Sunday Morning Open Thread

Open Thread.

< An Ideological Realignment Driven by Demography | Monday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Sunday morning (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:46:25 AM EST
    A good time for a cartoon.

    The GOP serious proctology exam (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:19:35 AM EST
    After the 2008 general elections, the GOP decided that an extended primary battle with lots of debates was actually a good thing. It made BHO a better candidate, enabled Democrats to build a better infrastructure and GOTV operation in crucial swing states and fired up the base. So they decided that they would schedule lots of debates during the 2012 primary schedule.

    Now Mittens is blaming the high number of debates during the primaries as the cause of his downfall.

    I am getting the feeling that in 2016, the GOP primary schedule will have very few debates and all of them will be organized by FOX.

    Mitt has finally figured out (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by rdandrea on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:40:02 AM EST
    that exposure is something you die of.

    It (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 03:58:50 PM EST
    seemed to me that there is a consensus that people would get compensated by the government for what they lost because of the hurricane.

    I'm not at all sure about that.

    In any case, 200 people are about to have their houses bulldozed in NYC - mostly in Staten Island. That's because the hurricane left their dwellings no longer structurally sound.

    I hope that these people can receive the help they need.

    Maybe that's socialist of me.

    And then, it occurred to me that since we're spending about 300 million dollars a day for the war in Afghanistan, if we call a halt to it for 16 hours we could give a million bucks to each of the victims for a nice new home.

    Maybe we could then expand the idea;
    No war here, 200 million, no war there, another few hundred million - It could add up to real money.

    As long as it is retroactive (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Amiss on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:31:28 PM EST

    Thankfully (none / 0) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:18:37 PM EST
    Sandy was a small hurricane. It was a good tuneup for what global warming will unleash on states further north in the future as ocean temps rise.

    If I lived anywhere near the coast from Georgia north, I'd start looking into South Florida building codes.


    It (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:14:05 PM EST
    is no comfort to learn that the US is so gung-ho on drilling and pipelines that it will be the world's biggest exporter of oil within five years. Or so I read.

    So much for ecology.
    So much for our country and the rest of the planet.

    And, I'm willing to bet that the price at the pump will remain as high as ever. As high as when we were dependent on "foreign" oil.

    They is us and we is them.


    Pogo Possum (none / 0) (#71)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 01:51:01 PM EST
    We have met the enemy, and he is us.


    That report is misleading (none / 0) (#72)
    by rdandrea on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 02:13:16 PM EST
    because it considers oil shale in the equation.

    Living at ground zero of oil shale country, I can tell you that there's not enough water in Western Colorado to produce significant quantities of oil from shale.

    Oil shale is always the next big thing.  It has been since the Victorian era.  It looks great when the price of oil is high, but then the price of production is high also.  It's always just over the horizon.  Boom and bust, boom and bust, but never a drop produced.


    Actually... (none / 0) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 12:03:02 PM EST
    ...Sandy's official title is Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy.  Go figure.

    It wasn't a hurricane and I believe the only reason they aren't calling it Storm Sandy is because storms don't have names.

    I read somewhere that Sandy effected 2/3rds of the people in the US in some way.


    Sandy was a hurricane (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by rdandrea on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 01:07:27 PM EST
    until just before it came ashore.  Then it was a post-tropical cyclone.

    The difference is important to homeowners and insurance companies.  Many coastal insurance policies charge a flat deductible for non-hurricane damage, but charge a percentage deductible for hurricane damage--usually much more.  The day after Sandy came ashore, the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance announced that since Sandy was not a hurricane when it came ashore, non-hurricane flat deductibles would apply to all Sandy claims.  That didn't make the insurance companies happy.


    Yes, I'm sure (none / 0) (#70)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 01:45:58 PM EST
    that the insurance companies are not at all happy about this designation.

