Thursday Night Open Thread: Crossfire Hurricane

Must-watch TV tonight: HBO premieres Crossfire Hurricane, the documentary about the Rolling Stones from 1962 to 1982.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Update: Crossfire Hurricane was mesmerizing. I'm not a documentary fan, but I could not take my eyes off it. I stayed glued through the rolling of the very last credit.

Then I turned to the X-Factor. Music is so soul-less these days. Taylor Swift gave a live performance and I couldn't help but think:

Separated at Birth:

Marianne Faithfull, 1960's:

Taylor Swift, 2012:

< Charges Dropped Against Bon Jovi's Daughter After Heroin Overdose | Denver DA to Drop Pending Marijuana Cases (Under 1 Ounce) >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This will show him by gosh (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 08:03:05 AM EST
    Puhleaze. What about just (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 08:24:52 AM EST
    flying the U.S. flag upside down?  Oh wait. That's unAmurikan.

    "Either admit you're African, or ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 01:55:32 PM EST
    ... I'll self-deport to eternity!" It's either the ultimate act of a desperate drama queen who's starved for attention, or a far more likely scenario, the sad ending for a man besieged by clinical depression and mental illness.

    (According to the original article, the Key West police found two empty bottles of Xanax and Seroquil, respectively, by 64-year-old Henry Hamilton's body. Being an openly gay man with a Republican political orientation probably didn't make things any easier for him, emotionally speaking.)

    Whatever happened to the notion that, regardless of who won and lost a particular election, the country would somehow always endure?

    I spent a good portion of a conference call the other day simply listening to two very Republican clients in Charlotte, NC who clearly did not see last week's election results coming, and were overly disconcerted and distraught as a result. In fact, they were so upset that this previously scheduled call had been postponed from last week -- twice.

    In their case, I've since concluded that it wasn't that they were necessarily upset with President Obama, but that their own chosen sources for news and information were subsequently shown to be so very, very wrong.

    The days preceding the election, they were effectively being told that the fight was, for all practical purposes, over and that they were being declared the winner on points, so they dropped their guard in anticipation -- only to walk straight into a hard uppercut to the jaw from an opponent who was still very much on his feet. Light's out, the party's over.

    Propbably without even realizing it personally, they had been lured by the seductive siren calls of the Fox News bimbos (male and female alike), and had thus become emotionally invested over the years in what proved to be a fraudulent storyline. Ten days ago, their blinders were rudely ripped away. Let there be light.

    Some people, regardless of their political orientation or persuasion, really need to dial it back a notch or two and develop some healthier perspectives on life. A good start would be ridding oneself of the self-indulgent habit of tuning out anything and everything one just doesn't want to hear.

    My condolences to Mr. Hamilton's partner, his family and his friends in Key West and elsewhere for their tragic loss.



    Fox Tried to Spin... (none / 0) (#63)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:19:05 PM EST
    ...the one thing they couldn't, verifiable results.  Even Rove bought into his own hype and polling, he really thought Romney was going to take Ohio and was visibly upset with reality.

    I don't feel sorry for any of them, there are so many sources of News and they stay with the one that differs from everyone else because they tell them what they want to hear/  Doesn't matter if it's a lie, or defies logic.  Like Benghazi, there is no conceivable reason to lie about a terrorist attack vs random violence against the US.  But they are stuck on it, making up their own facts to prove it.

    The day before the election I was speaking to a republican co-worker and he was telling me how out-of-touch the left was about the election, and mentioned that some liberal pollster on Fox was predicting Obama would take Texas.  I tried to explain that like Combs of old, they bring on these people, slap the liberal sticker on them, and them trot them out to scorn at ridiculous.

    I talk to him everyday and the election has not come up.


    I don't feel sorry for them, either. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 03:42:21 PM EST
    But still, like you do with your co-worker, I have to work with my clients.

    After they had finished emoting their political angst, I said matter-of-factly that regardless of who won and lost, one must still maintain a strong and enduring sense of faith in the country's overall resiliency, if one is to cope with the politial reality of a given election.

    "For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
    - Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (August 12, 1980)

    Then, I told them that they still have a really great idea and project that would be of tremendous benefit to at-risk youth in the Carolinas, and that together, we have a lot of work to do if their vision is to ever be fully realized. If we can successfully focus upon what unites rather than divides us, who knows what wondrous things can be accomplished.



    surprise! Banks are using investor money (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:35:54 AM EST
    - that means yours if you have a pension or mutual fund invested in mortgage backed securities - to pay off their lawsuit settlements.

    Why would it? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 12:56:40 PM EST
    Everyone agrees a serious incident like this should be investigated.

    Scott DesJarlais Abortion Scandal (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:38:57 PM EST
    NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Republican U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee testified during divorce proceedings that he and his former wife made a "mutual" decision for her to have two abortions, according to divorce transcripts released Thursday.

