Sunday Morning Open Thread

Sooo, HOW ABOUT THEM GATORS!!!!!!!!!!!

I woke up this morning, and my thoughts returned to politics and, I thought, maybe I'll watch the Sunday shows. So I went to see who would be on, Atrios:

Face the Nation has Rubio, Kevin NotJohn Madden, Stephanie "I Will F[*]ck Your Shit Up" Cutter, Nooners, Sangers, Kleiners, Dickensoners

This Week has that asshole Rahm, Rubio, Debbie W-S, America's Pastor Ralph Reed, Van HitlerStalinPolPot Jones, Greta Van, Matty Dowd.

Meet the Press has AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH RUBIO MUST CREDIT MEET THE PRESS, America's sweetheart Rob Portman, Zombie Dee Dee Myers, Zombie Mike Murphy, The Moustache of Understanding, Helene Cooper.

Really? I mean really? Sanger, ok. But Ralph Reed, Peggy Noonan, The Moustache, Mike Murphy? Is this freaking 1996? They were terrible then and they are terrible AND irrelevant now.

So no, I'll watch Newcastle-Sunderland instead.

Open Thread.

< Saturday College Football Open Thread | George McGovern, R.I.P. >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    For those who remember the recent case of (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Angel on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 08:59:05 AM EST
    Michael Morton, the man in Texas who spent 25 years in prison for murdering his wife (a crime which he did not commit), there is good news.  Prosecutor Ken Anderson is being investigated by the State Bar, and he is also facing a court of criminal inquiry that could lead to criminal charges.    


    Interesting and complex (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by lilburro on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 01:13:58 PM EST
    discussion of Obama's debate performance, the Angry Black Man stereotype, and leadership stereotypes in general by shanikka at dkos.  

    That President Obama was rewarded for projecting strength, certainty, and yes, power is hopefully is an indication that our culture's fear of the Angry Black Man may have been weakened more than could ever have been imagined coming from a debate. It appears to be that for the first time, a Black man could get up in a white man's face, tell him where to get off, get an attitude, and take control in front of millions of people.

    America could stand to see more of this, if for no other reason than the chink in the subconscious wall of fear of the "Angry Black Man" that Obama's masterful performance unquestionably resulted in on Tuesday night.

    I hope that is true and that we see the same boldness tomorrow.

    This Jodi Cantor article re Obama and (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 03:05:01 PM EST
    race is also interesting.  I didn't see it referenced in the DK link.  

    A Complex Calculus


    Thanks for posting that (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by lilburro on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 07:16:14 PM EST
    I clicked on the link this morning on the NYT front page and hit the paywall.  That was the closest glimpse I think we've gotten on this subject from President Obama for a long time.  Especially the part about his girls looking at the Rockwell.  I wonder what they think of it all.  They seem to be carrying these expectations gracefully, too.

    Now I remember one of the reasons (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 07:24:22 PM EST
    I left DU many years ago.... shanika's descriptions of Obama being "powerful" don't seem much like leadership to me.  Getting in someone's face and getting attitude is presidential?  jeesh.
    Not that Romney looked any better.  I thought Obama won that debate and I thought it helped him.  It just surprises me what sorts of things impress people.

    You know how many white libs I know in 2008... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Dadler on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 08:24:25 PM EST
    ...who told me flat out that they loved voting for a black guy, that, having had two black stepfathers and biracial siblings, I of all people should UNDERSTAND how hard it is for a black man to be elected? How about almost every single one. I kept asking them what he was going to do, what his policies were going to be, did you not know his voting record, that he asked for Joe Lieberman of all people to be his senate mentor, and on and on. They all replied, oh that's just how politics is, you never say anything anyone can use against you, you always try to whatever. I would just sigh and say, okay, whatever, we'll see.  The rest, as they say, is history.  

    Ugly and absurd ironies abound on every side, in every nook and cranny, of a every debate about race, gender, class, you name it.  Freedom and prejudice make very strange bedfellers.

    That said, Go O, stick in my face, prove me wrong, I would be more than happy to eat a very large crow, preferably fried.


