home

Wednesday Night Open Thread

There was a hearing today in the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

John Edwards is back in the courtroom - practicing law.

El Capo is about to begin. It's really hard to understand without captions. I wish there was an episode review guide somewhere.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Two New Defendants Added to Chicago Sinaloa Indictment
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The New York Times has published ... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 11:33:27 PM EST
    ... an investigatory piece by Walt Bogdanich that levels some very serious charges at Florida State University and the Tallahassee Police Department, regarding their handling of allegations that Heisman Trophy-winning QB Jameis Winston raped an FSU coed back in early December 2012:

    New York Times | April 16, 2014
    A Star Player Accused, and a Flawed Rape Investigation -- "Early on the morning of Dec. 7, 2012, a freshman at Florida State University reported that she had been raped by a stranger somewhere off campus after a night of drinking at a popular Tallahassee bar called Potbelly's. As she gave her account to the police, several bruises began to appear, indicating recent trauma. Tests would later find semen on her underwear. For nearly a year, the events of that evening remained a well-kept secret until the woman's allegations burst into the open, roiling the university and threatening a prized asset: Jameis Winston, one of the marquee names of college football. Three weeks after Mr. Winston was publicly identified as the suspect, the storm had passed. The local prosecutor announced that he lacked the evidence to charge Mr. Winston with rape. The quarterback would go on to win the Heisman Trophy and lead Florida State to the national championship. In his announcement, the prosecutor, William N. Meggs, acknowledged a number of shortcomings in the police investigation. In fact, an examination by The New York Times has found that there was virtually no investigation at all, either by the police or the university." (Emphasis is mine.)

    Strictly my opinion, but since this story has been resurrected, I think that it's now fair to ask publicly whether either or both the university and the local police placed the interests of the Seminole football program ahead of the well being of the 19-year-old woman who claimed to have been sexually assaulted by one of the team's then-top recruits.

    FSU officials have vigorously denied the Times' charges, and this afternoon issued a public statement:

    "The university expresses its deep disappointment in today's New York Times story alleging FSU officials did not properly investigate a rape allegation against Winston `in apparent violation of federal law.' It also vigorously objects to the newspaper's characterization of the university as being uncooperative in explaining its actions." (There's more, so click on the above link.)

    As of tonight, a spokesperson for the Tallahassee police has declined comment on the New York Times' bombshell story, other than to say that the department "takes seriously the obligation to respond to any citizen who wants to report a crime, regardless of who they are accusing."

    All huffing and puffing by university officials aside, it still remains to be determined if the university violated provisions of Title IX by not aggressively following up on the female student's charges and immediately opening an investigation into her claims.

    Because in fact, it wasn't until January of this year, a full 13 months after the alleged incident was first reported, before FSU officials ever convened a hearing to look into it. Compounding that is the revelation that one of Seminole Coach Jimbo Fisher's own assistants inquired of Tallahassee PD as to the status of the department's own investigation -- such as it was, given the Times' account -- fully one year earlier, in January 2013. So FSU football coaches were certainly fully aware of the incident involving their star recruit, at least. Did they bother to inform their superiors in the athletic department and university administration?

    Further, the U.S. Dept. of Education's Office for Civil Rights announced on April 4 that it has opened its own inquiry into the matter. This could potentially lead to a significant loss of federal funding for university programs, should that office find that FSU for whatever reason breached Title IX protocols and violated federal law.

    And should it be further shown that FSU and TPD either deliberately slow-walked or actively stonewalled their respective investigations into the young woman's charges, the NCAA might well feel compelled to open its own official investigation into the matter, given how severely that organization dropped the hammer on Penn State in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal.

    Aloha.

    Correction: (none / 0) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:19:25 AM EST
    It wasn't an FSU assistant football coach, but one of the university's assistant athletic directors who contacted Tallahassee PD regarding the investigation into the rape allegations against Jameis Winston. So, the athletic department was in fact aware of what was going on. Whether its personnel notified and updated the university administration about it has yet to be clarified.

    Parent
    Federal judge in ND (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 06:52:17 AM EST
    Strikes down the strictest anti-abortion law in the nation

    A federal judge in Bismarck, North Dakota, on Wednesday struck down the strictest anti-abortion law in the nation, a ban on ending pregnancy after a fetal heartbeat is detected -- that is, at about six weeks.  Separately, U.S. District Judge Daniel L. Hovland rejected a legal maneuver by lawyers for the state seeking to prohibit all abortions in North Dakota, at any point in pregnancy.

    SNIP

    The North Dakota law (H.B. 1456), passed by its legislature last year, did not set a specific number of weeks during pregnancy at which an abortion could no longer be performed.  But it did specify that no abortion could be performed after a doctor detected a heartbeat -- except in a medical emergency threatening the woman's life or threatening grave medical harm to her.  All sides involved in the case agreed that a heartbeat usually can be detected about six weeks into a pregnancy.

    The law was challenged by the operators of the Red River Women's Clinic in Fargo, the only facility in the state that performs abortions at any point. At that clinic, doctors will not perform an abortion until the fifth week of pregnancy.  Thus, the practical effect of the new North Dakota law was to ban almost all abortions --that is, except for a brief interval in the fifth week.



    Speaking of these kinds of laws, (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 09:07:49 AM EST
    digby has a post up on the increasing interest in and support by GOP candidates for "personhood" legislation.  She quotes extensively from a post by Greg Sargent at the WaPo:

    The issue isn't being discussed at all by Washington prognosticators these days. But you can bet that some of the most hard fought Senate races this fall will feature big fights over "Personhood" measures, which have declared that full human rights begin at the moment of fertilization.

    A number of GOP Senate candidates are on record supporting Personhood in some form. Once primary season is over, and the Senate general elections get underway in earnest, you are likely to see Democrats attack Republicans over the issue -- broadening the battle for female voters beyond issues such as pay equity to include an emotionally fraught cultural argument that Dems have used to their advantage in the past.

    She goes on to quote from another article [note: digby did not provide a link for that article; I did a search and found it at RationalWiki] to point out that most people don't appreciate that if "personhood" takes root, birth control is going to be extremely vulnerable:

    The single most important goal for any personhood law is to restrict, if not make totally illegal, the right to access abortions. If the zygote is a legal person, then Roe v. Wade was found on false grounds and no longer applies. Also, the idea of "viability" as a test no longer applies. A zygote or fetus must therefore be protected from being killed, just like any other person is.

    Following that, most forms of hormonal birth control can potentially be attacked. Birth control works in two ways. First, it regulates the body so an egg is normally not released. No egg, no baby. However, sometimes an egg is released, but the hormones make the uterus a hostile environment for the zygote, causing it to pass out of the body with the woman's next cycle. If you assume a "person" begins at conception, birth control would necessarily be harmful to that person. Murder, if you will. The Virgina and Oklahoma State Legislators which are pushing personhood bills, were asked by those in opposition to put a basic rider protecting a woman's right to access hormonal birth control. In both cases, they gave a resounding "no", despite claims that they are not trying to make birth control illegal.

    Another serious issue that is being brought up by ob-gyn's in the states trying to pass personhood laws, is the effect this will have on risky pregnancies, specifically ectopic pregnancy, because there is not sufficient legal markers/legal language to define a pregnancy as a "healthy one", nor define the rights of the fetus if it cannot survive...

    This stuff isn't going to stop or go away; zealots don't just wake up one morning feeling reasonable and rational and committed to minding their own business because some Democrats and "liberal" judges get in their way.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 09:10:51 AM EST
    these crackpots are all over Georgia too. Miscarriage as murder seems to be the new norm for the GOP.