    Transcripts of the DesJarlais divorce proceedings also reveal that the congressman had affairs with women who worked for him, including a lab technician he was with at a hospital Christmas party. Other parts of the transcript reveal patients who said they had sex with the doctor also claiming he wrote them drug prescriptions.


    As if I need to actually write it, but he is an anti-abortion republican.

    And Dems thnk they need to compromise (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:48:32 PM EST
    with these raging Tea Bagger hypocrites.

    It has nothing to do with them thinking (1.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:55:53 PM EST
    they need to "compromise" on anything.
    Most of the "compromisers" were brought off one way or the other long ago.
    And the Tea Party is often used as cover by corrupt democrats to cover their indiscretions. Had to "compromise" with the Tea Party, ya know...

    If anything the Tea Party has been useful (none / 0) (#89)
    by lilburro on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 03:12:02 PM EST
    the fact that they are so radical has meant we can't get terrible compromises done (the Grand Bargain for ex.).

    My last recollection of major compromising was over the health bill, and that was pre-Tea Party.


    Well, of course he is anti-abortion (none / 0) (#80)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:56:44 PM EST
    For everyone else.  I am more than beyond sick and tired of the overwhelming hypocrisy of these Republicans who believe that their "rules" apply to everyone else, except themselves.

    What a crap day (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 08:10:41 PM EST
    I'm sick of people,  and some winger who knows I' m liberal asks my poodle tonight if that's her Obama celebratory Afro....phucking a$$hole.  Maybe I'll watch a documentary, something that actually desires to be fact based.

    I should bring Roxy! down to visit (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 08:15:13 PM EST
    and we can walk our dogs together. Roxy! is half white/half black ;)

    How old is your pup now?


    She and Josh have the same bday (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 09:40:20 PM EST
    In January.  She will be two.  You know, I read and read about their adult coat being in around 12 months but hers wasn't done until 18 months.  She has a great big top knot though that we band up because I think Josh should show her this spring and she has to have it to show.  She has turned out beautiful but  she has serious poodle top knot or Obama celebratory Afro depending.  Oy!

    And she is technically (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 09:53:02 PM EST
    Considered blue but she is a very black blue, not silver blue.  If she were white or cream you just couldn't get the same bang for your buck out of saying something like that unless our President sported a wussy Liberal Jewish fro.

    Ordinarily... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by unitron on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 10:27:53 PM EST
    ...I'm not in favor of dog bites, but...

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:34:00 AM EST
    after a cursory look at facebook this morning I have finally realized that conservatives hate women, African Americans, Hispanics and unions. I probably have left some group out because it is hard to keep track. I guess poodles are now in the "hate" category because of their fur. Can someone give me a Valium???? Living in a red state can really be tough sometimes.

    I think you covered the big 4 (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:40:43 AM EST
    I'll add poor people, but they intersect the other groups.

    As the white owner of blonde Anglo dogs I don't get a lot of blowback. But you can sense the tension when a Hispanic walks into the park with a pitbull, or an African-American with a rottie. So ridiculous.


    They're (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:22:22 AM EST
    kind of okay with poor people as long they are willing to work for $1.00 an hour and starve to death. As long as they're not willing to starve to death, yeah, poor people go on the list.

    Gays, you left out gays. The disabled? They (none / 0) (#24)
    by Angel on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:40:24 AM EST
    are probably on that list as well.  

    How could (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:20:56 AM EST
    I have forgotten /face-palm. I guess since Romney didn't repeat Bush's overt gay bashing campaign it must have slipped my silly mind.

    How could you miss the (none / 0) (#27)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:49:05 AM EST
    "illegals" who are flooding the country and taking jobs away from real Americans?  Unless you meant for them to be a subset of "hispanics."

    Oh, and the gays - lotta hate for them, too.

    And Muslims, all of whom are either terrorists, or related to terrorists and who all harbor fantasies of destroying America even if they are living exemplary lives; it's just an act, you know.

    Sometimes I want to ask these people if they aren't just exhausted from maintaining such a constant level of anger and hate.  Or if they ever worry they will run out of hate before they run out of things to hate.

    Honestly, Facebook already just annoys me in general; if I had to put up with the kind of stuff you're seeing, I'd just close my account and never look back.  Or, I'd find a way to entertain myself by providing material I knew would make them spontaneously combust - I bet that would be easy to do.  Wish I knew why, when families have opposing political views, it seems to be those on the left side of the issues who self-censor in order to maintain some level of harmony.


    All (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:29:28 AM EST
    Hispanics are "illegals" in their mind.

    Oh, I forgot about Muslims. The list keeps getting longer and longer for them.

    Well, the hate thing might be wearing thin as one fundamentalist friend said she is giving up on Hannity and Rush and even said Hannity is annoying her. So after 20 years of bogus outrage from these nitwits come people are apparently getting exhausted from all this. The thing is though if I had been lied to like these people have been by their "leaders" that alone would be reason enough to give it up.