    Uhhhhhh (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by lilburro on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 08:46:43 PM EST
    look, I know you do not rate Obama's performance highly.  This post wasn't about Obama's policy or general campaign strategy it was about the Angry Black Man trope and, if you read the DK post, a rather thoughtful, IMO, discussion of that as well as gendered expectations of leadership or power presentation.  I can dislike some of his policies while appreciating or thinking about the cultural moments his Presidency is creating.  If you think he's just a black Joe Lieberman it's still significant that he's a black Joe Lieberman (and of course if Lieberman were President it would in turn be significant that he is Jewish, etc.).  I mean for goodness' sake.

    She didn't bite her rapist, so he goes free (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Towanda on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 05:24:32 PM EST
    The poor woman, already with cerebral palsy and now a victim of the so-called justice system.

    I hope there is a special corner of h*ll for these creeps -- the rapist and the justices on his side.

    Well, that story just ruined my day (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by shoephone on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 06:01:46 PM EST
    And, somehow, it fits in quite neatly with the current right wing mantras about what qualifies as rape, if the victim is really a victim, and how women sometimes have consensual sex and then cry rape because of buyer's remorse.

    Hard to believe a majority of CT Supreme A$$holes actually believes a severely disabled woman who cannot speak and can barely move should have been able to scream out and fight for her life while being raped.

    Disgusting all the way around. But since we live in the stupidest, most degraded culture, we can expect more of the same, I guess.


    Sounds like she was expected (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 06:05:28 PM EST
    to fight him off with her right index finger . . .

    That's shocking (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by sj on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 09:40:19 AM EST
    Really, really shocking.  And tragic and sad and altogether horrible.

    Jeralyn (2.60 / 5) (#22)
    by loveed on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 01:45:56 PM EST

     This is the the right wring rag were I obtained my info.

      The first part of my post was about the tone of the site. The lack of respect for those who disagree.

      The killing of the Ambassador really shook me up. As I listen to the president address, I felt extreme sadness. I thought it was a terrorist attack. With more info to follow. I thought Obama did a good job.

      What bother me was the actions by the white house that followed. Susan Rice on all the Sundays show. Denial by the president over and over. White House press secretary. Axelrod & Gibbs.

      Everyone else was labeling it a terrorist attack, State department,intelligence community, the Prime minister of Benghazi said the very next day it was a terrorist attack.

     Obama implied at the debate, he's always said it was a terrorist attack. This appears slick. Shades of  Bill Clinton " It depends on the meaning of IS".

      What Obama did was bring all the attention to the attack. It's the only thing that has been talked about since the debate.If you did not see the Obama address here's a link


      This was a heroic mission. I was amazed by the help from the Libyans. Libya is a dangerous place. I 'am surprised there not more of these attack.

      P.S I hope this put a smile on your face. link

    There is new information (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MKS on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 03:19:00 PM EST
    that the CIA report was just as Susan Rice reported it.

    To date, there is apparently no evidence of an attack planned very far in advance, or any connection to Al Qaeda.

    You can have an act of terror, as stated by Obama, and it also be something that was not planned in advance or perpetrated by Al Qaeda.


    I will remind you (1.75 / 4) (#34)
    by loveed on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 04:22:45 PM EST
    this attack was being watched in real time. Did you read the report from the State Department? So we know what Obama knew on the morning of 9/12/12

      Susan Rice appeared on the Sundays shows five days later. There was no reason for her to go on these shows, with false information. Whether she thought it was true or not. It was false.

     Two weeks later, the administration is still blaming the video.

     I expect violence in the middle east. I think there doing a good job, with all the unrest. I was impress with the Libyan people, and there deep affection for the Ambassador. I hope you know the Libyan people gave the militant 24hr. to leave. Those left, the Libyan people ran out of town.

     I will say this again, I thought this was a heroic mission. The administration have made huge gains in working with the Libyan people. This should be the conversation America is having.

      Obama,Susan Rice, Biden, gibbs,Stephine repeated false information for weeks. At the debate Obama gave the impression he's been saying, it was an attack all along.

      I have no problem with the way the attack was handle. I welcome an investigation.  



    The CIA reporting still (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by MKS on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 05:31:07 PM EST
    shows the video was identified as the motivation.

    You are ignoring this evidence.

    This is the second time around that you have ignored my points and the evidence.  You seem intent on spreading right wing talkking points without engaging in a real discussion.


