You could say it was due to the breakdown of communities. You could say it was due to the breakdown of families. You could say it was x, y, or z. You could blame it on gay people. There has been a lot of things that have happened in this country that you could say has caused problems. I have even heard here in the south that civil rights movement is blamed for today's cultural problems. You could find a million people to blame but you have to accept that we are not going back to the 1950's no matter how much you might want it. When you fuse church and state you get a ton of problems. Look no further than the middle east for that.


    Funny (none / 0) (#133)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 02:21:40 PM EST
    I've had a few spins around the sun and I've NEVER heard anyone criticized for saying Merry Christmas.  

    This includes a Jewish coworker who always returned a Merry Christmas greeting with a smile and the reply - wait for it - Merry Christmas.

    Jim, you fall for the victimization myth perpetrated by whining Conservatives.

    Of all the Conservative victimization myths the Merry Christmas schtick has to be the absolute silliest.  Good enough for a LOL.


    Anecdotal evidence: Jewish colleague (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 02:48:38 PM EST
    objected to office "Christmas Party." Title subsequently changed to "Holiday Party."

    Jewish appellate justice told me years ago of his discomfort during such a party during which all the songs for the sing along (with the Presiding Justice playing the piano) were Christmas carols.  


    A friend (none / 0) (#157)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 06:09:19 PM EST
    who happened to be Jewish told me when singing Christmas carols in grade school he mouthed the word Christ or Jesus, etc.  But he thought the music was beautiful.

    I haven't seen him in years.  Really miss him.


    I'm with your Jewish friend (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 06:34:20 PM EST
    Being a half Jew (and total atheist) I always thought of Christmas, and Christmas carols generically. It was just a lovely holiday, with wishes of joy and happiness, towards everyone. (Or every_ one, as Tiny Tim would say) We've come to accept "In God we trust" and other symbols that way, and I believe most people think of Xmas like that.

    And those Christmas carols, not "rockin `round the xmas tree," or that little rat, "Alvin," LoL, but the others....some of the most beautiful, and moving, songs, music & vocals ever.

    My father was a devout Jew, and yet, every December he'd bring home a xmas tree. He was pretty cool, and no one was going to deny us the enjoyment and festivities of this holiday.

    Now that's a real Liberal.

    So, "up yours," Bill O'Reilly.


    In our ecumenical home (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 07:12:14 PM EST
    we light Hanukkah candles and decorate our Christmas tree with lights -- and we have a second tree for which my daughter, when young and fascinated by the faith new to her and our family, made wonderful ornaments of dreidels and more.

    The younger nieces and nephews, being raised as Christians, really enjoy learning the prayers for the Hanukkah candle-lighting and love the dreidels, too.  They are too young to remember our joint Jewish-Christian marriage rites, when all four of our children held the hupa.

    But the more recent holiday experiences will come in handy for the younger nieces and nephews this summer, when one who now has converted to Judaism will bring another Jewish groom into the family.

    Mazel tov, shalom, et cum spiritu tuo, and amen!


    Towanda (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 09:14:25 PM EST
    это красиво

    (that was beautiful)


    actually, (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 09:15:28 PM EST
    Thank you, that was beautiful

    How is that (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 09:59:07 AM EST
    an attack? It's just stating their beliefs. I frankly think they have every right to their beliefs whether I agree with them or not unlike your beloved fundamentalists who think that everyone who doesn't believe like they do is some sort of cultist.

    I grew up in SC and there's plenty of church police there telling me that if I didn't become a Southern Baptist and become "saved" the same way they were that I was going to hell. So perhaps you would like it there.


    You are fighting the last war as defined (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:09:59 AM EST
    by the TV you watch and the world you hang out in. Look around you. All of the "fundies" are portrayed as nut jobs doing bad things on their way to try and save the world. You see nothing on the reverse.

    And the question is, why bring their practices up? They are no more, or less, harmful than painting yourself in a teams "colors" and gathering in a parking lot to cook unhealthy food and swill bad beer..

    The issue is tolerance. Who has the most?



    Why (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:15:05 AM EST
    is it a problem to discuss their practices unless you yourself think they are a cult?

    When fundamentalists stop trying to make this country a theocracy then and only then will I stop discussing them.

    I have not seen anything on TV like what you are talking about and as a matter of fact I don't watch that much TV.

    I think you are the one that has a problem with their practices not me.


    Who are you to talk about attacks and tolerance? (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 03:19:01 PM EST
    You - who deride environmentalists' concerns for the planet by calling them treehuggers and demean scientists as cranks?

