Tuesday Morning Open thread

The 11 Show, starring me, today at 11. Topic for today: the controversy regarding Kathryn Bigelow's new film "Zero Dark Thirty." See, e.g, Glenn Greenwald, Tommy Christopher on Joe Scarborough, Peter Bergen, David Edelstein, Dexter Filkins and Spencer Ackerman, to name a few.

Your options to listen LIVE:

  • Click on the embedded Flash player below
  • Go to netrootsradio.com and click on the embedded player or direct link there
  • Click on this direct link if you need a non-Flash player, say, for iPad or iPhone
  • iPad and iPhone users can download the SHOUTCast Radio app for your mobile device and search for "Netroots Radio"
  • For Android: Try either the "StreamFurious" or "TuneIn" apps
  • BlackBerry users, see this guide by idbecrazyif

Listen LIVE here:The Daily Kos Radio Player

Can't see the Flash player? Click here to download the stream directly.

Open Thread.

< Dec. 11 George Zimmerman Discovery Hearing | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm never going to see this movie - I'm (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 11:23:29 AM EST
    just not a war movie kind of person.  

    I think that, no matter how careful writers and producers and directors are, it's almost impossible not to glorify war in a movie like this, especially if heroes are made of those involved in getting bin Laden.  And this movie also glorifies torture, regardless of the fact that it wasn't instrumental in finally finding and killing bin Laden.  People will see it on the screen and they will believe it.  And they will applaud it.  And they will point to it as the reason why it's necessary to use torture in this unending war on terror.

    So, I think it's more likely than not that people who are drawn to or interested in seeing a movie like this aren't doing it because they want to fact-check the film's makers, or make sure they're still opposed to war, or reinforce their distaste for or objection to it and all its consequences.  They're not doing it to show their rejection of US policies or decisions - they go to a movie like this so they can feel like they were there when Osama bit the dust and can cheer his death and the deaths of anyone who was involved in acts against the US.

    As Glenn points out, this is the movie where  

    CIA and White House officials had met with its filmmakers and passed non-public information to them - at exactly the same time that DOJ officials were in federal court resisting transparency requests from media outlets and activist groups on the ground that it was all classified.

    See, to me that reeks of "propaganda," and I wouldn't support that in any way, shape or form; honestly, it never ceases to amaze - and repulse - me the things people deem worthy of critical acclaim, and in this case, the cooperation of US officials will be seen as more reason to applaud the movie.

    For me, the whole thing is an "ugh."

    I don't know how exclusive Bigelow's (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 11:47:27 AM EST
    Access was and you can't make that argument without seeing the film and being aware of all the particular "items" revealed.  It is a constant struggle between what is classified, what is classified, what can be declassified, and what must be declassified.  There is a giant bureaucracy that oversees it to a great inefficiency.  Bigelow got inside track.  Why was she chosen above others?  Maybe she asked first, I don't know.  Her movie is a work of fiction too though, what you tell journalists isn't supposed to be works of fiction.  That is supposed to be verifiable fact.

    They freaked out when the SEAL wrote his book without their approval.  But he was a step ahead of them and had already had a SOCOM attorney who was an expert in what was classified information go over the book first.  He also states that because of that his book is a work of fiction too.

    You don't have to see the film, but without seeing the film how do you profess to know of what you speak?

    Also, this is hardly the first film to depict torture.  And it always easier to watch some other country's torture in history and then have my hindsight ideals match up.  This is much more difficult for every American, this is a film that portrays our torture...our very recent torture.  If you really want to make memorable meaningful arguments against those who will attempt to use this film as a justification for torture, you aren't going to make strong arguments if it is prefaced with I did not see this film.


    I don't have to see (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by sj on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 12:11:42 PM EST
    "A Hard Day's Night" to know it's about the Beatles and not 100% historically accurate.  And maybe I don't like their music (well, really, I do).  We know that from reviews.

    I don't have to see "Argo" to know that it's based loosely on the rescue of six Embassy staff members from Iran and not 100% historically accurate, and maybe I don't like thrillers.  We know that from reviews.

    I don't have to see "The Avengers" to know that it's a super-hero movie, and know for a fact it is fantasy and maybe I don't like super-hero movies.  We know that from reviews.

    I don't have to see ZDT to know that it's not 100% historically accurate and it glorifies an action that was somewhere between heroic and sickening (not quite a "war" movie).  We know that from the reviews.