    Kevin Drum has spent some time ... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Erehwon on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 06:27:18 PM EST
    explaining this tragedy: The Benghazi Controversy, Explained.

    Of course, one has to read it first ... if one doesn't want to spread the right wing talking points. But then ...


    Enough, already. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 06:19:45 PM EST
    While you're entitled to your opinion, it's been pointed out to you previously by Jeralyn herself that you're misrepresenting the facts in this case.

    Therefore, I'd offer that the only people who've lied to you about this tragedy, are those from whom you're getting your misinformation.



    Seconding the warning to stop it (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Towanda on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 06:24:35 PM EST
    loveed, as Jeralyn said to do -- and spent considerable time explaining why, apparently owing to your special circumstances.  Did you take any time to read it?  If not, do so.  

    If so, why will you not heed it?


    I forgot to mention (1.00 / 2) (#23)
    by loveed on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 01:50:27 PM EST
     I have no dog in this race. I decided long ago I was sitting this one out. The first time I will not be voting.

    Sitting it out... (none / 0) (#79)
    by unitron on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 07:14:19 AM EST
    ...although every bit as much your sacred right as stepping into the booth with a secret ballot, and just as little our business either way whether you did or why, will have the practical effect of being a vote for Romney.

    How bad does Obama have to get for Romney to be the better choice?


    I've noticed a slew of (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 08:55:07 AM EST
    Irrelevant old yackity yacks on the tube right now.  It appears that anyone who was ever controversial is being brought on to tell me what they think, and I'm supposed to watch because I'm ticked that this person still has a place in the discourse.  The only reason why they matter though is because I watch because they've pi$$ed me off so much in the past.  I'm not watching.

    I quit watching those yackity yacks years ago. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Angel on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 09:00:44 AM EST
    My blood pressure is much better, too, thank you very much.

    Just watched President Obama on the (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 09:57:53 AM EST
    Daily Show.  Talked about it with spouse.  I saw a pensive and accountable President on Benghazi, a state of being that half of my lizard brained country views as a moment of weakness. Never mind that this IS the President that did get those who attacked us on 9/11.

    The lizard brain ruled still prefer "Bring It On" even though that led to their military having their a$$ eventually handed to them in Iraq.  It wasn't a teaching moment for them.  Why?  Because there wasn't a draft?

    I do not know how to instruct the other half of my hopped up nation in what constitutes real weakness unless those of us who can be pensive and thoughtful and accountable just whip their A$$E$ at everything imaginable because we are able to be pensive, thoughtful, and accountable when we need to be and it is appropriate.  Belligerent unthinking unblinking idiots don't win at real life, they only get lucky and it is time for some luck to run out!!!!

    I agree with your assessment (none / 0) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 10:39:52 AM EST
    of President Obama's comments on Libya during the Daily Show, but his candid remarks wherein he used Jon Stewart's characterization of the situation as not optimal and that the government is a big operation, at any given time some thing screws up, is likely to be deliberately misconstrued at the next debate.  Mittens, as we know, has a distant relationship with the truth and may  run with it--taking the grieving mother of Sean Smith misunderstandings of the context of optimal to his own optimal use of the lie.  

    He did not appear to be grieving our loss (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:04:01 AM EST
    So he'll take a hit for that.  He was emotionally at that point where you want to fix things, but the Republican craziness over Benghazi has not allowed many to be able to get to that stage of dealing with what happened.  He will take a hit  even though I did see him last month many times wearing the pallor of grief.

    President Obama will, I trust, (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 12:23:15 PM EST
    be prepared for Mittens, not so much in defense but in explanation of the often confusing nature of events and the risks inherent to providing information in the fog of war.  And, importantly, that our diplomatic personnel are a significant part of  soldiering in the strategy of national security.

    At the second debate, the president did a good job of indicating empathy and commitment to protection of all who labor on the country's behalf.  Romney, if he had a question,on Libya, did not bring up the right one, and tripped as he tried to emerge from his party's self-induced bubble of unreality.  The president should have the advantage of "owning" foreign policy whereas Romney is renting it.  


    I hope so (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 03:14:51 PM EST
    It is disturbing how many Americans can be sold that Obama is wimpish and incompetent when only four short years ago Bush had our military broken, stop-lossed, and people around me whispered that to break the forces to that degree was a form of jeopardizing national security.