    Give us a break.


    Is saying (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:00:40 AM EST
    that Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God an attack on Christians? Or that we Christians believe in the Holy Trinity an attack? You really are a whacko.

    not until you start talking (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:02:41 AM EST
    about the other things they believe.

    THEN its an attack.


    I guess so. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:12:16 AM EST
    It must be considered an attack since most fundamentalists believe that you have to believe the way they do. I guess people like Jim really consider being a Mormon a problem if you can't discuss their beliefs without it being called "an attack".

    inconveniently bringing up (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:14:12 AM EST
    any of the batsh!t stuff in the bible is an attack.

    Only (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:16:03 AM EST
    to Christians who believe the bible is "inerrant" not to the rest of us.

    Well, why did CioralGables (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:15:32 AM EST
    bring the subject up if not to attack?

    And isn't the fact that Romney is the presumptive Repub nominee the reason?

    I have no problem with that but I do remember that it was a no-no to even mention Obama's middle name during the last election.


    I will tell you why he bought it up (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:20:33 AM EST
    I would guess the brought it up because quite apart from any discussions of competing faiths, objectively for those of us who have not as we say "been washed in the blood of the lamb"(how freakin creepy is that btw) that

    the idea of baptizing the dead is odd.


    So is gathering on a Friday (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:51:41 AM EST
    night dressed in clothes from the past and learning/doing the polka. I mean it is not for me but if they like it, enjoy!

    Tolerance is contagious!


    Let me know when you've come down with it (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 11:25:20 AM EST
    no (none / 0) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:56:42 AM EST
    night dressed in clothes from the past and learning/doing the polka

    but its still odd.


    I agree it is odd (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 11:09:29 AM EST
    But why not just accept it and get on with life if it doesn't effect you?

    I do (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 11:20:56 AM EST
    but its still odd

    Where to start (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:05:17 PM EST
    more vehement in their attacks against the believers than the believers were against the non-believers

    Spanish inquisition  -- Bloody Mary

    etc., etc., etc., ,,,,,,,,


    Old old news, cal (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 01:36:50 PM EST
    Shall we talk about the Muslim invasions of Europe?

    You said (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 02:08:15 PM EST

    How about the European invasion of the Americas.


    Straw men, straw men (none / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 02:24:15 PM EST
    cal's got the straw men.

    But I should have spec'd that we were speaking about today's world.

    My bad.


    Unfortunately there appears to (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:10:25 PM EST
    be no escape. You and I can disagree regularly and routinely but there are millions out there who don't have a clue what we were writing about... and don't want to know.

    Last Saturday we were having a lunch when I noticed a table that a man and woman and two kids, obviously a family, all on their cell phones texting/playing games.

    If the parents won't even make them talk to each other, do you think they will pay any attention in school?

    Maybe they were playing Words with Friends. (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:55:17 AM EST
    Hey! (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 06:18:31 AM EST
    I've currently got 5 games going -and I still talk to those people!

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 09:01:35 AM EST
    they were, but if they can't talk to each other over lunch in a public place, when can they talk?

    Just seems out of whack to me.


    Oh, I agree. One sees the same thing (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 11:37:11 AM EST
    with youngish couples.  No conversation, just phones.  

    It wasn't just the kids. (none / 0) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 09:08:56 AM EST
    It was the adults, who I assume to be parents and the kids.

    Charles Murray, author of the odious book (none / 0) (#35)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 08:06:13 AM EST
    The Bell Curve has another book out. That book, entitled It's Coming Apart, seems, maybe to be about how the the rest of us Americans are being mean to that minority group that is white and Christian and middle-aged and living in the South and the Midwest. Or something. I expect Murray fanboy Andrew Sullivan will have a breathless post up soon.

    Anyway, Murray has devised one of those ridiculous quizzes that is supposed to reveal deep dark personal truths in 20 questions or less. Here is the quiz. Take it and finally learn whether or not you are a real American.

    I scored a 10, which exposes me as someone who has had sustained contact with real Americans.

    h/t Lance Mannion.

    lost points on the Applebee's question (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by DFLer on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:37:36 PM EST
    who can afford to go out to any of those restaurants?

    Hangs head in shame (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 01:29:26 PM EST
    I scored 6 f 20.

    It says I can see through my bubble, but I need to get out more.

    Bubble? What bubble? ;-)


    Fortunately for me, no questions (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 02:51:48 PM EST
    re non-classical music!