    So this is complete sophistry:

    If you really want to make memorable meaningful arguments against those who will attempt to use this film as a justification for torture, you aren't going to make strong arguments if it is prefaced with I did not see this film.

    So, no.  I'm not going to pay money to something I abhor conceptually (for so many reasons) just so that some commenter on a blog thinks I have more street cred.  Anyway, I have little to no interest in being taken seriously by anyone who tries to justify torture.


    You are free to do as you please (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 12:17:53 PM EST
    Didn't know movies gave anyone street credibility though :). I am not likely to listen to your professing that A Hard Day's Night is factually inaccurate though.

    I'm not likely going to be interested in anything you say about Argo either.

    Well unless you've seen those films and you want to discuss the inaccuracies and I'm interested in discussing those inaccuracies.


    wev :) (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by sj on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:18:16 PM EST
    I'm not looking to engage pro-torturers so I don't expect it makes a lick of difference.  Nor am I setting myself up as some sort of expert on the efficacy of torture.  I think there's already enough research available on that.

    But I fairly recently learned something interesting about "A Hard Day's Night".  I never understood the "he's very clean" comments about Paul's grandfather.  It turns out that was a sly reference to the actor's role as Albert Steptoe in "Steptoe and Son", the English inspiration for "Sanford and Son".  It seems that character was decidedly not clean.

    Anyway, I've seen both "A Hard Day's Night" (many times) and "Argo".  But I still didn't need to see them to know they weren't documentaries.

    Although, you know... I was less sure about "This is Spinal Tap" which I stumbled upon late one night having never heard of it.  I had no idea what to think until Rob Reiner showed up.


    I 'm looking to engage pro-torturers (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:09:16 AM EST
    So is BTD, he's been engaging them from the beginning.  That is one of the reasons he knows as many facts about the intel that the pro-torturers got.  That is why he read what he could find that indicated the CIA was led on mind numbing goose chases.  Those who believed torture worked considered all the info given to be golden.

    There is a long term investigation and conversation to be had about how the torture actually undermined finding bin Laden, because if you believe torture works there is no reason to gather any other intel.  It would seem that this belief in torture destroyed the Bush administration's ability to find Osama bin Laden.  I think it is an incredibly important conversation for the country to have but it is one that is detrimental to Republicans.


    Agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:04:02 PM EST
    While people certainly have every right to not see "Zero Dark Thirty" or any other given film for whatever reason or rationale, I'll put as much credence into any protestations from such absentee critics as I did with those right-wing Christianistas who'd regularly picket neighborhood theatres where "Monty Python's Life of Brian" and Martin Scorcese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" were showing two-plus decades ago.

    Honestly, how does one deign to criticize the contents of a film sight unseen, and not come off sounding like the Catholic Legion of Decency reincarnate from the first half of the 20th century? (See "The Moon Is Blue.")

    Speaking for myself only, I have every intention of seeing "Zero Dark Thirty" upon its release. And quite frankly, if I find the movie to be propagandizing and manipulative, I certainly won't hesitate to say so. (See "The Green Berets" and "Red Dawn.")

    But given director Kathryn Bigelow's own previous outing as as a dispassionate but hardly disinterested observer behind the camera with "The Hurt Locker," I expect that "ZDT" will be a similarly thoughtful film peopled by characters or varying complexities and ambitions, which seeks to tell its riveting and powerful story without necessarily taking sides.



    Donald, if you even understood that (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:00:03 PM EST
    it isn't the movie, per se, that is being discussed, but the reviews of it, and what those reviews are saying about the movie, your comment might have some relevance, but clearly, you don't get that.

    And you don't get style points for announcing your intention to see the movie, either; no one cares whether you see it or you don't.

    Since no one has seen the movie but the reviewers, there are nothing but absentee critics, including those who are already praising and defending it.  Is there something more credible about their comments?  



    I Am With You... (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:22:36 PM EST
    ...seeing a move that is about the hunting and killing of a human being is just... I Don't know, but it doesn't seem right.

    But that is just me.

    The issue I have is the government and the military serve a real purpose, and it's not helping Hollywood make movies to glorify their missions.  When I was in the Navy, Seals were ghosts, there were no press conferences with models and books and movies.  They didn't use military actions as some marketing tool.  

    They shouldn't have to worry about the possibility of classified information on the big screen because they aren't letting anyone in.  Threats aren't needed, because people who have that access know what the penalties are.  Stop letting service members seek glory, period.