    The same guys who brought us to such an extreme broken place are playing for team Romney.  I struggle to understand how the race ever tightened to a place where the candidates were even?  Perhaps the only way to snap Americans out of their too easily swayed insanity and tough guy worship is a mandatory national service program of some kind.


    Your proposed solution is quite (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 04:48:08 PM EST
    drastic.  But may be necessary if the GOP prevails in this election.  Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, maybe Libya and Egypt and China.  

    Many people were arguing for it (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 05:58:54 PM EST
    When Bush kept standing up there saying that we would be staying the course in Iraq, and nothing could be done to change our course.  I used to think it was kind of radical too, but Americans in general are who have become radical.  For half of us to insist that our current President is a foreign policy failure and a wimp is to be flat out insane.  If everyone had skin in the game, I think an immediate form of sanity would set in.

    My husband used to say it was not a good idea because we need to have a professional military highly trained and skilled.  Notice though that because our forces were so broken in our recent past that they have not stopped training National Guard troops for overseas combat nor have they stopped deploying them.  If weekend warriors are good enough to serve in the war zone than everyone is.

    I don't think you should have to do military service, it should be part of what must be chosen from.  And if everyones kids might end up in some Neo-Con war I can promise you there would be some big "bull$hit" called on all this blustery insanity.


    I didn't realize National Guard (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 06:31:32 PM EST
    was still being deployed to Afghanistan.  

    Yes, I just saw another sendoff (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Towanda on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 10:21:22 PM EST
    only three weeks ago, when at an airport, of the 104th unit heading to Afghanistan.  From our area, there are as many as ever.  I don't believe the party line on the pullout.

    And I looked at those troops and wondered how many more would be lost and come home in coffins -- or severely wounded and damaged.  We have a lot of those veterans here, with brain damage so severe.


    Many Guard troops from all (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 07:51:52 AM EST
    over the U.S. are deploying to Afghanistan and Kuwait as well.  Our troops are standing down in Afghanistan now, less risk...still risk, but less risk.

    The lack of sanity in what constitutes a not wimpy foreign policy President further ticks me off because of all the head injuries our soldiers came home with and are coming home with.  Anybody voting Republican this election has lost it, and has not been around anyone with these injuries nor looked at the figures of how many people came home with such injuries.  To argue that President Obama is taking the wrong course on Iran is to not have experienced war IMO.

    The Benghazi parsing being used to paint President Obama as a failure is nothing short of nuts, and people would quickly come to terms with that reality if they weren't so removed from the consequences of war.

    The things that I think about having someone who could deploy are what would happen if someone shot down an airliner or two or more with the missiles from Libya?  It would be free range insanity then.  It was a horrible loss what happened in Benghazi, but those who lost their lives were in service to something important to the safety and sanity of the world.  And now the Republicans have outed some of our Libyan assets and placed lives in danger again and the mission and work to secure arms in Libya in jeopardy again.


    I made the mistake of (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:42:28 AM EST
    reading this  WSJ op Ed:

    James Rosen


    WSJ? I've learned to ignore that rag. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Angel on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:45:40 AM EST
    It was part of google news spotlight. (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 12:08:41 PM EST
    Even so.... :) (none / 0) (#18)
    by Angel on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 12:18:38 PM EST
    Chris Hayes' shows, early Sat and Sun mornings (none / 0) (#5)
    by DFLer on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 10:00:16 AM EST
    on MSNBC are worthy of a view. Even Mitt has said, "Gosh, he is sharp!"

    Sunday morning with Bill Moyers is always darn good, until football coverage starts, if you will.

    The avoidance of McDonalds (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 10:57:44 AM EST
    Putting their nutrition info up for easy access in the middle of a busy day has in the past meant that they could not have access to my checkbook.  I know most of the food is crap, so if for some reason I'm in their establishment I'm only visiting.  All the food is crap if I have no way to take measure.

    Now that I know how many calories are in a skinny latte, they may get some of my money from time to time.

    Put some healthier foods up there and the nutritional info and they could get even more of my money.

    Been in a MacDo exactly (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by brodie on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:33:59 AM EST
    twice in the last 20 yes.  Once recently because a female friend in the passenger seat suddenly insisted she needed a Sausage McMuffin else she couldn't survive the grueling 10 min trip from Malibu to her 3-star Santa Monica hotel.  The next more recently when coming off a grueling 3-hr plane trip I suddenly had a hankering for a Fish Filet sandwich.