    Yikes! I scored a 3..... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by vml68 on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 03:47:34 PM EST
    apparently my bubble is so thick, I don't even know I am in one!!!!

    I scored a 3 instead of 2 because I got one point on the Applebee's question. I was travelling last year and that was the only place open around midnight that was close to our hotel. I haven't eaten at one of those restaurants in atleast ten years.

    I thought reading what all of you post on TL was keeping me connected to the real world. Boy, was I wrong... :-)!

    P.S.- Have not had a chance to keep up with TL for the past 3-4 months. So a belated "Happy New Year" to all of you. Hope you are all doing well.


    I got 13 (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 08:26:06 AM EST
    Which says that I don't even have a bubble.

    I scored (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 08:37:11 AM EST
    11 so I have had a lot of exposure. I guess the fact that I don't know Nascar kept me on the edge of popping the bubble. Little does this idiot test know but my son is a huge Nascar fan but I just find it annoying.

    I scored a 15 (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 09:48:10 AM EST
    so says it "I dont even have a bubble".

     me! bubble boy.  great test.

    I can see how that test could work with many people. I throw the curve on the because I am an out gay progressive living among the christian blue collar.


    which (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 09:55:16 AM EST
    sort of sounded like a pitch for a sitcom.
    but sadly its my life.

    and nothing in MY life is black and white . .

    wait . .


    And I find (none / 0) (#116)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:44:35 PM EST
    NASCAR boring although some of my nephews and even one of my daughters don't.

    I scored a 14 so I guess I'm not in a bubble - according to the test.

    What Murray seems to assume is that exposure will yield empathy.

    Good luck with that.  Many people, though exposed, are by no means empathetic.  Too many people forget where they came from.


    I got 13 too (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 09:12:52 AM EST
    Who knows how much extra I got for having a "serving" member of my family though. What a dumb test.  Did I see the last Transformers?  No, because of the sexism issue.  Is that why that question was in there?

    How about the college degree neighborhood question?  I don't think I've ever lived in such a neighborhood, where are those neighborhoods anymore?  I do know where one is here, but if I lived there the chances that I would even have a computer or have access or exposure to that dumb test is nil.


    Come on up (none / 0) (#46)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 09:28:52 AM EST
    to my neighborhood, MT.  This is way out in the country, on top of a mountain in Western Maryland.  Most of the people that live here do not have college degrees.  Many have small farms (none are large enough to make a living from).  And they're (almost all, with a very few exceptions) perfectly nice, hard-working people, who have been hit hard by the recession.  And many of them do have computers.

    In the farming ranching branch of my (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 09:33:46 AM EST
    family it is now a mixed bag of college and no college.  I don't know if a college degree in the end aids them in any way though.  I haven't seen a big difference for them.  Would you characterize those places near you at this time as being a place where your 50 closest neighbors did not have a college degree?

    Yes, I would (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:30:48 PM EST
    There are a few college grads, like us, who moved up here because we like it. The rest mostly work blue collar jobs, some have their own small businesses (some small construction companies, some skilled crafts like plumbers, electricians,  welders, cabinet-makers etc, a small grocery, independent gas station/car repair, auto salvage, etc).  Many still farm (heck, we are a working farm; we used to raise beef cattle, but now just sell hay), but almost nobody farms as their sole source of income because they can't make enough.  They farm to supplement their incomes.  (We mainly do it for the tax breaks.)   Many of my neighbors come from families that have lived in the area for generations.  A lot of their kids have moved away, especially the ones that did go to college.  
    PS  You also need to understand that "50 closest neighbors" encompasses a very large area, since there a lot of farms and/or tree farms.

    some one I know (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 09:40:34 AM EST
    described that area as the Appalachians without the doublewides.

    My Appalachia (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by the capstan on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 03:39:54 PM EST
    does not run to double-wides.  Shanties (remember them), run-down trailers, and old frame homes predominate.  I scored 5 on the quiz, but am not sure of the 'bubble' effect: I am a bleeding-heart liberal and rather heretical Baptist (free from group-think), plus being too d@mn old for contemporary avocations.   So what kind of bubble do I live in?  If that refers to my not sharing upstate SC culture, I plead guilty.  (Also to having lived in collegiate and scientific communities since 1960.)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

    We have (none / 0) (#113)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:36:24 PM EST
    a few trailers, too.  A lot of older farmhouses, though.  And technically, we are the Appalachians; I live a little bit down-slope of the Appalachian Trail.  Although I realize what you mean.   ;-)

    I definitely lost a point (none / 0) (#67)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:25:18 AM EST
    on the smokers question. A decade ago my answer would have been yes, but when my Dad was diagnosed and then died of lung cancer it sparked a number of relatives to stop smoking. Lung cancer is a painful and ugly death.