    The problem is they need every stitch to good press, and if that means allowing people access and not punishing glory seekers, so be it.  No one knows exactly what happened because no one person witnessed all of it.  Classified information, especially in military ops, is shuffled and twisted to meet some grander goal, combines with human recollection and spin, that one knows how accurate this movie it, least of all, the viewer.  Insisting viewing is a requirement is like insisting that you actually have been a participant when gauging it's accuracy.

    If one has to actually see the movie to comment about it's authenticity, shouldn't one actually have to be in the military to discuss it's inter-workings ?  Or can they make those kind of assessments without actually being witness ?


    Jeez, Donald.. (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:35:34 PM EST
    Riveting and powerful, and you haven't even seen it yet..

    Pro torture film that distorts (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:47:59 PM EST
    the facts.  Sounds like the t.v. show 24.

    Should one financially reward a pro-torture film by buying a ticket to see it?


    The problem with the constant struggle (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:11:30 PM EST
    between what is classified and what isn't is that the standard seems to fluctuate so that it always inures to the benefit of the government, and not the people, so you will just have to pardon me if I cast a skeptical eye at the government revealing information to filmmakers that they weren't and aren't willing to disclose to the people as a whole.  I don't want government information coming to me via a film that is to some extent factual and to some extent not.  

    I do not have to see this or any film to make an argument against torture, nor do I have to see this film to know that there is enough fact in it to allow the non-factual aspects of it to gain credibility as fact.  

    And, like I said, no one is seeing this movie in order to find out if they are still opposed to war and torture - they are seeing it because many of them believe that it depicts what really happened - and the government's willingness to allow the filmmakers access to information from the inside is going to lead people to believe it has the government's stamp of approval.

    There are just some things that I don't need to see a film or read a book to know.  


    Well yes Anne (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:32:52 PM EST
    The struggle will always rule on what is best for government because that is what is being preserved :). It will always be a fight until the day I die making known what is okay to know now.  I don't anticipate it ever being one bit different either.  This struggle and national security will NEVER go away.

    Every film ever made has some aspects based in fact or we can't associate ourselves with it in order to become "involved" in the storyline.  I have no idea how much access Bigelow had, but based on the known inaccuracies it's pretty questionable how deep her access was.

    Nobody is saying you can't make arguments against torture without seeing this film either, but without seeing it how can you credibly show up to argue its inaccuracies?

    We all know torture is bad.  The whole country knew torture was bad when half of us decided that given our shock and loss that torture was okay.

    Our nation's process in dealing with this is more complex than "Torture is Bad".  We already had that one down.

    This film is an opportunity of enormous proportions, if people emotionally attached to this whole story come to understand because of this film and the arguments it is bringing up that torture failed our country...THAT REALITY and FACT is HUGE.  And that can become anchored into many many brains.  It has a lot of juice to anchor it with, but this picking apart of the facts is going to have to take place.  And it will.

    I thank Joe Scarborough for this opportunity


    But you seem to have lost sight of the (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:49:52 PM EST
    fact that I'm not arguing the film's inaccuracies, Tracy, nor do you seem to be aware that the film hasn't even been released, so no one but the reviewers has seen it - so their take is all anyone has to go on.

    Or did you get a private screening you want to tell us about?

    Glenn's point is that the film's makers cannot even agree on what their film is. Is it "boots on the ground?" Is it fiction?  Are the non-factual parts just artistic license?

    If you're going to give those who've seen the movie more credibility than those who haven't - which is almost everyone, then I don't know how you expect the masses to get an anti-torture message when the majority of the reviewers took a pro-torture message from it.  Glenn:

    That so many reviewers walked away with a pro-torture message from the film - that torture was key to finding bin Laden - means that large numbers of viewers likely will as well, regardless of the after-the-fact claimed intent of the filmmakers. That, by itself, is highly problematic and worthy of commentary.

    And, for what it's worth, the struggle cannot just be about what is best for government, because that is the road to dictatorship.  Remember "we, the people?" From your comments, it seems not.  


    You're confusing me, MT. Everything I have (none / 0) (#38)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:48:32 PM EST
    read about ZDT tells me that in this movie torture works,that it was torture that gave us crucial info that led to the finding and killing of OBL. This false narrative about torture is the most consistent criticism I have read of ZDT.

    So, where are you getting the idea that people who see the film will come to understand that "torture failed our country"?