    If they keep up what they are doing they will be the recipient of another butt kicking at the polls in 2016.


    and don't forget the mm people... (none / 0) (#37)
    by fishcamp on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 12:28:06 PM EST
    And, those real moochers........ (none / 0) (#113)
    by NYShooter on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 12:04:29 AM EST

    After being supported with free meals, housing, and medical care while assigned to places like Iraq and Afghanistan , they come home, many with body parts missing and/or maimed, and expect the care to keep on coming.

    What a bunch of Wussies.  Thank goodness we have realistic Leaders like Simpson & Bowles, "real" men, gutsy guys making tough decisions. And, the sooner the veterans realize they're part of the problem the sooner they'll STFU, and take their place along side the millions of other un/under-employed people still believing in the American Dream.

    Mitt Romney almost won the "real war", the war against white men. Thanks to Fox News we still have a Christmas to celebrate, and if those veterans, and their crutches, think we're going to bust the budget for them, and their so-called injuries, well, they don`t know Romney/Ryan as well as they should.

    Finally, nobody should be confused by the cutting that Obama will be proposing.  You see, there's a big, big difference between the betrayal perpetrated on our Seniors by Democrats than by Republicans. I don't know what it is just yet, but I'm sure if I look at Obama's website it'll be right there, in black and white.


    Poodle hate? Reason is obvious! (none / 0) (#82)
    by unitron on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:59:23 PM EST
    Like John Kerry, there's something vaguely "French" about them.

    : - )


    i just stopped logging into (none / 0) (#115)
    by Amiss on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 01:40:10 AM EST
    FB unless is to get in touch with ex-stepchildren. Much happier days, too.

    Is this someone who lives nearby? (none / 0) (#12)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 12:13:10 AM EST
    Your poodle could leave a gift on his lawn. You know, just to be neighborly.

    this movie is mesmerizing (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 08:46:22 PM EST
    way exceeding my expectations.

    I even learned something (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 09:34:34 PM EST
    The Rolling Stones don't follow their drummer, they follow their bassist and it gives their music its distinctive wobble.  Never heard it until they gave the secret away.  Now I hear it clearly

    Hah! I just learned that also :) n/t (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 09:35:48 PM EST
    Keith talked about it a lot in his (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:04:38 AM EST
    book. Really interesting!!!

    I recorded the doc but have not had a chance to watch it yet. Really looking forward to it based on these rave reviews!


    I thought someone (none / 0) (#17)
    by brodie on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 08:54:56 AM EST
    maybe Charlie Watts, say that he follows the lead of Keith the natural rhythm guitarist, not the bassist?  Some sort of wobble effect ensues which I don't quite get, but I'll take their word for it.

    You;re video looks great... (none / 0) (#4)
    by fishcamp on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 09:17:54 PM EST
    unfortunately I don;t get HBO...I do get every sports channel known to mankind but not HBO.  Itshay...that;s ig pay atlin lay   You remember pig latin.  I once had a French girl friend that thought I was understanding her telephone calls so she started speaking French pig latin.   Yes, I was lost.

    I don't see the resemblance (none / 0) (#10)
    by shoephone on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 10:54:26 PM EST
    between Marianne Faithfull and Taylor Swift. Maybe the hair, but otherwise...

    The greatest non-jazz show I ever attended was Marianne Faithfull and pianist Paul Trueblood playing the songs of Kurt Weill, nearly 20 years ago. In a word: amazing.

    Sounds intriguing. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 11:33:57 PM EST
    I recently bought the digitally remastered CD of the Stones' classic 1972 double album Exile on Main Street, which was re-released a few months ago on the occasion of its 40th anniversary. It's even better than I remembered it. In my humble opinion, there are very few if any opening tracks that are as kick-a$$ as "Rocks Off."

    Huff Po headline: (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 08:33:45 AM EST

    "Plans for safety net incomplete" (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:55:57 AM EST
    "Sources say both sides fear going over the edge and American people finding out the cliff is no cliff at all."

    If I wrote the headline, it would read: (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:47:22 AM EST

    Just heard Patty Murray on NPR bascialy saying exactly that. Anybody who ever trusted these phonies to protect SS and Medicare from further cuts is smoking something a lot stronger than weed.


    Meet the Fakers (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 01:02:15 PM EST
    So now they've had their meeting; here's the upshot:

    "We're prepared to put revenue on the table as long as we solve the real problem," said Senate Minority Leader McConnell, referring to spending on popular programs like Medicare and Social Security, after the meeting.

    McConnell is typically reluctant to acknowledge that higher taxes will result from any budget negotiations.

    His ideological counterpart, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was equally, guardedly optimistic.

    "I feel confident that a solution may be in sight," Pelosi said.

    It's so nice they all made nice. And now...

    Let's Eat!