    Also, lost on the military service question since I have not been in the military, and I do not have a spouse.

    Why the hunting and fishing question? I grew up in a working class family in the Midwest and nobody in my family hunted or fished.


    I got a 12 but deserved a lot less (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:35:59 AM EST
    because the questions are so simplistic.

    Yes, I bought a pickup truck.  But not for myself.  Still, I got a point.

    Yes, I lived in a neighborhood with lots of people who didn't have college degrees.  But that's because most of my neighbors also were college students.  Still, I got a point.

    Yes, I fished in the last five years -- not in the Midwest (where I once went fishing about 50 years ago as a Girl Scout, and I also never have hunted).  I went fishing in Mexico, as a tourist on a day trip.  Still, I got a point.

    By the time I'd be done parsing the questions to account for the complexities of life, I'd probably owe points back to the bubblers.  (There ought to have been a question about whether I call a drinking fountain a bubbler, by the way.  As a former Midwesterner, you may understand that.)


    Here in Portland we have the Benson Bubblers, (none / 0) (#75)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:48:20 AM EST
    beautiful four-bowl, bronze drinking fountains that are scattered around town.

    They are named for timber magnate Simon Benson, who, in 1912, gave the city $10,000 to build and install 20 bubblers. His hope was that his loggers would choose to slake their thirst at his public water fountains rather than at the local taverns.

    The only times the bubblers are shut off is during prolonged spells of below freezing temperatures. Given our more temperate climate, most years the bubblers run 365 days.

    By the way, I do understand your comment about bubbler vs. water fountain. :-)


    I knew that you would understand (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:55:39 AM EST
    the bubblers-vs.-drinking fountain question. (A water fountain is, however, what HGTV calls a "water feature.":-)

    Now, to further narrow down where in the Midwest is one's home, how do you stand on soda vs. pop?


    You know, mostly we called the various (none / 0) (#85)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:58:59 AM EST
    sodas by their names, as in "Do you want a Coke?" or "Have some 7-Up" or, well, you get the idea.

    The machine that dispenses soft drinks was a soda machine.


    casey that was (none / 0) (#104)
    by fishcamp on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:11:27 PM EST
    an excellent explanation of those drinking fountains that I grew up with way back when.  Is Louis Oyster house still around?  My grade school is now a bed and breakfast brew pub.

    Dan and Louis' Oyster House is still (none / 0) (#152)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 05:17:07 PM EST
    in business at the same location it has occupied for, what, 100 years? You must have attended the Kennedy School, now another building saved and repurposed by the McMeninamin brothers.

    I dated Simon Benson's great-grandaughter (none / 0) (#126)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 01:51:32 PM EST
    For almost three years.  We went to Portland once, stayed at the Benson (don't know what it's called now) and got treated royally.  I remember her pointing out those fountains.  At the time, the old Benson house was falling down. Small world.

    er, Bubblers (none / 0) (#127)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 01:52:25 PM EST
    Not fountains.

    It is still called the Benson Hotel. (none / 0) (#153)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 05:19:53 PM EST
    And while it is no longer the only luxury hotel in Portland, it is still a grand place filling the same downtown block it slaw ays has filled.

    The Benson is where visiting presidents generally stay. Sadly, the venerable London Grill, the famous restaurant in the hotels' lower level, closed last year.


    Should be always not slaw ays. (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 05:20:50 PM EST
    What's the deal with auto-correct? And what are slaw ays?

    I remember eating at the London Grill (none / 0) (#158)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 06:09:50 PM EST
    Very old school.  Woulda thought it closed years ago.  Glad to hear the hotel is still going.

    We ought to make a study (none / 0) (#119)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 01:02:54 PM EST
    of regional names for things.  Do you call carbonated soft drinks "soda" or "pop"?  (I have even heard them referred to, generically, as "cokes," regardless of the brand).  How about submarine sandwiches?  Subs, hoagies, grinders, heroes, and so on.  We have lived in a lot of areas of the country, and it seems that each area has their own name.  
    And I got an 8.  Guess I'm part of the "almost-bubble-livers."  Even though, given where I live, you would think I would have scored higher.   ;-)

    They are "pops" (none / 0) (#146)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 04:30:27 PM EST
    A soda, of course, is pop with ice cream in it (also known as a "float").