    From the "more things change, the more they (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by caseyOR on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:55:45 PM EST
    stay the same" file: this is from Victor Hugo's preface to his novel Les Miserables:

    So long as there shall exist, by reason of law and custom, a social condemnation, which, in the face of civilization, artificially creates hells on earth, and complicates a destiny that is divine, with human fatality; so long as the three problems of the age--the degradation of man by poverty, the ruin of women by starvation, and the dwarfing of childhood by physical and spiritual night--are not solved; so long as, in certain regions, social asphyxia shall be possible; in other words, and from a yet more extended point of view, so long as ignorance and misery remain on earth, books like this cannot be useless.

    A book written in 1862, tells a story that rings shockingly true in 2012. And a movie to be released on Christmas Day 2012 as our political leaders side with those who continue the suffering Hugo wrote of so long ago.

    The Novel was a wonderful (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:11:44 PM EST
    experience.  The Musical, not so much....

    The Movie?


    Today I saw National Theatre, London, (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:38:10 PM EST
    HD of "Timon of Athen." Perhaps a bit heavy-handed in updating to present day Britain, but the point was made.  People who surround you with praise when you are wealthy and generous desert you if you are neither.  

    Maureen Dowd's column (1.00 / 3) (#15)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 01:31:44 PM EST
    justifies many of the comments made yesterday regarding Susan Rice's ill-advised appearance on those Sunday news shows. It's a good read.

    And although her tone is obviously much softer than that taken by some of the Republicans, I think it shows the stance taken by many here that the criticism was fueled by sexism and/or racism was a tad extreme.

    But, again like many here, she draws a sharp line between the two Rices.

    Maureen Dowd - heh (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 03:40:15 PM EST
    You mean the opinion writer who contradicted her own paper's hard news pieces with nothing more than her specious theories and opinions?

    MoDo:  Rice "should have realized that when a gang showed up with R.P.G.'s and mortars in a place known as a hotbed of Qaeda sympathizers and Islamic extremist training camps, it was `not anger over a movie."

    NYTimes:  To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.

    MoDo (suggesting the talking points Rice was given were edited for political purposes):

    "Rice should have been wary of a White House staff with a tendency to gild the lily, with her pal Valerie Jarrett and other staffers zealous about casting the president in a more flattering light, like national security officials filigreeing the story of the raid on Osama to say Bin Laden fought back. Did administration officials foolishly assume that if affiliates of Al Qaeda were to blame, it would dilute the credit the president got for decimating Al Qaeda? Were aides overeager to keep Mitt Romney, who had stumbled after the Benghazi attack by accusing the president of appeasing Islamic extremists, on the defensive?"

    NYTimes:  "Democrats said Mr. Petraeus made it clear the change had not been done for political reasons to aid Mr. Obama. "The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda," said Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California."

    Maureen Dowd is funny.


    BTW - How so? (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 03:43:13 PM EST
    And although her tone is obviously much softer than that taken by some of the Republicans, I think it shows the stance taken by many here that the criticism was fueled by sexism and/or racism was a tad extreme.

    Without venturing into Wingnutia, Maureen Dowd is one of the most sexist writers I know.


    ExcitableTroll (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by shoephone on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 04:41:21 PM EST
    Yes, he is becoming (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Zorba on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:11:02 PM EST
    a one-note wonder, isn't he?  He needs to take a chill-pill.

    You guys with the anti Susan Rice (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:15:57 PM EST
    Crusade are remarkable for the sure defeat and humiliation that awaits.

    Of all the issues to focus on.   You miss the only relevant issue in the whole thing.


    Brown rice and instant rice? (none / 0) (#23)
    by DFLer on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 04:54:04 PM EST
    Quinoa's lovely too (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by shoephone on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:05:56 PM EST
    And most right wing trolls can't pronounce it. (Plus, they think it's some sort of after dinner liqueur.)

    Is it considered a rice? (none / 0) (#30)
    by DFLer on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:52:36 PM EST
    I see it defined as a cereal. I simply don't know about it, and, as they say, am...just asking

    It is a pseudocereal, (none / 0) (#32)
    by Zorba on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:08:10 PM EST
    as opposed to a true cereal. Link.  Link.  It's an amaranth, basically, and related to spinach and beets.
    It's also gluten-free, which makes it desirable for those who are gluten-intolerant.