    So, maybe the Democrats will (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 01:05:50 PM EST
    take the House in the Midterm:

    During the meeting, an aide to an influential House conservative told TPM, "the GOP conference is still much more conservative than it is moderate, and folks in the House are not going to compromise their principles because a Democrat-crafted and media-driven narrative told them to do so."

    Except that (none / 0) (#46)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 01:16:10 PM EST
    we all know they will.

    If wishes were horses...


    The reason it won't matter: (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 01:19:58 PM EST
    because the Democrats are going to compromise away our SS and Medicare. And that won't get them any closer to taking back the House in 2014.

    Purina is too expensive (none / 0) (#47)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 01:18:43 PM EST
    It has to be the "store brand" that has a lot of filler in it.  :-(  

    Well, Costco has its own (none / 0) (#52)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 01:21:51 PM EST
    "Kirkland" brand, which is always a very good deal. You just have to buy it in bulk.

    But will they (none / 0) (#90)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 03:13:20 PM EST
    be able to afford buying it "in bulk"?  Geez, I don't even know why we are talking about seniors and cat food.  It sure doesn't say much about where this country is heading, does it?

    Will anyone listen to Mark Begich? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 01:21:10 PM EST
    He has a solution:

    * Increases Benefits for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities. Currently, Social Security benefits are adjusted by the Consumer Price Index for workers. However, costs and spending patterns for seniors do not mirror those of the workforce. That is why Sen. Begich's bill calls for adjusting cost-of-living increases with a Consumer Price Index specifically for the elderly which was created to more accurately measure the costs of goods and services seniors actually buy.

    * Lifts the Cap on High-Income Contributions.
    Current law sets a cap based on income at $113,700 for paying into Social Security. If an individual's wages hit that total for the year, they no longer pay into the program. Sen. Begich's bill lifts the cap and asks higher income earners to pay Social Security on all their earnings in order to increase the program's revenue stream and extend the overall solvency of the program.

    * Extends Social Security for approximately 75 years through modest revenue increases gradually implemented over the course of seven years.

    Something tells me that, just like single-payer, this is another obvious solution that will be taken "off the table."  The Boehners and McConnells and Pelosis and Hoyers and Conrads aren't going to let Begich into the club - and neither is Obama.

    I've been asking for a long time where the fairness is in giving what amounts to a raise to anyone whose income goes over the current cap, and no one ever seems to have an answer.


    Bernie Sanders was just talking about this (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by desmoinesdem on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 04:32:45 PM EST
    yesterday at a press conference involving a bunch of other Dems, like Tom Harkin of Iowa.

    As we know, (none / 0) (#56)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 01:35:03 PM EST
    simply raising the cap would solve any funding issues. But no one in Congress is talking about that, the president isn't talking about that, and the media is too stupid to bring it up.

    Of course, since SS isn't what created the deficit in the first place, the whole Grand Bargain scheme is a big lie anyway.

    Today, Trumka referred to the fiscal cliff as a manufactured crisis. But we've seen this movie before. The unions and the House "progressives" make a bunch of noise, and then fold in the end.

    I've spoken to both my senator's offices today, as well as my congressman's. At least McDermott is on record as resisting any cuts to SS and Medicare -- for now. But he has so little real power, even among his Democratic colleagues, that it's all for naught. And Murray and Cantwell will do Obama's bidding, no matter what.

    Short of rioting in the streets, I see this as a done deal. Destroying the lives of millions, and all for a miniscule raise in tax cuts for the oligarchs.


    No one is talking about raising the cap... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Farmboy on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:21:53 PM EST
    except for Obama. And Reid & Pelosi have backed the idea.

    Yeah, there are Dems who aren't talking about it. But the party leadership is talking about it, so I see it as a done deal. Benefiting the lives of millions, and all for a miniscule raise in taxes.


    Yeah, right (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:46:07 PM EST
    It's been mentioned as a frigging side note, because they are not really serious about it. Hence, we heard nothing about it as part of the agenda of today's meeting. It is NOT the Democratic talking point. It is lip service. Their talking point is that they'll consider "reforming" SS and Medicare - cuting future benefits, and raising the eligibility age -- if in return they get the miniscule tax hike on the rich. THAT'S the talking point. Ad nauseum. If they were serious about raising the cap they wouldn't even be entertaining the Grand Bargain "reform" nonsense in the first place. Because SS has nothing to do with the budget or the deficit. SS has a $2.7 trillion surplus.

    Real life: The Dems are going to sell us down the river on SS and Medicare.


    That line has been said since 1992 (none / 0) (#114)
    by Farmboy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:07:42 PM EST
    "The Dems are going to sell us down the river on SS and Medicare."

    Hasn't happened yet, despite decades of opportunity. Don't see it happening any time soon either, IMO. But hey, if it makes you happy to believe it, by all means have fun.

    My fun has been in watching the GOP gnaw on their own innards for last week and a half. To each their own.