    Parent
    Coming down the pike for some time (none / 0) (#115)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:27:47 PM EST
    there will be contention, but sooner or later politicians are going to set some new legal standard for the beginning of life earlier than first breath, and that is going to cycle through the courts. Hard to guess the direction the courts might take it, all the consequences etc.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by sj on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:34:46 PM EST
    ...sooner or later politicians are going to set some new legal standard for the beginning of life earlier than first breath...
    Because clearly the setting of that standard should be governed by politics.

    /snark

    Parent

    That was an I testing choice of words (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 04:11:23 PM EST
    Wasn't it?  Maybe next they will set a new speed of light so we travel to other planets

    Parent
    You (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 04:09:03 PM EST
    can't do that because everyone is different and there are some pregnancies that are not compatable with life. Are you advocating for mandating women to carry to term a nonviable pregnancy? I'm guessing you are.

    Parent
    Let's try ignoring it (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:08:15 AM EST
    Hum?

    Oh god, yes, please ignore it. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by caseyOR on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:13:36 AM EST
    What a typical response (2.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:16:54 AM EST
    you guys can pass out the insults but you can't take them back.

    Thanks for defining yourselves.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Oh well (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:39:32 AM EST
    I tried

    Parent
    Seriously??? (none / 0) (#171)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 04:15:19 PM EST
    Did Jim just insult you because you ignored his comment?

    Wow.

    Parent

    Like I said (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 04:16:22 PM EST
    It is the best course.  Is all about attention.

    Parent
    I'm sorry. I just couldn't help myself. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:43:57 AM EST
    It happens every time I happen to have a bat in my hand, and see a piñata dangling in front of me.
    ;-D

    Parent
    I get it (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:46:17 AM EST
    My tough is bleeding.  But I swear before Dog I will not fritter away a bunch of comments.

    Parent
    TONGUE (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:47:58 AM EST
    See I need all my comments to make corrections

    Parent
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 332 (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 10:00:39 AM EST
    Ooops, posted prematurely (none / 0) (#57)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 10:01:42 AM EST
    v. 330
    v. 329

    Peace again and forever.

    Parent

    That sometimes happens (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 10:20:24 AM EST
    As we get older

    Parent
    God, I hope not (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:07:20 PM EST
    Obama: Next Democratic Nominee Won't Necessarily Run For My 'Third Term'

    No disrespect intended Mr. Potus, but I think we can improve on your first two terms.

    I hope everybody (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 09:24:14 PM EST
    had a nice day today and Howdy's flowers aren't too damaged. I've been chatting on another blog and apparently a lot of Republicans are worried about Nathan Deal losing the gubernatorial race here in GA in the fall. Well, I'll believe that when I see it. Everybody knew he was corrupt the first time around as it was brought up during the GOP primaries.

    No news really in the senate race. I guess we're not going to know a whole lot until the GOP picks a candidate.

    The (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 07:27:49 AM EST
    hydrangeas Seemed to come through it fine.  Won't really be able to tell for a week or so till they actually start blooming but the seem ok.   It was only below freezing for a few hours.

    I am not at all surprised about Deal.  When a pol literally turns his back on hundreds of thousands of people, some of whom will certainly die as a result simply to make a stupid petty political point if it doesn't have consequences our political process is in more serious trouble than even I thought it was.

    Anyway, isn't he running against Carter's grandson?  Who does not to me seem like an empty suit with a name.


    Parent

    Btw (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 07:31:06 AM EST
    That pic was taken by me standing on tippy toes and holding the iPad as high as I could.  I am 6'.  To give you an idea of scale.

    Parent
    Hydrangeas (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 07:52:07 AM EST
    do look fine.

    As far as Carter, yes, he is Jimmy's grandson. I have no idea about his political chops but apparently he's been able to tap into some of his grandfather's connections and has done some serious fundraising out raising Deal like 4 to 1 last quarter.

    Well, what started Deal on the downhill slide is his  actions during the big snow storm and apparently he has not recovered from that. IMO I think it just reminded people how inept the GOP is in general when it comes to national or state emergencies. Katrina and Hurricane Andrew come to mind.

    I don't think it's his turning his back on the poor. The poor in GA are so beaten down that I don't think they expected any help even if Deal went along with the Medicaid expansion. Deal's problems are really indicative of the GOP's larger problems. You have all these factions who want what they want when they want it and you can't deliver to everybody. To top that off, what most of these factions want is unpopular with the general voting public. Even here in the GA there is a limit on how much far right crap the voters are willing to stomach.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:13:23 AM EST
    The truth is they would have gotten help and Deal certainly knows that even if they don't.  And I think you may underestimate their level of information.  You would have had to actually be living under a rock for the last year to not know what the expansion is doing in other states.  AR particularly has gotten a lot of coverage in the south because of the unique approach.  Just posted a story the other day about how free clinics are closing all over the state because they are no longer needed.

    Parent
    I certainly (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:21:07 AM EST
    hope you are right. I know Deal knows that but I don't know if he has been able to convince too many of them that they wouldn't have gotten help even if he had done the Medicaid expansion. The GOP has been a master of manipulating their voting base into believing that Medicaid will only help minorities not everybody under a certain income level. Now whether a lot of these people have been able to bypass that message I don't know.

    Parent
    speaking of John Edwards... (none / 0) (#2)
    by desertswine on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 10:49:50 PM EST
    Bunny Mellon recently died at 103yrs.

    What does Tsarnaev gain... (none / 0) (#5)
    by unitron on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 05:34:59 AM EST
    ...by looking at autopsy photos of marathon bombing victims?

    Is he going to be able to say "See that right there, that proves it was someone else's bomb, not ours."?

    Is he going to be able to prove the deaths were faked?

    Why would his attorneys expend time and energy pursing this?

    Unless it's about keeping the prosecution from showing the photos to the jury.

    Which is something else that doesn't make sense, unless the jury is otherwise going to be convinced that the deaths were faked and all the testimony from the ME's office is perjured.


    Just before the closing of the last thread (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 07:51:21 AM EST
    I revealed that I live in a poor white ghetto.  That website has some other fascinating stats.  For example -
    Median per capita income is 18,304
    Medial household is 32,059
    While 96.9% of the population is white only 26% is over 65.  I would have expected that number to be higher.
    One big reason for the stagnant numbers of multiracial newcomers is that there is no reason to come here except to die.  I don't think I personally have ever met someone below retirement age who just moved here.  Why would they?  There are no jobs.  And the ones that exist barely pay a living wage.  Most of the 19,307 people in this county were born here and never left.   Younger people nearly always leave for work.   Sometimes they don't have to go far.  In the recent past northwest AR was one of the best places I the country to find a job.
    One other stat stood out.  In 2012 there was 0 housing starts.  
    ZERO

    One other stat (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:15:55 AM EST
    23,6% are below the 12,000 poverty line.

    Parent
    Look at this: (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:28:18 AM EST
    lowest income counties in the US

    Almost all of them are in red states.

    Parent

    As the IWW (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 11:07:49 AM EST
    song use to go: there'll be pie in the sky when they die..

    Weren't those red state tax breaks for business and loosened regulations supposed to raise all boats?

    Parent

    All I know is (none / 0) (#118)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:35:51 PM EST
    I'd rather be poor in a rural county then in an inner city.


    Gangs of Chicago

    The scourge of the rural Midwest and south is Meth however.

    My state (IN) is #1  !!!

    Parent

    Well consult your Milton Fdman (none / 0) (#127)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:59:57 PM EST
    all let us know when the magic of tax breaks and deregulation and "right to work" will be ready to take full effect down there.

    Parent
    Friedman.. (none / 0) (#141)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    My retort is simple (none / 0) (#148)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:41:53 PM EST
    Detroit

    The real point is it sucks to be poor anywhere.

    Red or Blue.

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#149)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:49:20 PM EST
    Some parts of Detroit are rural now.

    :)

    Parent

    You still think (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:55:37 PM EST
    what happened in Detroit was because of the unions?