    Haley Barbour: (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:22:53 AM EST
    One of the bluntest assessments came from Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a former governor of Mississippi, who said: "We've got to give our political organization a very serious proctology exam. We need to look everywhere."


    What (none / 0) (#5)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:47:43 AM EST
    a crock.

    He's just trying to figure a better way to sell us the same content.
    Better packaging.
    Better pitching.
    That's the answer.

    I can't believe that this arsehole actually referred to giving the organization a proctology exam. They should start with Bush and Cheney. Chase after them with mobile medic units.


    In the words of my dad: (none / 0) (#12)
    by DFLer on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 12:10:46 PM EST
    "and bark like a fox"

    Ah-oh. (none / 0) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:25:50 AM EST
    Senator Lieberman does not agree with "my two amigos" (lindsey and McCain) on their call for a Watergate-style investigation on Benghazi (stated in response to Chris Wallace on FOX news--no I did not get it directly from that horses' mouth).    Lieberman thinks the standing committees can do the job.   Ordinary, I would be pleased with his position, but I wonder what Lieberman is angling for in the next Obama administration.)

    Secretary of Crazy Pricks (none / 0) (#13)
    by Dadler on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 12:18:09 PM EST
    That's his natural fit.

    haven't commented in a while... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Turkana on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:36:42 AM EST
    as poorly as the ducks offense played, and despite the team overall (including chip) suffering severe brain cramps, their defense deserves a ton of credit- they were banged up and vulnerable against a smash mouth offense, and really held their own.

    i also want to point out that the ducks do have a path to the bcs title game- and it won't even require a major upset...

    1. ducks obviously have to beat the beavers.

    2. ucla has to beat stanford, in los angeles. and they should.

    3. usc has to beat notre dame. the irish are not as good as their record, and if barkley is healthy, usc should win. but that's now a big if.

    4. florida state has to beat florida, in tallahassee, ensuring that georgia and alabama play for the sec title, and that of the three sec teams only one remains standing.

    5. ducks have to beat ucla in pac 12 title game, the wins over osu and ucla also ensuring they have a better bcs rating than kansas state- which they should have anyway, after losing in ot to a ranked team while k st got pummeled by a lousy team.

    if all that happens- and every bit of it is very doable- ducks play sec champion for bcs title.

    Personally, I think it's a damned shame ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:09:02 PM EST
    ... that the SEC elite were rewarded by the polls today for gorging on cupcakes for lunch yesterday.

    Stanford remained in place at No. 11 in the AP Poll despite beating Oregon on the road in Eugene, while Alabama, Georgia and Florida each moved up two slots for staying at home to survive the rigors of D-1AA Western Carolina, Georgia Southern and Jacksonville State, respectively.

    With the exception of LSU, which was hosting Mississippi in a conference matchup, not a single one of the marquee SEC programs were playing Div. 1 teams. Texas A&M and South Carolina matched up -- at home, natch -- against the vaunted likes of Sam Houston State and Wofford College.

    Here are four teams that have flown under nearly everyone's radar this season, yet will all be playing for conference titles in the next two weeks:

    • Utah State (9-2) -- The only blemishes on the Aggies' schedule are a pair of razon-thin nonconference losses at Wisconsin (16-14) and at BYU (6-3). If they win at San Jose State on Saturday, they win their first-ever WAC championship outright.

    • San Jose State (9-2) -- The Spartans lost an opening game heartbreaker at Bay Area rival Stanford, 20-17. Eleven weeks later, they knocked off BYU before a raucous sellout crowd at Spartan Stadium, 20-14. They can clinch a tie for their first-ever WAC title with a victory at home over Utah State.

    • Northern Illinois (10-1) -- After a bitter opening game loss to Iowa, 18-17, the Huskies have ripped of 10 straight victories, including a 31-24 win over a very good Toledo team to clinch the MAC West title and a berth in the MAC championship game Nov. 30 against Kent State.