    Sub sandwiches.

    And native Detroiters (not me, although I am native, but my parents were not) have the strange habits of calling the road surface "ASH-phalt" (instead of AS-phalt).  And they like to add an " 's" on the end of certain company names like Ford and Kmart ("My dad worked at Ford's for 30 years," or "Do you need anything?  I'm going to Kmart's).


    No, no, no! (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 04:53:06 PM EST
    A soda with ice cream is an "ice cream soda"!  Unless it is ice cream in root beer, in which case (and only in which case) it's a "root beer float."    ;-)

    Speaking of adding "s" to things, it (none / 0) (#156)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 05:33:34 PM EST
    makes me crazy to hear people refer to "Best Buy" as "Best Buys:" it doesn't have an "S" on the end, people!

    Here in MD, it's "soda," and "subs," - but don't get me started on "Bawlmer-ese," the unique way Baltimoreans talk...it is to make one's ears hurt!

    "Let's go downy ayeshun, hon," translates to "Let's go down the ocean, hon," which further translates to "Let's go to Ocean City."

    I think books have been written about it!


    Nobody in my immediate family does either (none / 0) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:58:23 AM EST
    My dad did a little bit when I was a little kid, but that was it.

    Why only smoking cigarettes? I (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 02:50:41 PM EST
    don't smoke, but my brother smokes cigars (on my patio while visiting) but we just visited a cigar/wine tasting establishment with an outdoor patio for cigar smokers.  And boy were they ever smokin em.  

    14 for me. (none / 0) (#179)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 09:50:18 PM EST
    No bubble here, either, according to a poorly worded quiz. Rotary and union meeting aren't close to the same thing.

    my score: 10 (none / 0) (#115)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:40:05 PM EST
    but i didn't give myself credit for the pickup truck i co-signed for when a ex of mine wanted to buy it for transporting her show dogs

    Scored 7: (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 01:23:22 PM EST
    In other words, you can see through your bubble, but you need to get out more.

    But maybe I did work in a factory:  we called it the "cookie factory."  The Rotary mtgs. I attended were to play the piano for the songs, but this was b/4 gender equality, so I had to wait in the kitchen!  Parades:  municipal band.  Never realized those restaurants listed are outside the bubble.  


    Eight!!! Where's my prize? (none / 0) (#123)
    by desertswine on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 01:36:44 PM EST
    I love Bill Maher's Saul Alinsky rant (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 09:17:22 AM EST

    Bill Maher's piece on (none / 0) (#86)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 11:00:41 AM EST
    Saul Alinsky was good, but it is hard to believe that he did not know who he was, given the references over the past years, including his, of a "community organizer."  But, then that would have ruined the joke.

    The best joke, was in the form of the jokers on the show starting with former Republican Congressman Mark Foley who made headlines with his explicit messages to young House pages.  When Bill asked Foley how Republican gay men or women could support Santorum he used the old equivalency: well, some Democrats speak ill of gays--in private.  Bill did note that Santorum seems to fixate more on gay men than Foley. Foley smiled in apparent agreement.

    The best joke, but more in keeping with the humor of Tosh.O,  was the panel: Poor Martin Bashir, the quiet, erudite guy who could not get a word in edgewise, what with the wacko "Kennedy" whose claim to fame seems to be her ability to speak nonsense louder than anyone  The choleric Dana Rohrabacher (R. CA) was close to apoplexy about cuts in the military he insists Obama has made, although he did agree that cuts should be made.  For real humor, I prefer the Republican debates--straight from the horses mouth, rather than from the horse's digested feedings, so to say.


    When Glenn Beck was going off about Saul Alinsky (none / 0) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 11:20:31 AM EST
    I had to look Saul Alinsky up to even know who the hell he was talking about.  I remember thinking the same thing then, if this person governs me how is it that I did't know who he is?

    I thought Foley was a lot more interesting and human out of office than he ever was in office.  He's someone I could actually stand to have a conversation with now. Rohrabacher was so fact starved and determined to stay that way, is his constituency really happy with that?

    I didn't even know what to think about the Kennedy person.  I still don't.  Martin Bashir has a great sense of humor, something that is difficult to know about him when I experience him in his day job :)


    They are public records (none / 0) (#54)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 09:56:05 AM EST

    They are public records because the public paid to have those records created and stored.  The public has every right to know how the public servants respond to such calls.  