    It turned out to be a disappointing sliver of fish slathered with too much sauce, a thin layer of velveta-like cheese, between two white bread tasting buns.  I thought, would it be asking too much to first ease off the sauce a bit, and second maybe add a blade or two of lettuce?  Maybe on whole grain buns?  Or at least offer that as an alternative for a modest 35 cents extra?

    Other than that I have been very good in recent decades not putting fast junk food into my body.  I wish more people stayed away, which might cause them to rethink their menus.


    I used to work with a gal who fed her 5 year old (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Angel on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:39:11 AM EST
    kid nothing but McDonald's for breakfast and dinner, and she was so very, very happy that she was able to collect ALL 100 or so Christmas ornaments they were giving as prizes with the kiddie meals.  I shudder to think about the health of that kid today.  

    grilling fresh swordfish here... (none / 0) (#20)
    by fishcamp on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 01:08:15 PM EST
    Yum. Have a little red snapper Mr. Angel (none / 0) (#24)
    by Angel on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 02:11:05 PM EST
    caught that will be our feast.

    CA Pizza Kitchen menus (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:32:02 AM EST
    included calorie info for awhile. Now they don't. Must have had an adverse effect on sales.

    I thought it was required (none / 0) (#14)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:47:17 AM EST
    for chains?

    "Was" is apparently the operative word: (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 12:07:58 PM EST
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#17)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 12:16:07 PM EST
    Guess I won't be eating there, just on general principle.

    Glenn (none / 0) (#25)
    by Mr Tuxedo on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 02:23:21 PM EST
    yesterday in the Guardian:

    Anyone who observes politics closely has a very low bar of expectations. It's almost inevitable to become cynical - even jaded - about just how inept and inane top Washington officials are. Still, even processing this through those lowly standards, I just find this staggering. Staggering and repellent. This is an elected official in Congress, the body that the Constitution designed to impose checks on the president's abuses of power, and she does not have the foggiest idea what is happening in the White House, and obviously does not care in the slightest, because the person doing it is part of the party she leads.

    Personally, I think Greenwald's attack on (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Peter G on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 06:42:03 PM EST
    Wasserman-Schultz is off base and not fair. Watch the video he is commenting on. I see no proof she is ignorant of Obama's targeted drone-strike policy, which is his accusation. I think, she honestly didn't understand what the questioner was referring to, coming up on her out of context, by using the phrase "Obama's kill list."  When she clearly didn't understand the ambush question, the interviewer just repeated it, instead of referring to drone strikes, or the NY Times front page story, or anything that might have succeeded in communicating his point. Whatever else you may think of her, I don't blame her for thinking she was being accosted by a nut and asked to comment on some crackpot paranoid conspiracy theory.

    While, admittedly, not up to date (none / 0) (#53)
    by NYShooter on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 08:26:01 PM EST
    on all the minutia regarding this interchange my immediate reaction was, "whoa there, something's not right." I regard Debbie Wasserman Schultz as one of the (few) Democratic Party's bright lights, so when I hear the attack on her, laced with such over-the-top, vituperative rhetoric I, instinctively, lean towards her defense.

    So, FWIW, your explanation of Ms Wasserman Schultz's understanding of the question speaks for me also.



    Now just hold on a minute... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 12:42:29 PM EST
    Do we or do we not know that Obama has a "kill list?"  It has been so widely reported - as Glenn states in his post, with links - that even little people like you and I are aware of it - aren't we?

    On 29 May 2012, the New York Times published a remarkable 6,000-word story on its front page about what it termed President Obama's "kill list". It detailed the president's personal role in deciding which individuals will end up being targeted for assassination by the CIA based on Obama's secret, unchecked decree that they are "terrorists" and deserve to die.

    Based on interviews with "three dozen of his current and former advisers", the Times' Jo Becker and Scott Shane provided extraordinary detail about Obama's actions, including how he "por[es] over terrorist suspects' biographies on what one official calls the macabre 'baseball cards'" and how he "insist[s] on approving every new name on an expanding 'kill list'". At a weekly White House meeting dubbed "Terror Tuesdays", Obama then decides who will die without a whiff of due process, transparency or oversight. It was this process that resulted in the death of US citizen Anwar Awlaki in Yemen, and then two weeks later, the killing of his 16-year-old American son, Abdulrahman, by drone.