    • Kent State (10-1) -- After forgetting to show up against Kentucky on opening weekend, the Golden Flashes have also won 10 straight to win the MAC East crown and a berth in the MAC championship game Nov. 30 against Northern Illinois. Next up for them, however, is a tough matchup with Ohio (8-3), who beat Penn State on the road opening weekend.

    Factual Errors (none / 0) (#57)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 07:02:55 AM EST
    in your diatribe:

     - Stanford didn't stay in place in the AP rankings, they moved up 3 spots from 14 to 11.

     - Florida didn't move up 2 spots in the AP, they moved up 1.

     - San Jose State may have played before a raucous crowd against BYU but it wasn't a sellout. Spartan Stadium holds 30,000 and it was barely half full Saturday with 15,494 fans.

    Possibly the reason the other four teams you mention are not getting a lot of notice... in their combined 38 wins they have exactly one win against teams currently ranked in the AP top 25. Some might view that as knocking off 37 cupcakes.

    But I like your passion in defending the little guys.


    Toledo and Ohio are hardly cupcakes. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 05:08:49 PM EST
    Both have quality wins over Cincinnati and Penn State, respectively.

    I have to give the Big Ten, Big East and Pac-12 teams credit for their willingness to schedule games against the good mid-major programs, and even going on the road to their houses on occasion. Wisconsin won't hesitate to play at Fresno State or Northern Illinois.

    That's something the SEC generally refuses to do. Most of them no longer go on the road for quality nonconference games, save for LSU once in a while. You're expected to win a lot of games when at least two-thirds of them are at home. The mark of a real quality program with integrity and character is its willingness to travel and take on anyone, any time and anywhere.

    That's the difference between teams like Boise State and BYU on one hand, and Georgia and Florida on the other. Boise State isn't afraid to travel to Georgia and Michigan State if that's what it takes to get a crack at the Bulldogs and Spartans. BYU isn't afraid to go east to South Bend to take on Notre Dame. But Georgia whined like a baby two years ago when they had to travel to Tempe, AZ to play Arizona State, which was their longest road trip in nearly half a century. And Florida apparently refuses to play a game north of the Ohio River.


    From today's "Writer's Almanac": (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:03:03 AM EST
    Gallup enrolled in the University of Iowa in 1918, played football and became the editor of the Daily Iowan. While editor in the early 1920s, he conducted what is widely considered the first poll in human history. He took a survey to find the prettiest girl on the campus. The winner was Ophelia Smith, whom Gallup later married.

    WA [Italics added.]

    Ophelia? Really??? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Dadler on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 12:19:14 PM EST
    Come on.  Get thee to a nunnery.

    Rhodes Scholars named (none / 0) (#7)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:13:26 AM EST
    32 from 17 different schools. And I'll be honest, I'm listing them just for the last one on the list. They cover the spread for me yesterday and also get a Rhodes Scholar

    Harvard- 6
    US Military Academy-2
    US Naval Academy-2
    Cal Berkley-1
    Georgia Tech-1
    North Carolina-1
    Montana State-1

    New college rankings (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:41:43 AM EST
    USA Today/Coaches
    1     Notre Dame    
    2     Alabama    
    3     Georgia      
    4     Oregon            
    5     Florida State       
    6     Florida       
    7     LSU               
    8     Kansas State     
    9     Clemson       
    10     Texas A&M     

    1    Notre Dame    
    2    Alabama              
    3    Georgia              
    4    Ohio State       
    5    Oregon                  
    6    Florida              
    7    Kansas State       
    8    LSU           
    9    Texas A&M   
    10    Florida State   

    this ducks fan (none / 0) (#11)
    by Turkana on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:50:52 AM EST
    is a big fan of the l.a. teams, for next week.