    If so, what's the Right To Work, deregulated, rural South's excuse?

    Parent

    Who said anything about unions? (none / 0) (#151)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 03:01:26 PM EST
    One party rule ruined that city.

    Plain and simple.

    Parent

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by sj on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 03:43:02 PM EST
    I meant to say:

    Nothing is ever that plain and simple.

    Parent

    Nothing is (none / 0) (#156)
    by sj on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 03:41:00 PM EST
    ... ever that pure and simple.

    Parent
    Then you do explain the rampant (none / 0) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 04:11:39 PM EST
    poverty in red states? Using the same rationale is absolutely proves the failure of conservative economics if nothing else. You got one city and we got many states to make our point.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#173)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 04:19:14 PM EST
    The real point is it sucks to be poor anywhere.

    Red or Blue.

    Because that wasn't the "real point" of that silly article you linked to when you were making your comment.

    Parent

    Amen (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:09:15 PM EST
    That would be why I am where I am.  Lived in big cities my whole life and seen to often what happens to old people alone in big cities.   This area may be poor but they do a hell of a lot better job of taking care of old people that cities.

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:10:33 PM EST
    I love meth.  I am not your typical senior citizen I guess.

    Parent
    Meth (none / 0) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 04:21:49 PM EST
    is all over rural area, the reddest areas in the country are where meth is king. And don't believe that meth doesn't bring crime with it. It might not be gangs but the crime rate is still high per capita. Some of the most dangerous places to live in the US are small towns.

    most dangerous small cities

    FYI Jackson TN is number three.

    Parent

    This is the story (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:23:50 AM EST
    of the rural south. You probably could find the same thing here in Georgia.

    Parent
    I am actually shocked (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:41:35 AM EST
    That only one of those is in AR

    Parent
    Aren't you close (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:48:19 AM EST
    to Wallmart headquarters?   Or is that the wrong part of the state?

    Parent
    World headquarters (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 09:11:50 AM EST
    Is in Bentonville which is in the northwest corner of the state.
    250 miles west of here.  That is the primary reason for the mention above about the north west part of the state being one of the better places in the country to find a job.  But not the only one.  Bentonville, Springdale, Fayetteville is a pretty good area.  It's I a also the location of the UofA

    Parent
    One of the (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 07:56:59 AM EST
    questions raised by the supporters of the BLM's actions in Nevada is this.

    Why are other ranchers supporting Bundy? They paid and he has not. It is a reasonable question. Are they all just nuts or what??

    This answers that question.

    Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS

    Link

    In the end it all comes back to an EPA gone wild.

    Funny about that story (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:21:45 AM EST
    Is this:

    Environmentalists are also slamming the BLM over Bundy Ranch. They're coming at it from the other side, though, saying the agency has been ignoring its requirement to protect a fragile habitat for desert tortoises. The reptile is native to the Mojave and Sonoran deserts and is listed as a threatened species at high risk of becoming endangered. BLM is required to submit annual reports about threatened species on its land, but hasn't done so for several years, according to the Center for Biological Diversity. A coalition of environmental groups, led by the Sierra Club, threatened to file a lawsuit against the agency at the beginning of the month for letting Bundy's animals graze in the tortoise's fragile habitat.

    So, it doesn't really sound like the BLM cares that much about the tortoise, but rather would like Mr. Bundy to get his cows off federal land or put up the cash he owes the American people. In other words, the person in your link is just making stuff up.

    Parent

    Look (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:33:44 AM EST
    we all know that people like Jim love millionaire welfare. Kind of usless to hit him with any facts that challenge that since most conservatives can't separate facts from opinions.

    Parent
    I know (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:38:27 AM EST
    But I'm tired of the "Big Bad Federal Government wants to protect a tortoise over just a regular guy trying to make his way in the world" meme.

    Parent
    salt-of-the-earth (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 10:58:04 AM EST
    hard-working, gun-toting, white men -- the "real Americans" victimized by the elitist bureaucratic state and agencies like the EPA..

    That's the paranoid, self-romanticizing mythology the Jims of the world imbibe like mother's milk.

    Parent

    Gov. Schweitzer (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:56:07 AM EST
    had some interesting facts.   The grazing fees for private land are about $10 per acre.  The state of Nevada charges a little over $2 per acre.  And the Feds?  Just slightly $1 per acre.

    And Mr. Cowboy deadbeat welfare queen just won't pay it.

    You just cannot profitably raise cattle in the desert/near desert conditions of Southern Nevada....Forget the turtles....The Feds subsidize Cowboy deadbeats because of the Romance with the Western Cowboy.  And this whacked moocher still won't pay.  

    Parent

    None of you admit to the fact (2.00 / 1) (#163)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 03:56:50 PM EST
    that the real issue is the Feds protecting turtles instead of people.

    That you do so is just more proof that your philosophy has failed.

    The shame is that it gives us real liberals a bad name.

    Parent

    I got some bad names for ya (none / 0) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 04:01:54 PM EST
    But it ain't liberal

    Parent
    Because it's not the "real issue" (none / 0) (#176)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 04:24:56 PM EST
    The issue is Bundy's willfull and continued violation of the law.

    The fact that you conservatives are trying to distract from the obvious is just more proof that your claims are baseless, as usual.

    "Us real liberals" - as you like to say (usually inappropriately), "ROFLMAO! :-)"

    Parent

    This whole thing is (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by jtaylorr on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 09:10:25 AM EST
    a modern day version of Tragedy of the Commons. If we started subsidizing Bundy's grazing on federal land, every other rancher would clamor for the same treatment. If that happens, eventually there'll be nothing to graze on. We've known since the 1800's that when dealing with shared resources, individuals will maximize their short term self-interest rather than the interests of ranchers (or shepherds or fisherman or polluters, etc) as a whole or even their own self-interests in the long-term. Those 'wild' EPA regs are there to ensure that shared resources aren't depleted. This is not a controversial concept. It's taught in every intro Econ class. Leave it to the United States to debate a basic economic concepts that was settled 200 years ago.

    Parent
    There is no subsidy. (none / 0) (#164)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 04:00:29 PM EST
    Bundy owes grazing fees.

    The issue is that the number of permits was reduced to "save" the land turtle.

    The EPA was created to clean up the environment not use fake claims of endangerment to seize power.

    Parent

    Jim, which (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 09:14:01 AM EST
    states have the most cattle?  Is it the old Cowboy West....Not really.

    Texas is number one in cattle.  But the flat grasslands of Central and Northern Texas are a lot different than the arid West.

    Number 2?  Nebraska.  No. 3?  Kansas.  Corn Fed.  They can raise cattle a lot cheaper than the desert Cowboys of Nevada....

    Here is the list.

    The point being that without federal subsidies, which should be phased out, you just cannot profitably raise cattle in Southern Nevada.  And this welfare cheat hates the Federal hand that feeds him his government handouts....Even going as far to threaten to shoot them.

    Parent

    There is several answers (2.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 03:50:15 PM EST
    to your claim... The first seems to be that there were 53 ranchers before the government chopped their allotments. How that rates with how many there should be I haven't the vaguest and I doubt you do.

    The second seems to be that you want to have the government tell people what job they shall have. I propose we analyze what you do and see if you are properly located for maximum utilization of the environment.

    And your claim of "welfare cheat" is laughable. But, if you insist, we will stop ALL welfare. Children can be taken to the nearest federal facility where they will be fed, numbered and tagged and become property of the state.

    BTW - I seem to remember that, at one time, FL led the nation. Not that that proves anything except that times and land use changes.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:31:58 AM EST
    maybe you should pay his fees then? Or maybe your fellow ditto heads should start a fund for him.

    Parent
    To paraphrase Muhammad Ali (none / 0) (#137)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:12:19 PM EST
    no desert tortoise ever called me an America-hater. At least not to my face.