    That Obama has a "kill list" has been known since January, 2010, and has been widely reported and discussed in every major American newspaper since April 2010. A major controversy over chronic White House leaks often featured complaints about this article (New York Times, 5 June 2012: "Senators to Open Inquiry Into 'Kill List' and Iran Security Leaks"). The Attorney General, Eric Holder, gave a major speech defending it.

    The reporter was not asking about drones or the drone program - and even if he was, does Wasserman-Schultz expect people to believe she doesn't have any clue what that is?  Seriously, if she's that unaware, she doesn't belong in the Congress.

    Wasserman-Schultz's body language and facial expression - not to mention that she fairly runs away from the reporter - ought to tell you something.

    Maybe you should read Glenn's post - and the many links in it - and then try to convince yourself that DWS is still believable - and that her light still shines as brightly as you thought it did.

    Something happens to people who ascend to political leadership posts - like the DNC; it becomes less about truth-telling and so much more about shilling, obfuscating and raising money.

    Hey, she's just doing her job, right?  


    "Glenn" Greenwald! (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 02:30:30 PM EST
    Why "icon" Greenwald is an idiot (2.50 / 4) (#35)
    by Politalkix on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 04:26:37 PM EST
    The pompous Greenwald stood with the Pakistani politician, Imran Khan in his single minded protest against drone strikes.link. Then Imran Khan revealed his true self. link
    Stick to your self described hedonism in Brazil, Glenn Greenwald. If I need to be informed about what is repressive and unjust in the world, I would like to hear directly from brave people like Malala Yousufzai, Akbar Ganji, Shireen Ebadiand Sima Samar, not pompous idiots and cowards like Greenwald.

    Greenwald is the most consistent (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 04:49:28 PM EST
    writer re threats to our privacy and Constitutional rights.  

    If there is a reason GG is an idiot (3.67 / 3) (#58)
    by observed on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 09:16:28 PM EST
    (very doubtful), you would be the last person to notice it. On the other hand, you speak with some authority on the topic (idiocy, not GG)

    Yes (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mr Tuxedo on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 03:03:55 PM EST
    I call him Glenn. Because that's his name. In my book, he's one of those first-name-only icons.

    I agree. But, at first I thought you meant (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 03:07:45 PM EST
    Glenn Beck.  But I had already read Greenwald's Bachmann piece.

    Yikes! (none / 0) (#31)
    by Mr Tuxedo on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 03:14:05 PM EST
    Glenn Beck. Apparently I'd repressed all memory of Glenn Beck. (Thanks a lot!)

    Like Glen Beck over on the right , or ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 06:29:20 PM EST
    Or Glenn Close in Hollywood and on Broadway?

    (My apologies to Ms. Close for including her in such shady company. And has anyone seen my daughter's pet rabbit?)


    segue: rabbits. Have you seen (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 06:32:49 PM EST
    "Seven Psychopaths"?  

    yes (none / 0) (#62)
    by kmblue on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 07:31:25 AM EST
    I thought it was awful, boring, and amazingly stupid.  But that's just me. ;)

    Did you see "In Bruges"? (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 09:43:57 AM EST
    Interesting article re Kurt Weill (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 02:36:42 PM EST
    re-discovered recordings of music he composed for World's Fair:  NYT

    Query:  how does the man who bought the LP (78s) recordings for $1 each have the right to copyright them?  

    Though he registered the copyright for the recordings, he said, already a publisher has contacted him seeking compensation.

    He may be able to copyright (none / 0) (#56)
    by Peter G on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 08:45:06 PM EST
    his electronically sound-engineered restoration of the recordings -- although the Times story certainly doesn't make that clear.  Fascinating tale, tough; thanks for highlighting it.  I heard many stories of the 1939 Worlds Fair from my parents.

    good call Peter. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by DFLer on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 09:08:31 AM EST
    That is exactly the basis of Walker's claim, according to the US Copyright office website search page:

    Type of Work:     Sound Recording
    Registration Number / Date:     SRu000892085 / 2008-07-16
    Application Title:     Railroads on Parade.
    Title:     Railroads on Parade.
    Description:     Compact disc.
    Copyright Claimant:     Guy Walker, 1958- . Address: 255 West 23rd Street, 3CW, New York, NY, 10011, United States.
    Date of Creation:     2008
    Authorship on Application:     Guy Walker, 1958- ; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: sound recording.
    Pre-existing Material:     performance.
    Basis of Claim:     sound recording, remix.