    Updated BCS Rankings (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:44:45 PM EST
    1    Notre Dame   
    2    Alabama           
    3    Georgia           
    4    Florida   
    5    Oregon   
    6    Kansas State
    7    LSU   
    8    Stanford   
    9    Texas A&M   
    10    Florida State

    A loophole to close (none / 0) (#16)
    by Neo Idealist on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 02:15:05 PM EST
    Can you think of any reason American taxpayers should subsidize organizations that call themselves churches yet actively work to deny equality? I can't.  Three days after it went online, 4,949  people have agreed enough to add their names to the White House petition at

    That's a little over 1 a minute but we can do more. There's a National discussion that needs to happen. Why it is that essential public services are being cut for lack of funds while a select group of organizations pay no taxes because- well, that's where I get confused.
    Because why? Because they protect pedophiles? Because they lobby to keep some of us as second class citizens? Because they want to build a bigger mega- church and buy another Parisian palace (sorry - mission)?

    I think the time for real reform is now. We can do it. You can help.


    The White House has committed to an official response if 25k signatures are obtained within 1 month. I'm most curious to see them address the topic officially and publicly.
    I'm sure there's a cynic in you thinks that  nothing will happen and it's a waste of time.  Maybe - but what if it's not? Every day you waste a lot more than the two minutes it takes to add your voice to the growing  list and demand the end of special rights for those who work to deny equality. A lot more time than it takes to forward the link to your email list or put the it up on your blog or tweet it.  Exempting revenue used directly to aid those in need is fine. Money that goes to Ad agencies to create partisan messages and  to buy air time do not fall into this category.

    Why are we subsidizing them? Help make this conversation one that cannot be ignored. Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come. It's time.

    It's the fiscally responsible thing to do  

    While I happen to disagree with you (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Peter G on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 02:58:48 PM EST
    on First Amendment grounds, your position would seem to be strongly supported by Supreme Court precedent in the Bob Jones University case, an 8-1 decision in 1983.

    I (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 04:02:02 PM EST
    can't think of any reason American taxpayers should subsidize organizations that call themselves churches. Period.

    For those still under the misconception (none / 0) (#28)
    by shoephone on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:36:44 PM EST
    that Amazon is anything but a dishonest, corrupt monopoly. Lie down with the devil...

    I've never bought or sold anything on Amazon. I know too many people who have worked there, and I know the horror stories of what the company is really like.

    You may have an issue with them (none / 0) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:46:15 PM EST
    but they aren't a monopoly.

    I am Not fan of Amazon... (none / 0) (#66)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 12:22:09 PM EST
    ...but only because I hate their website format and I absolutely hate any site that gives results that I didn't ask for.

    But you hyperbole is a little much, they can leave Amazon, they aren't the only game in town.  Buy.com and Ebay come to mind.

    From you link:

    All told, the AG's Office received more than 370 complaints against Amazon, ranging from customers worried about their online privacy to game-app developers demanding better financial terms.

    But about 40 percent of the complaints came from small merchants who use Amazon's Web platform to sell their products. And of those, three-fourths -- nearly 120 sellers -- complained that Seattle-based Amazon abruptly suspended or closed their accounts, tying up anywhere from several hundred dollars to more than $20,000.

    120 complaints from merchants for a company that size seems rather small, maybe not insignificant, but pretty close. Not exactly the sign of a corrupt company that lies down with the devil.


    I live in Seattle (none / 0) (#79)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 05:36:12 PM EST
    I know more about the inner workings of Amazon and the freak who runs the joint than probably anyone on this blog. This company plays hardball with city leaders and gives NOTHING back. Your entitled to your opinion. I'm entitle to mine, based on everything I know.

    Let me recommend... (none / 0) (#37)
    by desertswine on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:16:56 PM EST
    "Lincoln" with Daniel Day-Lewis. Day-Lewis does Lincoln like no one before. The movie drags in spots and I was disappointed in the lack of vampires who would have added some much needed excitement.

    Would you recommend that (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:42:36 PM EST
    we order Lincoln, Vampire Slayer on cable?