    Limbaugh's obsessed with the Endangered Species Act and the "gone wild" EPA. I'm sure he's been harping 24/7 about the Nevada case -- from the standpoint of one out to protect us from green, neopagan/secret commies who want to destroy our economy and traditional values.

    Parent

    In your and Yman's case I can do (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:05:20 AM EST
    nothing but agree.

    Gosh, Jim, you figured us all out. (none / 0) (#196)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 12:19:18 AM CST
    You're just too smart for us.


    I'm sure you do. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:41:11 AM EST
    Then again, your kind has always been rather remarkably oblivious to snark.

    Parent
    No Donald, kind merely responds in kind (2.00 / 1) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 03:51:16 PM EST
    to your hateful speech.

    Parent
    Who knew they (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:44:23 AM EST
    Were already holding republican presidential primary debates.


    Parent
    Seriously Donald (none / 0) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 04:19:39 PM EST
    You really néed to curb the hateful speech.

    Parent
    warrenstraw222 (none / 0) (#16)
    by lentinel on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:15:54 AM EST
    SITE VIOLATOR

    Atten: Jeralyn - El Capo synopsis page (none / 0) (#27)
    by DFLer on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:39:50 AM EST
    Have you seen this?
    I found this site: link

    The synopsis are in Spanish text, but one can use a translator thang, heh?

    Bizarre (none / 0) (#35)
    by jtaylorr on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:51:46 AM EST
    President Vladimir Putin has told the National Security Agency whistleblower, Edward Snowden, that Russia is not carrying out mass surveillance programmes of the kind Snowden exposed in the US.

    Snowden made a video-link appearance during Putin's marathon televised question and answer session to ask the president about Russia's attitude to mass surveillance.

    Snowden asked: "Does Russia intercept or store or analyse the communication of millions of individuals?" He went on to ask whether increasing the effectiveness of internal security systems could ever justify such actions.

    To applause from the studio audience, Putin responded: "Mr Snowden you are a former agent, a spy, I used to work for a intelligence service, we are going to talk the same language."

    You'd think Snowden would be looking for ways to distance himself from Putin at this point. Instead he seems to be further entrenching himself in Putin's propaganda machine. Would not be surprised if he starts showing up as a commentator on RT.

    I'm sure I have a minority opinion here (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 09:03:42 AM EST
    But I don't  think this guy is a hero.  I never thought he was.  His actions have done some good.  I suspect they have also done some bad. But i suspect the reasons he did it had very little to do with either outcome.  Personally the idea he would propose to be concerned about the things he does and take refuge under Putins wing is IMO beyond laughable.

    That's my opinion and I'm not in the mood to argue about it so feel free to disagree.


    Parent

    If you will recall, Russia was not (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 09:40:49 AM EST
    Snowden's destination; he was forced to seek permission to stay thanks to the efforts of the US government and the pressure it applied to governments of countries where it was believed Snowden originally planned to go.

    As for his actions, you can take issue with his taking the information in the first place, but he has not been responsible for disseminating it, or making the decisions about what gets published and when.  He turned his materials over to Greenwald and his partners - period; from that point, Greenwald, Gellman, Poitras and others, in conjunction with the newspapers for whom they write/work, have been handling the dissemination of the information.

    As disturbing as it is to become aware of some of the things that are being done by our government, I would rather know than not know - and believe that had not so much of this all been so secret, some of the programs and actions would never have come into being or taken place.

    The biggest threats, in my opinion, that have arisen from the Snowden affair, are to the jobs of the people in charge of these programs and the power they were able to build on secrets, lies and a constant cry of "national security."

    Parent

    Minor point (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 10:39:51 AM EST
    He turned his materials over to Greenwald and his partners - period; from that point, Greenwald, Gellman, Poitras and others, in conjunction with the newspapers for whom they write/work, have been handling the dissemination of the information

    But isn't he at least partially responsible,  since, in turning over information to reporters, as opposed to say - supervisors or Congress - then he had to know (and planned all along?) that this information would be disseminated, so I guess I'd have to disagree with you that "...but he has not been responsible for disseminating it..."  Yes, he has.

    Parent

    Okay, yes. When he gave the materials (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 11:07:13 AM EST
    to Greenwald, et. al., he didn't do so with the stipulation that all of it remain secret - what would be the point of taking it in the first place if he didn't want any of it to be made public?

    So, in the sense that he delivered the materials, he was responsible for the eventual dissemination of the information.

    But in removing himself from the chain once he handed it all over, he was attempting to avoid being accused of using the information for personal gain, for the advantage of our enemies, etc.  It hasn't stopped people from accusing him of these things anyway, of course.

    Here's a better explanation:

    Snowden has made repeatedly clear that he did not want all of the documents he provided to be published. When Snowden furnished documents to the journalists with whom he chose to work (which, just by the way, expressly did not include the NYT), he made clear that he did not believe all of those materials should be published. Obviously, if he wanted all of those documents published, he could have and would have just uploaded them to the internet himself; he wouldn't have needed to work with journalists.

    As he has said repeatedly, he wanted journalists - not himself - to make these decisions based on what is in the public interest and what can be disclosed without subjecting innocent people to harm. He was adamant that not all of the documents he provided were appropriate for publication, and was especially clear (at least to me) that certain categories of documents not be published (which is why those who demand that all documents be released are arguing, even though they won't acknowledge it, that we should violate our agreement with our source, disregard Snowden's conditions for furnishing the documents, and subject him to a wide range of risks he did not want to take). See here for just a few of the examples where Snowden's wishes in this regard are made clear.

    Snowden's attorney:

       You know, the number of documents that Edward Snowden has made available to the public is zero. What he did is give information to journalists, with the instruction that they and their editors, in consultation, where necessary, with government officials, decide what was in the public interest to publish, and to withhold information that would be harmful to publish. He wanted to create a protocol that would correct for his own biases. He was someone who had spent the last almost ten years in the intelligence community. He didn't think that his own judgments -- and he has very strong judgments about what should or should not be public -- were adequate to this moment and wanted to make sure that the institutions that had the experience in doing this -- and these are our newspapers, who have long experience competing with the government over access and control of secret information -- that that be the way that the information got published. . . .

        He didn't want and didn't think that he should have the responsibility to decide which of these documents should be public. He wanted to appeal to the traditions, the institutions, the expertise of the media in helping to make those important judgments. That's what we want whistleblowers to do. We don't want them to unilaterally substitute their judgment for everybody else's. We want them to go through these institutions that funnel and that channel that and have longer experience in making these kinds of decisions.

    As I said, people can take issue with the fact that he took the materials, and they can take issue with the fact that he turned them over to people not in government, but they should at least try to get right the fact that Edward Snowden is not the one deciding what does and doesn't get published.

    Parent

    I, also, wondered (none / 0) (#64)
    by NYShooter on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 10:56:12 AM EST
    why he chose Greenwald as the recipient for his information. Whether you agree with Greenwald's approach in writing, or, not, he does have an agenda, and, I would think that would make its dissemination more controversial than it need be.

    Did he, for instance, try more neutral outlets like the NY Times?

    Parent

    Pretty sure we've been over this, but (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 11:24:16 AM EST
    Greenwald wasn't the first person Snowden contacted - it was Laura Poitras, who then got in touch with Greenwald. And when she was first contacted, she didn't even know who it was who had contacted her.

    See this NYT story
    :

     Poitras remained wary of whoever it was she was communicating with. She worried especially that a government agent might be trying to trick her into disclosing information about the people she interviewed for her documentary, including Julian Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks. "I called him out," Poitras recalled. "I said either you have this information and you are taking huge risks or you are trying to entrap me and the people I know, or you're crazy."