    There is another claimaint on Railroads called European American Music Corporation, from 2002, basis of claim "C.O. correspondence" Online records do not include stuff before 1978. Perhaps that is what the "correspondence " note refers to.


    Additionally (none / 0) (#70)
    by DFLer on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 01:40:07 PM EST
    There are different types of copyrights. Previously the forms were PA and CA, PA was for the authorship of, in the case of songs, the music and/or the lyrics. The CA form covered the sound recording.

    (the CO may have changed those form names.)

    So the owner of the copyrights for the compositions would have contacted Walker, as the claimed owner of the rights to the sound recordings.


    Something is telling me that sound recordings, (none / 0) (#71)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 01:40:13 PM EST
    as such, were not eligible for copyright registration before the 1976 law was passed. There was some major change in copyright law in the 70s about recordings. Yes: Interesting discussion, with further links, here.  As for my "good call" -- being a good lawyer is probably made up of 30% knowledge, 35% experience, and another 35% the instincts that knowledge and experience produce.

    BCS disses Oregon. (none / 0) (#54)
    by caseyOR on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 08:26:16 PM EST
    Bad enough the bCS ranked Florida over a still unedited Oregon last week. Now, Kansas State is ranked ahead of the still undefeated Ducks.

    Alabama is first, followed by Florida, with Kansas State third and Oregon fourth.

    BCS sucks!!!

    Should read a still undefeated Oregon, (none / 0) (#55)
    by caseyOR on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 08:27:37 PM EST
    not unedited. Unedited is what my comment was. I hate auto-correct.

    NCLS Game7, MNF, or Debate3?! (none / 0) (#59)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 10:18:00 PM EST
    Ya know, I think we really need to shorten the campaign season :D Too many conflicts this year . . .

    Da Bears! (none / 0) (#74)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 03:53:47 PM EST
    Actually I will watch the debate (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 03:55:55 PM EST
    and the Bears when the debate is not on.

    I was shocked this morning to see the NCLS is in Game 7. I have been paying 0 attention.


    I'm going with the Bears! (none / 0) (#78)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 04:55:46 PM EST
    I need Bush to rack up a few points and hoping Forte doesn't go off. Aka, I have Bush and my opponent has Forte :D I should secure the win, but ya never know. It also looks to be the most stress free viewing ;)

    GO! Giants!


    LAT theatre critic's op Ed (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 01:20:29 AM EST
    re the debates. He expects the media to lots more than rate facial expressions and body language.

    Charles McNulty

    I assume (none / 0) (#67)
    by sj on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 09:45:33 AM EST
    this is the same thing that you were linking to?  Your link did weird things on my desktop.

    Yes. (I suppose my iPhone did it!) (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 11:46:34 AM EST
    Yes, my new ip5 (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by fishcamp on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 02:13:36 PM EST
    that I was so proud of is very difficult to control.  When it rings in my pocket I have to be extremely careful that it doesn't cut people off when I grab it.  If I grab it wrong when it's not ringing it goes to strange pages of even stranger graphs.  It's too sensitive.  If I remember to tap the main off on switch on top that sends it to black then all is well for pocket grabbing.

    pocket grabbing (none / 0) (#73)
    by fishcamp on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 02:15:45 PM EST
     of iPhones that is :-)

    Do you not put the screen (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 03:58:59 PM EST
    on lock when it is in your pocket?  I always have the screen locked when it is in my pocket or lord know what it would be doing. I don't use a lock code though - not that paranoid about losing it.

    It does explain the many 'pocket-dials' I get from my sister. I bet she does not lock her screen either.


    Sorry, did not read your last sentence (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 04:00:53 PM EST
    That is what I do - push the lock button on top.

    I think the strange graphs you are talking about must be the voice control. You are probably holding down on the home button as you grab it out of your pocket. You are confusing Siri!