    Don't fall off. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Angel on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:41:35 AM EST
    Did they jump or were they pushed? (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 12:58:34 PM EST
    The twinkie is dead (none / 0) (#16)
    by Slado on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 08:53:31 AM EST
    waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah (none / 0) (#51)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 01:21:18 PM EST
    I likes me some twinkies :(

    Hopefully someone else will produce and sell them.


    Maybe if you ask Hostess really nice, ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:06:06 PM EST
    ... they'll send you the recipe and instructions, and you can make them yourself.

    And speaking for myself only, you can have them all to yourself, too. Twinkies -- BLECCHHH!!! Once they're no more, you can always melt down 1.5 ounces of processed white sugar in a spoon over an open flame, and then use a syringe to inject it directly into your bloodstream.




    I never liked twinkies (none / 0) (#69)
    by Slado on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:39:11 PM EST
    But I do like oatmeal pies

    Little Debbie (none / 0) (#116)
    by Amiss on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 01:56:38 AM EST
    Their fresh from the plant in Chattanooga pecan pies are great.

    I don't see any resemblance (none / 0) (#19)
    by brodie on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:07:29 AM EST

    Interesting Stones doc, even as I could have done without a couple of graphic shots of Mick early on.

    I also still grumble about their allowing the Hell's Angels to be security at Altamont.  But then I recall that was actually what was done back then for West Coast concerts.

    Earlier that year for example, the Angels were hired to patrol a huge and now mostly forgotten outdoor weekend concert in June '69 at Devonshire Downs in LA's San Fernando Valley.  Had the Stones been aware of how that one nearly went seriously out of control and ended up being mostly a failure -- "downer" in the parlance of the day -- they might have thought twice about security issues for Altamont.

    I see the similarity (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by rdandrea on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 01:04:59 PM EST
    Too much eye makeup on both of them.

    Actually Faithfull's is understated (none / 0) (#96)
    by brodie on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 04:16:23 PM EST
    especially for the sixties when a lot of fashionable women seem to have liked to highlight the eyes with prominent strokes.  See eg Dusty Springfield. Agnetha Faltskog in her teen solo artist years.

    In this area Taylor Swift looks heavily painted up more like a Sixties woman than MF.

    My 2c, or less, on women's eye makeup from yesteryear.


    Actually Taylor Swift (none / 0) (#21)
    by brodie on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:33:43 AM EST
    looks a lot more like either Twiggy or Jean Seberg, two hot blonde celebs of the Sixties.

    Marianne Faithfully has those thick luscious lips and broad smile that are distinctive and that very few others have. Certainly not Swift.


    Perhaps Taylor Swift can take up ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:31:00 PM EST
    ... cigarettes, alcohol and heroin, and in 30 years she can sound like Marianne Faithfull in 1999. IMHO, the album Vagabond Ways represents Faithfull's most introspective work as a singer / songwriter and recording artist, in which she invokes the demons of her past with uncompromising honesty and to great effect.

    If you're a fan, I highly recommend Vagabond Ways, but with the caveat that Ms. Faithfull obviously never intended it for an afternoon of easy listening.


    That's part of why I love her (none / 0) (#84)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 03:02:27 PM EST
    She's not some dumba$$ little ingenue whose been manufactured by the record company. Marianne Fathfull is the real deal, and she doesn't hide her past. When I saw her in 90's, I was blown away by the sheer power of this woman to mesmerize an entire audience for two straight hours -- just her and her piano player.

    Agreed. Marianne Faithfull may have ... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 03:58:40 PM EST
    ... started out as simply another pretty face in the music business -- honestly, I never really cared for her '60s "As Tears Go By" mode -- but she's matured over the ensuing decades into the consummate artist, whose interpretation of a lyric can cause you to sit up and pay attention to what she's telling you.

    As they say, whatever doesn't kill you can only make you stronger, and Faithfull unhesitatingly infuses her own life's experiences into her music, with results that are both magical and thought-provoking.


    Is that the album where (none / 0) (#99)
    by brodie on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 04:27:02 PM EST
    MF's voice sounds an octave lower than Marlene Dietrich?  Yes, I think I've heard a few tracks.

    But prefer the voice of the younger, pre-smack beauty Marianne and her easily accessible pop tunes.  And, yes, I'm just old enough to recall seeing her appearances at the time on tv shows like Shindig and similar.  

    Nostalgia freak I suppose.  And have long-established likes about how my music is served up.


    Yes, it is. (none / 0) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:14:51 PM EST
    Vagabond Ways isn't for everyone, and I can appreciate that you find the evolution of Ms. Faithfull's voice to be disconcerting.

    I simply noted that album to highlight Ms. Faithfull's transformation from '60s pop diva to the wisened and contemplative chanteuse she's become in her later years. Hers is the type of voice that comes only from the experience of a lifetime.


    Lawyer Fees (none / 0) (#20)
    by RickyJim on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:15:53 AM EST
    There are two things about this article I don't understand.