    The answers were reassuring but not definitive. Poitras did not know the stranger's name, sex, age or employer (C.I.A.? N.S.A.? Pentagon?). In early June, she finally got the answers. Along with her reporting partner, Glenn Greenwald, a former lawyer and a columnist for The Guardian, Poitras flew to Hong Kong and met the N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden, who gave them thousands of classified documents, setting off a major controversy over the extent and legality of government surveillance. Poitras was right that, among other things, her life would never be the same.

    Others have become part of the team - Barton Gellman at the Washington Post, Ewen McCaskill, also at The Guardian.  The NYT has published articles with information originally obtained by Snowden.

    Parent

    The NY times (none / 0) (#96)
    by sj on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:36:43 PM EST
    is not exactly neutral. They prefer to publish leaks made by the administration not about the administration.

    Your first paragraph is based on a completely wrong assumption, but Anne has cleared that up for you.

    Parent

    That actually ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by sj on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:31:32 PM EST
    ... isn't a minor point. Using that idea, you may as well say the authors of the material were also partially responsible because if they hadn't written it, it could never have been disseminated.

    Parent
    It's not a mutually exclusive proposition (none / 0) (#102)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:52:09 PM EST
    Okay, I'll accept that (none / 0) (#104)
    by sj on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:00:58 PM EST
    on a conceptual level.

    Parent
    Should have limited himself to NSA stuff (4.00 / 3) (#49)
    by jtaylorr on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 09:33:42 AM EST
    The fact that Snowden chose to release info not only on the constitutionally-questionable actions of the NSA, but as well info that was 'merely' embarrassing to the U.S. like spying on foreign leaders really muddied up his claim to being a whistleblower vs. a leaker of state secrets. Whistleblower protections are there to incentivize the exposure of clearly unconstitutional or illegal governmental actions, not actions which the whistleblower personally disagrees with. There's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about listening in on Angel Merkel's phone conversations - and it's utterly naive to think that Merkel and other world leaders didn't know this. The U.S. has always spied on foreign leaders, and always will. So one has to consider - does his leaking of info on NSA programs (which Americans have a right to know about) cancel out his leaking of other info that he had no justifiable basis for leaking? Running off to one of the few developed countries with an even worse democratic and human rights record than the U.S. certainly doesn't help his case. And personally I'm sickened by Snowden and Greenwald's radio silence on Russia's homophobic laws, while providing Putin implicit legitimacy.

    At the end of the day, I think Snowden has handled the optics of this whole situation very poorly. My sympathy for him has only waned since the initial revelations.

    Parent

    Snowden has not made any decisions (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 11:30:24 AM EST
    about what has been published; he turned over the materials to Greenwald and Poitras for reasons stated here:

    You know, the number of documents that Edward Snowden has made available to the public is zero. What he did is give information to journalists, with the instruction that they and their editors, in consultation, where necessary, with government officials, decide what was in the public interest to publish, and to withhold information that would be harmful to publish. He wanted to create a protocol that would correct for his own biases. He was someone who had spent the last almost ten years in the intelligence community. He didn't think that his own judgments -- and he has very strong judgments about what should or should not be public -- were adequate to this moment and wanted to make sure that the institutions that had the experience in doing this -- and these are our newspapers, who have long experience competing with the government over access and control of secret information -- that that be the way that the information got published. . . .

    He didn't want and didn't think that he should have the responsibility to decide which of these documents should be public. He wanted to appeal to the traditions, the institutions, the expertise of the media in helping to make those important judgments. That's what we want whistleblowers to do. We don't want them to unilaterally substitute their judgment for everybody else's. We want them to go through these institutions that funnel and that channel that and have longer experience in making these kinds of decisions.

    And this:

    Edward Snowden has not leaked a single document to any journalist since he left Hong Kong in June: 9 months ago. Back then, he provided a set of documents to several journalists and asked that we make careful judgments about what should and should not be published based on several criteria. He has played no role since then in deciding which documents are or are not reported. Those decisions are made entirely by media outlets that are in possession of those documents. Thus, calling a new NSA story "Snowden's latest leak" or asking "why would Snowden decide to publish this now?" - as though he's doling out documents one by one or deciding which documents should be published - is misleading in the extreme: those decisions are made exclusively by the journalists and editors of those news outlets.

    Whatever you think the optics are, you should consider making sure you are looking at them through lenses not clouded by misinformation.

    Parent

    The whole apologistic (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by sj on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:25:16 PM EST
    attitude of "it's naive to think [insert intrusion here] isn't happening" drives me crazy. Just because "it's utterly naive to think" a thing doesn't mean that thing is okay. Those two concepts are uncompletely unrelated

    Do you think it's okay that the French or German or UK or Australian governmental agencies should know more about what the Obama administration is doing than the American people? I don't think that's okay. No matter how "utterly naive" it is to think it isn't happening. There should be lines drawn. Just because one can do something, it doesn't mean one should. That's why laws exist in the first place.

    And, frankly speaking, I prefer not to take the word of an apologist as to what is, or is not, constitutional. I also prefer not to take the word of apologist as to what is, or is not, properly leaked material.

    And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

    Parent

    Human Zoo (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 09:15:17 AM EST
    Norway celebrates the 200th anniversary of its constitution this year, and, the artists Mohamed Ali Fadlabi and Lars Cuzner plan to re-enact one of the main attractions from the centenary in 1914: "The Congo Village", in which 80 Africans were put on display, living in cabins with palm roofs surrounded by African artefacts. A total of 1.5 million visitors came to see the human zoo, more than half of Norway's population at that time. Their proposal has unsurprisingly met with criticism from anti-racist organizations in Norway, but the artists say their work is meant "to highlight a forgotten event in Norwegian history".

    ArtNewspaper

    I hope we caught Fargo (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 09:20:22 AM EST
    If we did not we really really really should.  It was spectacular.

    Also if we did we also probably caught a promo for another current FX series The Americans.  You should consider this one to.  I would think this community would find it particularly interesting because it is intensely political.  It is about Russian spy's in the US currently in the latter part of the last century.

    It really is excellent.


    Watched my Fargo recording last night (none / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 11:41:43 AM EST
    after your ringing endorsement the other day. It really is as good as you said. Very much looking forward to future episodes. Love B-B Thornton in this role. And Martin Freeman is even better than I expected. Kate Walsh too - very funny. Hoping that the bloodiest stuff is done for a few episodes though.

    The Americans has been on my future binge watch list for a while. Will get to it this summer when the upper 90s hit and I hibernate.

    Parent

    I'm trying to avoid adding anything to my (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 11:49:38 AM EST
    DVR viewing list, and you guys are NOT helping.

    Parent
    Did you or did you not (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:35:03 PM EST
    Laugh out loud and then feel guilty about it?

    Parent
    I DID! (none / 0) (#130)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:05:37 PM EST
    It was the Martin Freeman factor (none / 0) (#131)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:07:08 PM EST
    I won't spoil, but those scenes in the house were hysterical. Then I was like - oh boy, that was really bad.

    Parent
    The one especially (none / 0) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 03:50:22 PM EST
    It was like omg did I just laugh at that.  

    Parent
    Did tou sere the NYT article about Oliver (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 11:41:59 AM EST
    North?  He is a consultant to the creators of "The Americans" and was credited as a writer of one episode.

    Parent
    Here it is: (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 11:45:12 AM EST
    Well he was always good at (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:34:54 PM EST
    Making $hit up......he he he

    Stick with watcha know

    Parent

    I did not know that (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:33:58 PM EST
    But it is very interesting.  But it doesn't effect my opinion of the show one bit.  It is excellent.  As the title suggests the Russian spy's are the central characters and they are portrayed very fairly.   I was going to say sympatheticly but they are quite unapologetically brutal.  But then so are we.

    It is very interesting watching the intrigue during the Reagan era around the internet and stealth technology.  And it doesn't at all surprise me that someone like North would be consulted.  It is very realistic.