    Not even similar (none / 0) (#178)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 12:59:43 PM EST

    You are required to file a tax return.  You are not required to call the sheriff.  More to the point, about the only effective oversight of local operations is the citizenry.

    If there was any invasion of privacy it was on the part of the caller.


    There is a big difference between (none / 0) (#180)
    by sj on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 12:21:55 AM EST
    between *can* and *should*.  I would hate, hate, hate it if 911 calls placed by my family were made public just for gawkers.  

    Your bit about "how public servants respond to such calls" is ridiculous.  They should be made available for *forensic* purposes if the need arises, but Ms. Moore's 911 call wasn't made public to assess the actions of the responders.  It was made public for voyeuristic reasons.


    "It was Fun While It Lasted" (none / 0) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 10:55:21 AM EST
    maybe.  I am not convinced.

    but even if it is (was) I hope some will join me next tuesday by doing shots and saying "I DO believe in faries""I DO believe in faries""I DO believe in faries"

    because if Newt win.  even by one point.  you are actually going to start seeing republicans explode.  literally.  on camera.  

    think about just that.

    I don't if Newt can go the distance. (none / 0) (#88)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 11:10:20 AM EST
    I hope so, if only because I have never before had so many opportunities to appropriately insert the phrase "hoist on his own petard" into conversations.

    Thank you, Newt. And if you win in Florida and cause all those GOP insiders to implode (or explode) I might just get a few chances to use "cacophony" in conversation.


    full disclosure (none / 0) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 11:34:34 AM EST
    I would love to the those three or twelve or howevermany there was "three hour Lincoln Douglas" style debates.

    think about that for a second.  if he only did one it would be something I would pay to see.

    whatever you think about Newt personally I think you would have to agree there is no one in that party who can frame and contain all the worst parts of the rights agenda into a political argument and still make it sound intellectual.  there is no more articulate or nimble spokesperson for the worst of the right.  
    to be fair, not that he even truly represents the "worst of the right" - he has done some very moderate and foolishly sensible things - but that he can make the case better than anyone.

    and whatever you think of the president. I think any honest person would have to say there is not a more informed and articulate spokesperson for the advocacy of the social safety net with the political genius to use it in a debate than the president.
    (please no qualifying.  I know he isnt liked. be honest.  who is better.  never mind.  they arent.)

    if this happened it has the potential to historic and impactfull in so many ways.  to have the arguments made and the positions defined to such a huge audience at such a crutial time in this country as far as where we go next.  even post Obama.

    I would love to see it.  thought experiment:  try to imagine the same event between Obama and Romney.  or that it would even be considered.  this is why Newt is doing well.


    Softball question (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 04:34:38 PM EST
    I think any honest person would have to say there is not a more informed and articulate spokesperson for the advocacy of the social safety net with the political genius to use it in a debate than the president.

    Hmmm..I can think of 2 right off the top of my head that would be more informed and more articulate spokespeople for the advocacy of the social safety net with the political genius to use it in a debate than the president.

    The most obvious, of course, is Bill Clinton.

    The other one also has the last name of Clinton.


    I would add (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 11:53:16 AM EST
    about Newt.

    many of his uninformed supporters believe this about the debate also.

    we simply disagree about who would win the country as a result of the debate.

    bring it.  as they say.

    I also think, knowing several republicans, there are actually lots of people who are republicans who are not morons.  I know this goes against the conventional wisdom but its true.   if I was one of them I think would say this - 'Romney is going to lose.possibly as bad as Newt. and he is creepy.
    Newt will at least allow us to lose with principals"

    and I would add a certain pompous style.


    OMG would you please stop campaigning (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:05:20 PM EST
    for Newt here.  Why are you so emotionally invested in him winning?  Why? Why? Why?

    MT, it appears to me that the (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 04:59:47 PM EST
    emotional investment is about a near-pathological need for attention that we are accommodating; notice that when no response is forthcoming, he responds to his own comments.  And the less agreement he gets from people, the more personal the comments become, which is about keeping people hooked into the whole ridiculous thing.

    In the absence of an "Ignore" button that will do the work for us, the sooner these threads become little more than this person talking to himself, the sooner Jeralyn may step in to rescue her blog.

    That's my new approach: engage those with something meaningful to say, stay away from those trolling for their own satisfaction.


    I thats a good plan (none / 0) (#155)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 05:29:32 PM EST
    where I am concerned I think your s(ting)tfu and leaving me alone is the best I idea you have ever had.

    I love that your point is made (none / 0) (#170)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:07:42 AM EST
    Right after thise comment - 5 responses.