    1. Why is it up to a trio of Federal Judges how much lawyers should make for a local case?

    2. Why it is it considered reasonable that the defendant has to pay the plaintiffs' lawyers $290,000 in fees in a case that was settled for $30,000?

    Federal cause of action: 42 U.S.C. (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:47:07 AM EST
    section 1983.  So federal court jurisdiction.  The city's lawyers messed up apparently in drafting the settlement agreement.  Should have spelled out the $30,000 amount included costs and attorney fees.  

    Here's one for Jeralyn: (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:48:48 AM EST
    There is some visual resemblance (none / 0) (#35)
    by lilburro on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 11:26:58 AM EST
    but Taylor Swift sure is no Marianne Faithfull.  I don't know her whole catalogue by any stretch of the imagination by I love Summer Nights and Broken English (with a video by Derek Jarman!).  

    "Broken English" is fantastic (none / 0) (#36)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 11:31:05 AM EST
    And "Blazing Away" is one of the best live albums ever.

    Its pretty obvious the administration (none / 0) (#39)
    by Slado on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 12:51:05 PM EST
    didn't want people to know or think this was a terrorist attack.

    I have no idea why?

    Obama is betting the press will continue to cover for him.  This testimony makes it harder but not impossible.

    Again I really don't know why the administration went to so much trouble to push the video narrative.   Terrorists attack us all the time.   It's awful the ambassador got killed and the State department and CIA dropped the ball letting it happen but come on.  What are they trying to hide?  It can't be that bad and all this scandal is much worse then the two day news story it otherwise would have been.  Maybe it's as simple as they where in crazy campaign mode and didn't want anything to cost them votes.

    I never saw that the administration (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:21:38 PM EST
    said there wasn't a terrorist type attack involved, they just wouldn't say that the video played no part and even in the Petraeus testimony he said that there were essentially two threads of violence taking place.  There have been plenty of reports available though of them tracking down those responsible that made it clear the attack was well planned.  One participant was tracked to Egypt where he blew himself and his apartment building up before being arrested.

    When five of the eight Republicans who were in front of the cameras screaming conspiracy don't show up to the Petraeus Benghazi briefing though...there was no great conspiracy.  And they all knew it too. What a horrible sham, what a bunch of clucking old gossipy liars starting with McCain.


    Well, there's all sorts of theories (2.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 01:23:30 PM EST
    out there and some of them are rather wild, as that "Whiskey" post I linked to showed.

    It's possible something hush-hush (maybe the prisoners thing) was going on there to the extent that the Administration was willing to "sacrifice" a few people, but we'll probably never know.


    Don't sell yourself short (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 05:02:09 PM EST
    In fact, both of the links you provided were to evidence-free, wingnut "theories"... but you cited the Whiskey post in a failed attempt to make yourself (and the other post) sound more reasonable by comparison.



    Man, I missed you while you were gone. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:33:19 PM EST
    slayerszero, links must be in (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:20:06 PM EST
    html format or they skew the site. Your comment with a long url was deleted.

    It is a shame we are such a profoundly stupid (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    nation that whether or not it got labeled a terrorist attack was a campaign issue at all. But here we are.

    I am all for investigating to see what happened. I don't expect the results to have any impact whatsoever on any policy going forward, but it is interesting, and the real story should always be told.


    Slado: "Again I really don't know why the administration went to so much trouble to push the video narrative."

    ... not the Obama administration. And again, by attempting to manufacture a political scandal out of the whole cloth of a particular tragedy, Republicans are ascribing their own recent behavior and motives to those of their Democratic opponents.

    And yet, you'll still wonder aloud why your side lost the just-concluded presidential election.


    Peter King has been dragging (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 01:20:47 PM EST
    around an oversized grinding axe and his own portable grandstanding platform for a few years now..

    When he says Patreus "minimized" the spontaneous aspect of the attack, is he saying that Patreus never mentioned it, or does he mean that he, King, put his fingers in his ears and went la-la-la whenever Patreus did talk about it?

    Also, what no one seems to want to publicly talk about is that we're dealing with hundreds of flashpoints around the world, and millions of people who are militantly p.o'd at the U.S, and that, under those circumstances, there's no way that we're EVER going to be able to prevent every terrorist attack.

    More than anything, this situation is looking more and more like a GOP of diminishing relevance desperate for any opening in order to do an imitation of mid-nineties sleazeball Gingrich.    

    Most People Want to Know What Went Wrong... (none / 0) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 01:22:35 PM EST
    ...but unfortunately the Fox Viewing crowd, you, believe this is some grand conspiracy.  It's just not there, even King could spin today against Obama, but he sure as hell tried.

    From Your Link:

    There were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger about the film may be to blame, the official said.

    The CIA eventually disproved those reports, but not before Petraeus' initial briefing to Congress the day after the attack when he discussed who might be behind the attack and what prompted it. During that briefing, he raised Ansar al Sharia's possible connection as well as outrage about the film, the official said.