    Parent

    Also (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:37:17 PM EST
    There was. Very surprising bit in last nights  episode about the Russian sub disaster that you may remember.   I do.  It is exactly the kind of thing North would know.  I won't spoil it but it's good

    Parent
    Way too much credit to North (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:50:51 PM EST
    His expertise lies in killing Sandanistas

    Parent
    No particular (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    Credit to North beyond inside information.  It is clearly there

    Parent
    I am one of those people (none / 0) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:09:02 PM EST
    The NYT speaks of...those not overly impressed that he is participating and benefitting.  Please remember also,  this series is a work of fiction with blips of history thrown in to tie us in emotionally and a huge leap often of Grand Canyon proportions between actual history and the episodes provided strictly for entertainment purposes.

    Parent
    He was also (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:35:56 PM EST
    A consultant on  Call of Duty

    Parent
    And I'm just crazy about that game:) (none / 0) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:44:29 PM EST
    Btw (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    As of last night they are just getting into the Sandinista thing.

    Parent
    And next week is the episode (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:14:07 PM EST
    He gets technical credit in for adding what did they call it?   Color

    It may very well turn into my least favorite episode

    Parent

    Why would you be surprised that (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:23:31 PM EST
    He would be consulted on a story about Iran contra ?
    I would suggest you withold opinion until you have seen the show.

    Parent
    They didn't have to go to this guy.  If Andrew Larrick turns out to be Oliver North's glorified alter ego....and the character is already somewhat set up for that, well poor phrucking choices.

    In any case, they have likely increased their audience number for one episode. I hope they play this well.  But they didn't need North and all the craptacularness he is packing with him like The School of the Americas.

    Parent

    The (none / 0) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:55:40 PM EST
    GAY CHARACTER??

    You DONT want him to be north??


    Parent

    Oh I have already thought about that (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:34:02 PM EST
    Believe me.  It may be the truthiest part of an Ollie characters penchant for double and triple lives :).

    Maybe the writers are just throwing us Libs a bone so we will forgive where they go with this :)

    You can't prove he isn't in the closet Capt.  Come on, all those overly pressed clothes, epaulettes and shiny baubles, impeccable grooming every morning, obsession with gyms :)

    Parent

    Nor would I try (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 03:49:08 PM EST
    I love the idea of Ollie laying pipe in an alley behind a seedy gay bar

    Parent
    And I would add (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:58:35 PM EST
    It sure looks like a possibility.  But the guy is a serious traitor.  Not to mention a tea room queen.  

    Parent
    I can tell you this (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:27:22 PM EST
    That the show is IN NO WAY an apology for the Reagan era or the actions of North.  Quite the opposite actually.

    Parent
    I agree so far (none / 0) (#122)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:39:57 PM EST
    Hiring Ollie North though....not smart

    Parent
    So then (none / 0) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:57:00 PM EST
    You have been watching the series?  If so you have to agree it is far from propaganda.

    Parent
    I have watched the show from the beginning (none / 0) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:26:56 PM EST
    That doesn't mean they haven't taken a turn for the worse here Oh Captain My Captain

    Parent
    I bet DailyKos lights up like (none / 0) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:16:08 PM EST
    A pinball machine by the time Ollie is done with them :)

    Parent
    Against.  I'm certain he dreamt of them.  Ollie is the dangerous SEAL training assassination capable DC insider who was  momentarily blackmailed :)

    Parent
    Were you suprised by (none / 0) (#121)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:38:47 PM EST
    the violence, language and pretty graphic sex scene?

    Not that it offended me but I was surprised how far FX was allowed to push it.

    At one point my wife asked..."Is this HBO?"

    Do you watch Vikings on AE?   Very good as well.   I've enjoyed that series very much.

    Parent

    Not at all (none / 0) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 03:45:51 PM EST
    Clearly you did not follow American horror story.  FX  has some great stuff coming up one is Del Toros THE STRAIN  And another is THE TYRANT.  When the say viewer discretion, the mean it.

    Parent
    Painting Broken Down (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 09:21:43 AM EST
    Maybe this can be done with Vermeer, or Rembrandt so that anyone can make the proper choices in order to produce a great painting:

    Bob Ross was a consummate teacher. He guided fans along as he painted "happy trees," "almighty mountains" and "fluffy clouds" over the course of his 11-year television career on his PBS show, "The Joy of Painting." In total, Ross painted 381 works on the show, relying on a distinct set of elements, scenes and themes, and thereby providing thousands of data points. I decided to use that data to teach something myself: the important statistical concepts of conditional probability and clustering, as well as a lesson on the limitations of data.
    link

    Used to watch Bob Ross (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ZtoA on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 11:43:50 AM EST
    Even tried a couple of his brushes, but they're crap. I like watching anyone paint from watching Bob Ross flit his fan brush around to Julian Schnabel wield his long wand. An art dealer and I have had much fun over the years telling each other about the ins and outs of Tomas Kinkade's adventures. What an interesting story he has!

    I think THIS is the definitive take on Bush's paintings.

    Parent

    Hahahahaaha (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 11:52:33 AM EST
    ØNN....  Good One Z to A, speaking of Guernica, maybe Bush should start trying to take a stab at the horrors of war, from the perpetrator's  POV.

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 11:54:57 AM EST
    And I am a fan of Kinkade's work.  Not so far from Jeff Koons, imo.

    Parent
    Kinkade made more money, actually (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by ZtoA on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:36:41 PM EST
    but Koons got lady gaga. I always though that if Kinkade distributed photos of himself making a series of large bank deposits he would have been hailed by the elite art world.

    Kinkade said "When I got saved, God became my art agent," and he marketed thru christian networks. He got free labor from the christian brotherhood and made many godly business deals when franchising his galleries. Unfortunately his business practices were not very observant and he was sued for fraud and the court ordered reparations and punitive damages. He went bankrupt.

    He stopped painting - had others do it for him. He used DNA infused ink (blood) to digitally sign his works so that they could be authenticated thru DNA testing. (I rather liked this)

    In his personal life he was a groper and a marker and an alcoholic. He went on to pi$$ on Winnie the Poo at Disneyland, caught on a security camera shaking his fist saying "take that Walt"! and disrupting a show in Vegas. He got DUIs. His christian networks abandoned him. His wife, with their four children abandoned him. He was broke.

    He allegedly "accidentally" took an overdose of drugs and alcohol and died. He died on a good friday.

    link

    link

    I think Michael Douglas should play him in a movie about this tortured artist.


    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:13:22 PM EST
    I have followed Kinkade's career and know a lot of the stories. Had he worked another angle the contemporary art world would have embraced him.

    He may be the most popular artist ever, meaning people who own his work and love it.

    He may have gone bankrupt but died rich. The fight between the GF and the wife must have resolved by now.. that was interesting too.

    Parent

    Your comments prove that (none / 0) (#116)
    by sj on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:30:41 PM EST
    it takes no special insight or discernment to become an art critic. Or defender.

    Which, frankly, isn't all bad. I don't care what anyone thinks of the art I have collected. I have it because it speaks to me in some way.

    With the possible exception of some of my brother's early work when he was still looking for his own path. It doesn't speak to me, but there will be no more, so keep it I shall.

    Parent

    A surprising opinion. (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:04:31 PM EST
    You like Koons? (none / 0) (#142)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:23:54 PM EST
    oy.

    Parent
    Listen, can you hear that? (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 09:25:18 AM EST
    It's the sound of Rembrandt and Vermeer spinning in their graves

    ;-)

    Parent

    They do that every time (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 10:45:49 AM EST
    a Warhol print sells for more than a Rembrandt.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 09:26:40 AM EST
    I love Bob.  But seriously

    Parent
    Many Love Bob (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 09:39:09 AM EST
    But apparently it is not his painting:

    When it comes down to it, "The Joy of Painting" was never really about painting. Even Kowalski, who runs a company that sells Bob Ross-branded painting supplies, believes most viewers aren't in it for the art.