    Loved the curmudgeon Tommy Lee Jones.  By god, the Radical Republicans were right.


    It really cracks me up (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 12:31:06 PM EST
    how many of today's GOP try to claim that they're part of the same lineage as the Radical Republicans..

    I'm waiting for the Lincoln Was A Republican bumperstickers to start making the rounds any day now. In Northern states.


    I just read an interesting novel about Lincoln. (none / 0) (#45)
    by caseyOR on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:54:35 PM EST
    Sorry, no vampires. :-)    The book is The Impeachment of Abraham Lincoln by Stephen L. Carter.

    In this book Lincoln survives the assassination, but his VP, Andrew Johnson is killed. Mary Todd Lincoln has died on a visit to Illinois. She drowned, but there is some uncertainty as to whether it was suicide or an accident.

    The Radical Republicans are mounting an impeachment of Lincoln because they believe Lincoln is being too easy on the South with Reconstruction.

    The story is told through the eyes of a young black woman, a graduate of Oberlin, who is hired as a clerk by the law office that is defending Lincoln.

    It was a wonderful read, and quite thought-provoking. Carter is a Yale law professor who has written other novels that I also liked, although they are not historical novels like Impeachment is.


    Thanks! (none / 0) (#63)
    by Towanda on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 10:52:20 AM EST
    I just put a hold on the ebook at my library.  

    Reviews are mixed, with some readers complaining that the book is too long and complex.  Ha.  That's the way I like my books, so that also convinced me -- along with your recommendation, of course.


    I liked the book a lot, Towanda. (none / 0) (#74)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 03:30:44 PM EST
    It is long, but not overly so. And it is somewhat complex, but that is part of what makes it such a good read.

    Please share your thoughts after you read it. I'd like to know what you think.


    Just Saw a Mocumentary... (none / 0) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 12:41:32 PM EST
    ...that looks at several historical happenings using the premise that the south had won the war.  It's done in documentary style, and done pretty well complete with racial commercials.

    [In describing Abraham Lincoln and Harriet Tubman's escape from the Confederate Army] She chose to disguise President Lincoln in blackface and travel with him along one of the many secret slave routes. When Lincoln scoffed at the plan, Tubman, never one to mince words, reminded him of the huge bounty on his head. She said simply, 'We're both niggers now, Mr. President.'

    CSA: Confederate States of America


    Can Sally Fields really play Mary (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:40:52 PM EST
    Todd Lincoln????

    Yes. Sally Field is an excellent actress. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 12:14:38 AM EST
    I have no trouble seeing her in the part of Mary Todd Lincoln.

    She has a house in Aspen... (none / 0) (#62)
    by fishcamp on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 10:28:55 AM EST
    Sally Field actually bears an uncanny ... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 05:16:06 PM EST
    ... physical resemblance to the real Mary Todd Lincoln, once she got into character.

    I paid for it (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 09:43:03 AM EST
    I'm the only person here who liked it.  Everyone I live with is still making fun of me for paying that much for the experience.

    Oh yes... (none / 0) (#81)
    by desertswine on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 11:32:36 PM EST
    Lincoln....    vampires....  what's not to like?

    Has anyone seen Argo? (none / 0) (#38)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:19:10 PM EST
    Looking for input :) Also on Lincoln. Mom's birthday looks like dinner and a movie :)

    Both very good (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:29:37 PM EST
    Lincoln is remarkable for how immediate and real Lincoln appears.  I gained a new respect for how much slavery became the focus of Lincoln's efforts.   It had always been taught that Lincoln worked primarily to save the union and abolished slavery along the way.  This film turns that concept on its head.

    Argo is just a good yarn....Alan Arkin cracks me up.   A little bit Le Carre and little bit M*A*S*H.  Vindication for Jimmy Carter at the end.

    One feels obligated to love Lincoln.   Argo is just inescapably fun and riveting.