    Earlier an official said that Petraeus' aim in testifying was to clear up "a lot of misrepresentations of what he told Congress initially."

    Scott, I don't think anyone necessarily (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:10:16 PM EST
    wants there to have been a conspiracy, but I don't think we really have enough information yet - and we may never have enough information - to definitively and categorically state that there wasn't something "off" about what happened in Benghazi.

    And as much as Congress has been clamoring for Petraeus to testify about what the CIA knew, I'm not so sure David Petraeus' credibility meter is running at an all-time high, is it?  He was saying one thing while others in the CIA were saying something else: is it normal for there to be conflicting reports from the same agency?  He says he intends to clear that up, but I don't know that we'll be favored with anything more than leaked assessments of his testimony.

    And now that we know Petraeus is being investigated for, essentially, misuse of agency perks in furtherance of his affair with Broadwell, one has to wonder whether the real conspiracy is about obliterating Petraeus' credibility on Benghazi.

    Maybe you and a few others here are confident in your declaration that there's nothing to see here, but I'm not so sure I feel the same way.  I get that no one wants to have anything bad blowback on Obama or the administration, but is the political fallout really what should be driving this - from either end or either side?  For sure, the GOP is frothing at the mouth for the chance to bring Obama down, so I don't know that I can trust their take on things, either.

    Who can you trust?  Who can you believe?  When everything that gets filtered down to us seems to have some kind of agenda attached to it, I'm not sure there's anyone I trust or believe.

    And I'm not too thrilled, frankly, that Jane let's-go-to-war-with-Iran Harman's name has surfaced as a possible replacement for Petraeus as head of the CIA.


    Oh, ugh (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:52:50 PM EST
    Jane Harman!  When she was entered the 1998 California race for governor, she called herself "the best Republican in the Democratic Party."  Link.
    Among many, many other reasons not to champion Jane Harman.  The AIPAC controversy (see link above).  She supported the Iraq War (okay, I realize that way too many other Dems did, too).  She submitted "HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which passed in the House 404-6. The ACLU claimed the bill included unconstitutional limitations on free speech and beliefs."  Her defense of
    the Bush administration's use of international (cross-border) warrantless wiretapping through the National Security Agency, saying: "I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities." Harman suggested that both the original "despicable" whistleblowers and The New York Times, which broke the story, should be investigated, and in the case of The Times, "limits on press immunity" should be looked into.

    No, I'm also not too thrilled with her name surfacing as a CIA Director.  :-(

    Conspiracy fire wood (none / 0) (#75)
    by Slado on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:51:06 PM EST
    Kelly visits White House 2 days before election

    Oh, sweet Jesus, Mary and Joseph! (none / 0) (#88)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 03:11:10 PM EST
    I hereby quote from your own link:

    "[Jill Kelley] took the [White House tour] on Sunday, Nov. 4 --  just five days before former Gen. David Petraeus resigned. Kelley was joined on the tour by her husband, sister, sister's child, and three children."

    That's it. She took the official tour of the White Housse with her family on Nov. 4, the same tour that every other toursit takes.

    Do you even bother to READ your own links, before offering them here within some delusionally imbecilic context?


    Ignore Slado (none / 0) (#109)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 07:50:50 PM EST
    I think he has become even more dumb after shaving his moustache (he lost his bet that Mittens would win).

    But isn't that exactly what Scott said ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:56:41 PM EST
    Anne: "[But] I don't think we really have enough information yet - and we may never have enough information - to definitively and categorically state that there wasn't something 'off' about what happened in Benghazi."

    ... at the beginning, that we all want to know what happened in Benghazi?

    I know Scott's perfectly capable of speaking for himself, but from my perspective, I think he's rightly taking issue with those people who are mindlessly condemning the Obama's administation's actions in the wake of this incident for their own transparently obvious political reasons, and further, are doing so without any due regard on their own part for fact and truth.



    Yes, I understand that that's what Scott (none / 0) (#92)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 03:30:54 PM EST
    said at the beginning of his comment.  

    I'm just not sure that "our" side has any more of a lock on fact and truth than the Fox News/John McCain/Peter King crowd does.

    And what I've been having a problem with is that, lately, "wait-and-see" has started to look a lot like "nothing to see here - move along," and that bothers me more than a little.

    Wanting to wait for the truth is not a bad thing, but when we advocate for it, it doesn't do anything to engender or encourage a similar stance from the other side; the other side takes full advantage and goes full bore on whatever their worst-possible-scenario is, and it begins to be all people hear.  So, we end up having to jump back in to shout "not it didn't" every time the other side says "Obama/the administration did this terrible thing!"

    I'd like to think the truth will reveal what happened in Benghazi and that we handled it appropriately, but I'm not sure we will ever learn enough for either side to feel vindicated in whatever position they took.