    "The majority of people who watch Bob Ross have no interest in painting," she said. "Mostly it's his calming voice."



    Parent
    I have a lot of respect for (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 09:41:26 AM EST
    Stupid iPad (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 09:46:09 AM EST
    AS I WAS SAYING

    But I would call it craft not art.  And understand IMO this is not a dis.  I was credited in several movies a a digital "artist" and I would also consider that a craft.   I don't doubt that the "love child of Stewart Smaley and Mr Rodgers" voice was a draw.
    But not for me.  It drove me nuts

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 10:53:08 AM EST
    In the other thread about Bush paintings, it was suggested that the craft of making the painting was what made it great.

    So it would follow that analyzing a large number of great paintings
    would yield the secret to making great art, so that anyone could do it.

    I think that they tried to do the converse, which would be break down the things individuals like in art and use that to pick art that the respective individuals would like and ultimately acquire.

    It was based on the idea of Pandora, which, from what I hear was a success. The analogous art picking venue, which matches up art with individual's taste, was/is a failure, IMO.

    Parent

    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:40:36 PM EST
    Art historians, teachers and Museum curators and distinguished experts on art discuss the various techniques utilized by the great artists when giving lectures on the various artists. They are not implying that these techniques turned the paintings into craft or that anyone using those techniques would be a great artist. They do not and I did not suggested that the craft of making the painting was what made it great.

    Bottom line, you believe that Bush's paintings are fine art. I do not. I view them to be more in the category of Bob Ross paintings.  

    Parent

    I love Bob Ross too (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 09:43:18 AM EST
    I find him soothing to listen to and was always amazed that what he was doing with putty knives and paint brushes could turn into nice pictures of peaceful places that I imagined visiting.  I guess that's what art is supposed to do.

    Hard to believe he was, in his own words, a "mean" and "tough" guy in the Air Force, "the guy who makes you scrub the latrine, the guy who makes you make your bed, the guy who screams at you for being late to work" and how vowed that once he left the military, "it wasn't going to be that way any more," and he "never [wanted] to scream again."

    Parent

    I don't think that is what art is (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 11:48:48 AM EST
    supposed to do do.

    Parent
    It's not supposed to make me (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 11:55:37 AM EST
    dream, imagine, and feel?

    What's it supposed to do then?

    Parent

    Feel and think and often be challenged. (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:09:21 PM EST
    But I hope most art isn't to turn into nice pictures of peaceful places that I imagined visiting. Some is though.

    Parent
    From one of my favorite movies...again (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:22:50 PM EST
    All art is political, Jonson, otherwise it would just be decoration. And all artists have something to say, otherwise they'd make shoes. And you are not a cobbler,  ...

    Parent
    Eh (none / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:23:52 PM EST
    Like I said in another thread - I don't really know much about art.

    But, personally, even if I had it, I would never pay money (or really even make a special trip to see) a Salvador Dali or a Picasso, and even Van Gogh's work is bizzare at times to me. I would like something like a Jackson Pollock only because the colors appealed to me (for example, if I was trying to match a room).  But to look at a Pollock and say, "What was the artist saying here?" My response would probably be, "Taking a drunken temper tantrum with paint."

    That's what's great about art.  There's all kinds out there that appeals to many sensibilities.

    Parent

    What we get out of art is as varied (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:48:22 PM EST
    as we are, bringing to it as we do the individual experiences and emotions that affect our perception.  How else to explain how two people, looking at the same thing, see it differently, feel about it differently?

    I think art is created/made for reasons that reside within the artist; if his or her vision/intent syncs with the viewer's eventual perception, wonderful, but that isn't really in the artist's control, is it?  People create for so many reasons - some have something to say, others are looking to evoke an emotion or change someone's perceptions.  And yes, some are making a buck off the public's gullibility.

    That's kind of the great thing about art, don't you think?  

    And the great thing about creativity and creating in general, whether it's "literature" or the latest Harlen Coben, a "film" or a chick-flick, a gourmet feast or a PB & J.

    To each his or her own, preferably without the pretension that what is good or great or what things mean or what they are for can or should be determined for all by a select few who believe their pronouncements are more valid.

    Parent

    I love looking at art (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by ZtoA on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:07:28 PM EST
    all kinds of art. Paintings mostly. From Rothko, van Huysum, Michelangelo, Lichtenstein, John Curin, Remedios Varo, Emily Carr (just a few examples)  to the Elvis painting on velvet at a local restaurant. I like to get close enough to smell the hand of the artist. If there is no smell I like that too.

    I often like to look at paintings that I don't like. If I force myself to look, and not look away, and take some time then there is an amazing inner process that rather alchemically changes my perception. It leads to a psychological read and that is rewarding. Best high I have experienced.

    Parent

    Gullible? Who? (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:10:34 PM EST
    And yes, some are making a buck off the public's gullibility.

    Many said that Matisse Bathers was a joke and a gullible collector named Stein actually thought about it for a week or two and then went back to the gallery to buy it.

    He was super gullible.

    That is the public outcry for at least as long as modernism started (Manet 1860?), that artists are playing those gullible enough to slap down some cash for a thing passed off as art.

    Fact is, very often those pieces that evoke the emperor without clothes, are the ones that are later cherished as masterworks.

    Even people who buy art that never has any re-sale value, they love or like the art that they buy. To call them gullible is really wrong, imo.

    Or to suggest that artists are laughing at stupid people for buying their art is also really wrong.

    Parent

    There are fads in art, just as there are (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:02:01 PM EST
    fads in everything, aren't there?  Would you have me believe that no artist has ever ridden a fad, creating works to appeal to buyers looking to have the latest this or that?

    We are constantly being manipulated to want things - even art - and there have always been and always will be people who capitalize on it - even artists.  I think they have to pay the bills, too.

    Do you ever consider not leaping off the cliff until you've given more than a few seconds' worth of thought to something someone's written?  

    Parent

    The art world is very big (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by ZtoA on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:21:52 PM EST
    Huge when you include visual culture. That includes advertising, TV and movie art direction, animation galleries, online sales, museums and alt spaces, and artists (and so much more). Sure there are scams as there is in any huge industry.

    I know a lot of artists and designers and not one thought they were "riding a fad". There are jaded artists tho, and entitled ones too. Kinkade dealt in collectables (like beanie babies) and there are scams in that corner of art. Maybe those collectors were gullible, but I bet lots of them actually liked his work.

    I don't know any artist who wants to manipulate anyone into liking or buying their work. Maybe critics do (I shouldn't say any more about critics). Maybe some curators. But by far most collectors love building a collection that means something to them. I've seen many private and some semi-public collections. Each is different and says so much about the collector's mind and persona. Sometimes I find them jarring, like the Weinstein collection hanging a Bacon next to a Haring "because they were both pink", but I came away enriched.

    Parent

    Not all artists are as high-minded (none / 0) (#113)
    by sj on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 01:24:50 PM EST
    as you want to imply.
    Or to suggest that artists are laughing at stupid people for buying their art is also really wrong.
    If that were true there wouldn't be so much fraud in the art business. Having said that, I  think the only person suggesting such a thing was you. Such a conclusion is a huge distortion from Anne actually said.

    Agree that most artists are just happy to have their work appreciated in any way. Although even that vague statement is generalizing.


    Parent

    Fraud? (none / 0) (#129)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:04:10 PM EST
    By artists?

    Hmmmm.  I do not think you have been following much. 99% of the fraud comes from the dealers and others colluding. The other 1% comes from very talented copyists, not people making art.

    Some of the copyists have been unaware that their works was going to be passed off as original, as in the Knodler case.