    I am honestly not all that (none / 0) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:08:54 PM EST
    emotionally invested it in.

    opps (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:11:39 PM EST
    that got away from me.

    was going to say.  how could you NOT be emotionally invested in something that could so much fun?


    He's my opposition (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:17:49 PM EST
    I will waste my time reading unbiased debate from that perspective about all of "them" please.  These horrid long rambling pro-Newt rants.....OY!

    Go Newt :) (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:31:37 PM EST
    you seem a little tense? (1.33 / 3) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:21:29 PM EST
    Really? That's how you'll play this one off? (5.00 / 6) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:26:10 PM EST
    Well you seem steeped in a rare form of passive aggressive zealotry.  How bout that?

    not really being in the mood for this (none / 0) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:31:13 PM EST
    I will just bid you good evening.

    What I (none / 0) (#90)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 11:18:52 AM EST
    really think is that the media built up Newt just to create interest in something in which few people are truly interested.

    They built up Cain for a few minutes.
    They built up Trump for a few minutes.
    They built up what's his name... Ron Paul for a few seconds ("It's a two-person race now".)

    Newt was in the dumpster the whole time.
    A hopeless idiot. A flop.

    Then they published photos of him looking into the distance - Presidential-like.

    Then he tore King a new one.

    Yippee. Here comes Newt!

    But they're already tearing him down and resurrecting Romney who they let slide for a few days.

    They're publishing photos of him looking into the distance - looking presidential-like.

    I think a Newt-Obama contest would have been interesting because Obama would try to distance himself from Newt's positions about war and civil liberties which are not actually substantially different than his own. He'd be hiding from his own image. He'd be unmasked.

    But it's gonna be Romney.
    I think Obama will slip by him rather easily.


    i'm no MIttens fan (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:34:13 PM EST
    & i hope Obama wins

    that said, i think Romney is the only real contender against Obama & that is why Romney will be the GOP nominee


    Isn't it a shame (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:03:54 AM EST
    That you have to qualify your statement with something like "I'm no Mittens fan" because some around here want to turn your view of how the politics plays out into your suppoort of a Republican candidate?  It's like a Fox News tactic...

    "Some around here"... (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 11:00:05 AM EST
    Talk about Fox News lingo...
    "Some say" is one of their favorites.

    Who are you talking about?


    The Newt lovers (none / 0) (#181)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 07:44:02 AM EST
    I don't need to call them out - they know who they are and so do you if you pay attention.

    i would not have said (none / 0) (#182)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 10:22:56 AM EST
    "the Newt lovers" in particular, & i am sure that they don't "love" Newt, any more than i "love" Romney, which is not at all

    but, yes, i did feel the need to qualify my comment, not as appeasement of the Newtie prognosticators but as a prophylactic against the small but vocal ensemble that is inclined to interpret any assessment of Romney's relative strength as an attack on Obama


    This phenomenon of attaching support (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 10:50:39 AM EST
    for a particular candidate - or opposition to one - to someone just by virtue of that person having (1) corrected erroneous information, (2) added additional information, (3) taken on a devil's advocate role, makes about as much sense as accusing the lawyer defending, oh, say, a Bernie Madoff, or a Scott Peterson or an OJ Simpson, of being on the side of criminals and turning his or her back on the victims.

    I've seen this - and experienced it - before, and I think it was in 2008; imagine that.  I can remember being an Edwards supporter who really was not at all interested in Hillary Clinton being the nominee, but engaging with some people on blogs who could not have been more vicious - or more ill-informed - about her record and her positions.  When, in the interest of more honest debate, I stepped in to try to set the record straight, I became a "Hillary-lover" faster than you can blink.  Coming out of Iowa, with Edwards fading fast, I started to realize that the more I learned about her, and delved into the details, I was developing an interest in her as a viable candidate, and ultimately ended up supporting her primary run.