    You've got a very good point. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 04:17:18 PM EST
    But I'd also argue that we're also probably never going to get to the truth of anything, as long as Republicans continue to show a willingness to manufacture scandal where none might otherwise exist, and an ingratiating media remains faithfully committed to trafficking in false political equivalencies.

    This has undoubtedly caused more than a few people to simply throw up their hands in frustration and disengage from the discussion, rather than have to endure any longer the insults, the taunting and the disingenuous arguments of these eternal adolescents.


    What ? (none / 0) (#83)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 03:02:02 PM EST
    How did you get that from what I wrote.  Who knows what is to see, but I do know what the right has been pushing, which is they lied, even if proven true, doesn't really mean anything.  So they called it a random act of violence when was a terrorist attack.

    It's not about nothing to see, it about nothing there of any significance, certainly nothing that will go back to Obama.  The worse they are going to 'uncover' IMO is that the process to get security and who makes that call was flawed process. they might even find a couple of people who made bad decision and deal with them.

    I just assumed all of this would go away after the election, but apparently not.  It sucks 4 people died, but come on, if we are going to place ambassadors in failed states, some of them aren't coming back.  We can hold hearings all day long, but it all amounts to a lot of people in the world don't like us and they are going to kill some of us, and the odds are much better if you are in a failed state on September 11th.


    P.S.: I agree 100% about Jane Harman. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 03:02:49 PM EST
    That woman brings absolutely nothing to the table, save for her almost slavish willingness to be requisitely self-deluding at politically opportune times.

    Well (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 01:41:55 PM EST
    that "it just won't go away" aspect of the story DOES have a tremendous amount to do with the tack that Fox, and the right wing paranoia mongers of talk radio are taking..

    The same people who could only say after the 3,000 dead on 9/11, that "Bush prevented another attack"..

    This non-story is 90% rightwing horsesh*t.


    "Non Story" (none / 0) (#59)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 01:56:54 PM EST
    And you know this... how?

    put it this way.. (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:25:16 PM EST
    it's a non-story compared to what the washed up hacks, hatchet men, and talk radio jackdaws are trying to make of it..

    Valarie Plame was a non story too (1.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Slado on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:46:46 PM EST
    and that lasted for years.

    That's how Washington works.  

    When you're the party in power the "non stories" focus on you.


    False equivalency (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:54:27 PM EST
    The administration in question outed a covert CIA agent as a way of punishing Joe Wilson, who had exposed their b.s. arguments to invade Iraq.

    Re Bengazi, there is no proof of any lying or corruption surrounding the attack on the consulate.

    Note the word "proof."


    "Non story"? (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 05:04:25 PM EST
    The outing of a CIA agent by an administration for political purposes is a "non-story"?



    Because you and yours have ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:43:48 PM EST
    ... never proved that it WAS a conspiracy. All you have is your own innuendo. Period. End of discussion.

    I think that most of us here at TL have demonstrated that we're perfectly willing to defer judgment in this matter until the investigations are completed and all the facts are known. Why can't you demonstrate the same sort of patience and maturity?


    My Conceptions Are Formulated... (none / 0) (#60)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:03:05 PM EST
    ...from your posts.  Don't get mad at me because I think someone who posts Fox News talking points, frequently, is a Fox News Viewer.

    the comments insulting you (none / 0) (#107)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:21:26 PM EST
    were deleted. Slayerszero needs to read our commenting rules.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#111)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 08:23:16 PM EST
    I'm not a Fox news viewer, and that untruth was used to insult me. Perhaps you could take that slander down as well or do you only complain about snarky comebacks when they are from people with views you don't like?

    it was not an insult or name-calling (none / 0) (#112)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:01:18 PM EST
    You can respond by denying you are a Fox News viewer. Insults are personal attacks that usually involve name-calling. I don't follow the conversations here on politics for the most part, I just delete comments that contain personal attacks and name-calling and I do it without regard to the political views expressed.

    Did anyone notice that posts (none / 0) (#86)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 03:03:14 PM EST
    From both the leftwing establishment (KOS)and the leftwing resistance (antiwar.com) were put up detailing the connection to pro-isreal businesspeople and think tanks that both Broadwell and Kelly both had?

    My God, this is going to be a movie someday.

    I don't (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 05:23:04 PM EST
    think anti-war. com is left wing. It seems more libertarian than anything. There used to be a lot of righties that posted there who called themselves paleoconservatives.

    I might have to go read them (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 05:35:50 PM EST
    One of my old friends from youth is a Libertarian and he's an attorney so he is capable of talking about it all and not sounding like a loon.  He's very pro-gun and very anti-war and reading his thoughts often fries my mind.  I am still unable to grasp the Libertarian mindset.  In the end he chose Romney.

    Laurel and Hardy (none / 0) (#110)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 08:10:12 PM EST
    Laurel and Hardy go after Rmoney.