    But going from Anne's statement, it would appear she is taking about artists who are trying to get over on buyers who are gullible enough to buy their work. Emperor's new clothes syndrome.

    In the cases that have been in the news, many of the fakes were bought by very smart and knowledgeable people, and some were authenticated by experts, so there is no gullibility there, it is just that the fakes were excellent quality.

    And as for a serious artist colliding in the market for fakes, there is one story I have heard. Picasso's was meeting which his dealer in Paris. After discussing business the dealer mentioned that one of his collectors brought in one of Picasso's paintings and asked if he would sign it when he stopped by. Picasso looked at the painting and said that he did not paint it, it was a fake. Then he asked the dealer if the client was a very good one. The dealer said yes she was a good client and bought regularly from him. Picasso said OK, I will sign it.

    hahahaha

    Parent

    Salvador Dali signed blank paper (none / 0) (#143)
    by ZtoA on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:24:26 PM EST
    which later his studio assistants printed images of his works on and sold. Dali was outraged when he found out.

    Parent
    Also, auctions do have fraud (none / 0) (#145)
    by ZtoA on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:29:14 PM EST
    One of my dealers buys for clients at auctions. He is from Seattle and is an expert on Seattle old masters, like Mark Toby. The told me he can always spot a non Toby being sold as a real Toby (just from looking at the painting) and says that a full 20% of them are frauds. I think the paintings were mostly honestly painted in Toby's popular style, but the misappropriation was $$ too tempting for someone.

    Parent
    I'd never heard this story (none / 0) (#152)
    by sj on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 03:02:15 PM EST
    But it makes me wonder: why was he signing blank paper anyway? What did he think it was going to be used for?

    Based solely on the lack of detail I have at this time (all of which comes from you LOL), my first reaction is: faux outrage.

    But heck. What do I know.

    Parent

    School bans dictionary for oral sex definttion (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 09:31:19 AM EST
    Um, ouch (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 09:54:06 AM EST
    No doubt that (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 10:22:23 AM EST
    Will do wonders for whatever depression led to the act

    Parent
    Yeah, that is not something you want to fail (none / 0) (#74)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 11:42:38 AM EST
    Surely drugs, alchohal or mental disease (none / 0) (#136)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:10:47 PM EST
    were the inciting incident for this act?

    So many better ways to kill oneself.   Why the need for self mutilation before taking ones life?

    Sad.

    Parent

    New Picasso Film (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 10:28:41 AM EST
    Antonio Banderas [and Gwyneth Paltrow] has signed up to play Pablo Picasso in Carlos Saura's 33 Dias, a drama about the creation of the painter's great anti-war masterpiece Guernica, according to Variety.

    Guardian

    Hard to think of another tragedy (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 10:57:47 AM EST
    That has produced more beauty

    Norman Rosten

    In Guernica the dead children
    Were laid out in order upon the sidewalk,
    In their white starched dresses,
    In their pitiful white dresses.
    On their foreheads and breasts
    Are the little holes where death came in
    As thunder, while they were playing
    Their important summer games.
    Do not weep for them, madre.
    They are gone forever, the little ones,
    Straight to heaven to the saints,
    and God will fill the bullet-holes with candy.

    Parent

    Would add (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 11:01:45 AM EST
    That painting is a spectacular example of the difference between craft and art

    Parent
    Interesting Picasso trivia (none / 0) (#138)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:19:34 PM EST
    Here in my little town of Evansville they recently found a Picasso and are auctioning it off to raise money.

    What is also interesting is that in the art world it is seen as poor form to use money generated by art from your collection for anything other then your collection.   Apparently you can loose accreditation etc... if you do so.   This was an issue here because we recently had a building expansion (I did the AC) for a new immersive theater to replace our planetarium.

    What sucks is the security to protect this piece of artwork is so much they can't afford to display it.  

    Odd since it sat in storage unknown for so long.

    My scoop for the NYT's is that local rumors are that my wife's great uncle Malcolm who was a major supporter of the Museum secretly squirreled this piece of artwork away knowing how valuable it would be one day.

    More then likely it was just incompetence.

    FYI, they haven't sold it yet.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 03:39:50 PM EST
    I read about that.

    Parent
    Watching Muhammad Ali's Greatest Fight (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 11:57:43 AM EST
    Right now.  The depiction of the justices is too damn funny.  Their discussion of pornography and the depiction of them all watching pornography together is just too much.

    Interesting Orlando crime story (none / 0) (#83)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:00:51 PM EST
    Last week a young man with gang affiliations and a long police record, driving an SUV, rear-ended a car driven by a middle aged man that was making a right turn into the parking lot of a day care center. The car that was hit went out of control and crashed into the day-care center, which was about 100 ft way from the street, killing one 4 yr old and seriously injuring 6 other kids. The SUV driver fled the scene immediately after hitting the other car - not sure if he even saw the aftermath. He later ditched the SUV and rented another car, but eventually surrendered.

    The SUV driver is facing all of the criminal charges relating to the death of the child. I understand the standard leaving the scene of an accident charges...but the rest of it is a gray area, at least to me. If I rear-end someone and it freakishly results in the death of someone 100 ft away...it is my fault? I might stop driving altogether.

    Also the headline of the linked story and others strongly suggest he was the only driver involved.

    Felony-murder? (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:09:06 PM EST
    Same logic as if you go into a bank to rob it, and while you are in the process of robbing it, someone in the bank keels over and dies from a heart attack.  You would likely be charged with homicide. No, you didn't shoot them and kill them that way, but you could still be held responsible for their death.

    In this case, I guess it would depend if they could prove the guy driving the SUV deliberately hit the other car, or at least, if he was negligent in driving.

    Parent

    No charges yet, but they are talking about it (none / 0) (#132)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:08:44 PM EST
    and keeping his bond very high

    Parent
    A lot of (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 03:02:57 PM EST
    states have following too closely type laws regarding auto accidents where the person who rear ended everyone bears the fault. This would probably be the case here because in order to rear end someone you would have to either be following them too closely or you would be going at an excessive speed and be unable to stop.

    Parent
    Obamacare problems with coverage (none / 0) (#133)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:08:47 PM EST
    Yes you have insurance, but...

    LINK

    LINK

    LINK

    LINK

    LINK

    The question is going forward how does the ACA make or influence doctors to see patients.  

    Either they require them to (otherwise known as price controls) or they raise pricing.

    We shall see.

    It's all (none / 0) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 03:05:04 PM EST
    gloom and doom and the end of the world from conservatives. We are well aware of that. Can't you even be glad for the people who were previously denied insurance but now are able to get it.

    And again, these problems have been going in in the for profit insurance business for decades. Notice how states that took the Medicaid expansion are having less problems in general than the ones that didn't.

    Parent

    Audiobook recommendation - (none / 0) (#139)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:19:56 PM EST
    David Eggers' The Circle

    It is about a young woman that goes to work for a company that is kind of unholy alliance of Google, Apple, and Facebook, where the motto is 'Everything Must Be Known'. She slowly gets seduced into the loss of privacy - her bosses are so slick at making it perfectly reasonable and even the only altruistic alternative. Everyone's existence is mined for data - they are well paid, many perks, etc but basically used to harvest data.

    It is very funny and satiric, and the narrator Dion Graham does a great job of getting it across.

    I'm up to the point (none / 0) (#146)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:29:29 PM EST
    where her online life - the Circle insists on employees 'zinging' about every moment - is making her incapable of real human conversation. I can't imagine! :-(

    Parent
    Can any of you very well informed (none / 0) (#166)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 04:02:41 PM EST
    people tell us the name of the bureaucrat who launched the armed troops against peaceful US citizens???

    Richard J Daley (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 04:08:41 PM EST
    Comes to mind.  That what you are looking for?

    Parent