    Which is not to say that anyone, at this stage, who has an interest in having an informed, honest discussion about the GOP candidates is going to end up supporting or voting for one of them; in my opinion, when surveying the GOP field, I think "know your enemy" is the only smart approach to take - you have to go below the surface, beyond the optics, and to many more than one media source to have even a hope of knowing more than what the process seems determined to confine it to.


    the phenomenon of which you speak . . . (none / 0) (#184)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 12:44:05 PM EST
    do you think it's somewhat recent?

    we've had blogs & discussion boards for a good decade & more, & during that time there has certainly been a lot of heated & polarized & even nasty discourse, aided & abetted by online anonymity

    as i recall, though, at least through the 2004 & 2006 elections, such polarization & nastiness occurred mostly between left/liberal & right/conservative/reactionary partisans (though of course there was some serious back & forth between backers of Joe Lieberman & backers of Ned Lamont in 2006)

    but otherwise i too find myself looking at 2008 as the entry point for the following formula:

    any objective comment about any candidate other than my favored candidate = support for that candidate = hatred of my favored candidate

    i wonder if i'm overlooking earlier election cycles when this formula may have come into play


    Looking back, 2008 stands out for me (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:11:53 PM EST
    because I don't have any memory in the previous presidential election cycles of having "those" kinds of conversations with people, where, as soon as you would say, "Well, it really isn't true that Candidate X said/did this," you would be met with something between rage that you dared correct the viral dissemination of "truth" that was helping their preferred candidate's chances, and condescending challenges to your Democratic bona fides, as in "you must not be a real Democrat if you think X, Y or Z."

    Then again, I wasn't on the blogs for the 2000 and 2004 elections; it's entirely possible that the Dean supporters and the Clark supporters, for example, faced much the same kind of dismissive anger from Dems who felt they could dictate the terms of being a "real" Democrat.

    A million years ago, when I was having children, I remember telling a friend that, as painful as childbirth is, it really is nearly impossible to hold that pain in your head - until you feel it again, and then it all comes back to you.  In some ways, I think that as much as most of us have moved on from the experiences of 2008, when we are attacked for daring to want people to get their facts right, that embedded memory comes right back to the surface.

    Why people should be getting so ugly, and wanting to force people into some kind of opposition camp, over the pros and cons and electoral chances of Republican candidates is something I kind of just don't get.  Is is because there is no challenger to Obama, so now we have to choose sides on the GOP field?

    I don't know - but I fully expect it all to get a lot worse in the next 9-ish months (maybe it will be like giving birth after all...).


    heh (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:22:49 PM EST
    like giving birth, if the movie is Eraserhead

    regarding the phenomenon we're analyzing, i think it's still all about Obama's re-election chances - the vitriol seems to increase in proportion to (1) how much of a potential threat the GOP candidate under discussion appears to be & (2) the degree to which the attacker perceives the commenter as conforming to the P^MA archetype

    i'm coming to believe that the last word might be this: the 2008 primaries were very divisive, & some people simply do not accept this fact


    No, I accept the fact that 2008 was divisive (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 03:07:20 PM EST
    But one needs to take the further step and recognize that the lingering effects of 2008 motivate a certain amount of the criticism here.

    It is not just a disapassionate critique of Obama, or an objective handicapping of Republicans and their views.

    Just recently, there have been posts about Obama not being the real author of Dreams From My Father.  And, that Obama appointed Sotomayor by mistake because her views are too good to be true.

    And, there have been many others, including that Obama is like Brezhnev, that pro-Obama forces would assassinate any Primary challenger, and the like.

    The extreme dislike of Obama--personally--permeates much of the commentary around here.  The failure to admit that holds back a truly objective discussion.  


    is there a stalker rating? (none / 0) (#189)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 03:10:09 PM EST
    stalker.. (5.00 / 0) (#191)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 03:23:24 PM EST

    Is there a poster-using-dog-whistles in order to get other posters booted from the site rating?

    Interesting, I've been posting here on-and-off since 2002, and before '08 no posters here ever talked about others like they were their psychotic ex-boy friends, or ex-husbands..


    lol - psychotic ex boy friends (none / 0) (#192)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 04:11:12 PM EST
    that is funny

    not quite the same thing, but made me think of this


    I am trying to have a valid conversation (none / 0) (#190)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 03:17:29 PM EST
    The commentators have been asked to leave out the insults.

    Will you follow suit?

    My preference has always to have a no-holds-barred conversation--no banning and no running to Mama Bear or Papa Bear.  I can operate in that environement but that is not the wishes of others.

    So, rather than use snide and insulting language, perhaps you would do well to heed Jeralyn's admonition, no?



    It is not just "those" people who are (none / 0) (#187)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:59:14 PM EST
    getting ugly.

    Agree, only because the Florida Conservative (none / 0) (#176)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 11:51:51 AM EST
    base is not a Southern Conservative base.  It is very diverse.  Gingrich is too inflammatory.  I often think of the Conservative base in Florida being a sort of mini representation of what Conservative candidates face in scale on the national level.  But that's just me

    Pinin' fer the good ole' days? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 11:33:28 AM EST