    Thank You! (none / 0) (#41)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:40:32 PM EST
    I think we may opt for Argo as we aren't sure it will stay in the theaters as long as Lincoln. I'm all about seeing Lincoln, but  Mom mentioned she wanted to see Argo while it was still on a large screen :)

    I've been trying to get to Argo (none / 0) (#46)
    by sj on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:16:09 PM EST
    for the past three weekends and it hasn't worked out.  I think we're committed to going on Monday or Tuesday before it leaves the big screen.

    Lincoln is reserved for Thanksgiving Day.


    Or consider one of the great documentaries (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Peter G on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:15:55 PM EST
    that's out there:  Searching for Sugar Man, The House I Live In, or Chasing Ice.  All awesome.

    "Sugar Man." Terrific. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:40:14 PM EST
    Thanks for those suggestions (none / 0) (#56)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 12:38:47 AM EST
    both of us can do some god docs :)

    A friend saw a performance by Sugar (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 03:08:22 PM EST
    Man in Boston recently.  Disappointing.  

    A live performance by singer-songwriter (none / 0) (#75)
    by Peter G on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 03:57:38 PM EST
    Sixto Rodriguez, the subject of the movie?  Too bad.  The film, however, is splendid.

    The film is splendid, but apparently the (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 05:06:49 PM EST
    live performance lacked energy.  I'd still really like to attend a live performance.  

    Well, Rodriguez is 70 years old now (none / 0) (#80)
    by Peter G on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 06:04:47 PM EST
    isn't he?  I mean, the whole point is that he was a "lost" talent of the early '70s hippie-rock-poet era.  Not every performer of that age group can be Mick Jagger on stage.  If he can make some money now with live performances, riding the popularity of the movie for a while, then g-d bless him; the film makes him out to be an absolutely delightful human being.

    Too much screen time for Ben Affleck (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:39:29 PM EST
    in"Argo."  Did I mention he's also the director?

    No such thing as too much screen time for Ben (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Angel on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 08:51:56 AM EST
    Affleck.  He's simply perfect.  Sort of how I feel about Richard Gere.  Mmmmmm...

    Actually, he is so hirsute (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 11:27:41 AM EST
    in "Argo" I did not know it was him at first.

    Heard Argo was very good (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:39:49 PM EST
    I really enjoyed Argo (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by lilburro on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:50:07 PM EST
    made me realize how little I know about the Middle East.  It was a great thriller, with some laughs, and wow, the first 15 minutes or so were edge of your seat suspenseful IMO.

    I'm agreed with MKS. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 12:02:24 AM EST
    Both films are very good. While I've never been much of a fan of Ben Affleck the actor, Argo confirms his prowess behind the camera as one of our country's most promising directors.

    After seeing Lincoln this afternoon with the Spouse, I'm thinking that maybe the Oscar race begins and ends with that film. Both Daniel Day-Lewis and Sally Field are simply astonishing as Abraham and Mary Lincoln, and it's amazing how closely both actors actually resemble their characters.


    Haven't seen Lincoln yet (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 09:39:18 AM EST
    I have a feeling it will be considered more of an entertainment experience.  I liked Argo a lot.  My favorite part was at the end when you got to see photos of those who really lived it.

    Happy birthday, Martin Scorcese. (none / 0) (#44)
    by scribe on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:54:01 PM EST
    He turned 70 yesterday.

    Just about to start watching Ken Burns' new (none / 0) (#47)
    by caseyOR on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:57:04 PM EST
    PBS series on the Dust Bowl. Part 1 tonight, Part 2 tomorrow night. I'm hoping I like it.

    Morning Joe is trying to say that (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 07:51:06 AM EST
    Rubio is comparable to Obama in terms of being a great politician who will generate star power and breed enthusiasm.  What in hell is in their coffee?  Republicans have really bought their own crap and continue to buy it.

    Just because Rubio is your most Obama-like doesn't make him Obama's equal.  That will never be put to the test though so I suppose I'm going to have to sit here and listen to your $hit until Nate Silver gets bored and does some numbers :).

    Stop buying your own false equivalency crapola though or end up on your face in the middle of the road again.