    Well, here's what Slate said: (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:00:34 PM EST
    It's important, I think, that the grim scenes of Amar's torture do not lead directly to any revelation of Bin Laden's whereabouts. Amar's torture leads to a name, a possible connection to the al-Qaida leader.

    And as we learn in a subsequent scene, the existence of that courier was not new to the CIA agents: We see Maya watching tapes of other interrogations, brutal and not, in which this courier is discussed; though he's called by different names, he's come up before.

    The movie thus doesn't show a vicious act of torture leading straight to a game-changing piece of intelligence, or even a unique piece.

    After all, the interrogation of Amar takes place in 2004; Bin Laden remained free for seven more years. And yet it's Amar's information that feels crucial, because it's presented as the root of Maya's obsession with this particular lead.

    This is the way in which the movie credits torture: It suggests that the tenacious agent who led the hunt wouldn't have been moved to do so without this piece of information given up by a detainee who'd been tortured.

    I guess all the wild goose chases (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:33:32 PM EST
    The CIA was led on didn't interfere with morale one little bit?  If this is how the film plays TOO FUNNY

    I'm really not sure what you mean by this. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:41:28 PM EST
    I think you would have to (none / 0) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:37:58 AM EST
    Know more about the subject.  At the very least listen to the radio program if you can.

    Jeebus, that's patronizing (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by sj on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:21:11 AM EST
    You responded to sarc with what is basically a non-sequitur unless one "at the very least" listens to the radio program.

    We're not all at home.  I get that you want to respond to what BTD is saying in his program.  And I get that you don't want to actually quote what he says when making your remarks (sort of, anyway).  But don't expect everyone else to think your comments make any sort of sense when they really don't unless one "at the very least" listens to the radio program.

    I kind of think BTD should set up a twitter feed for comments on the radio program.


    Aren't you high and mighty (2.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:37:17 AM EST
    BTD should do something so you don't have to be bothered in his radio program threads by those listening to the program.  Who is ridiculous here?  

    How very shocking (none / 0) (#135)
    by sj on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:46:41 AM EST
    that I'd suggest that BTD might use modern technology when broadcasting on gasp! internet radio.

    And anyway, I expect he has more than one listener.  So, who is ridiculous here?


    How about this? (1.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:00:10 PM EST
    I listen to the radio show and you don't.   How about I preface all my comments about the show with the statement that I'm commenting about the show and you leave my comments alone until you have listened to that show.  I'm not discussing points in the radio show with those who don't listen to it.

    And yes, your high and mighty attitude about what should happen so you don't have to be bothered by those listening to the show and commenting on the show is pretty ridiculous in my book.


    What's next from you, Tracy? (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:11:40 PM EST
    "Neener, neener, neener?"

    How about you quit bullying people who dare to have an opinion about something that's said on the radio that they didn't actually hear, but got from your comments?

    I don't see BTD engaging you in your comments, and I don't see anyone else chiming in on what they're hearing on the radio, so you're essentially talking to yourself if you don't want non-listeners chiming in.

    If people can't engage you unless they do so on your terms, why should anyone give a flying f**k what you think?

    Get a freaking grip and quit stomping on people.


    FTR (none / 0) (#154)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:51:23 PM EST
    I read the comments during the show.

    Often I respond to them.

    From ym perspective, I am much more sympathetic to the person commenting about my radio show who actually listens to it.

    So iun this dispute, I am all with Tracy.


    With respect (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by sj on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 01:33:34 PM EST
    No one was commenting on the radio show except for Tracy.  

    And it's too bad that your first comment wasn't until after her thirtysomething one because she really, really wanted to talk about your show.  So much so that she considered everyone else unqualified to talk at all unless they had listened to your show.  I'm not sure if that expectation extended to Glenn Greenwald, et al, or not.

    And I'm sure your show was very interesting.  Your posts usually are.  But my work computer doesn't have a sound card.

    Do that girl a solid next time and respond to her, okay?  So maybe the rest of us can also use the Open Thread?  And she is, after all, a faithful listener.


    I generally respond to her (none / 0) (#160)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 01:38:39 PM EST
    on the radio.

    Look, I'm sorry you can't hear the show, but Tracy is right, the discussion, such as it was, took place on the "radio."

    Frankly, I giound the responses to Tracy to be utterly unedifying and misinformed as to what the issues are in this controversy.

    I would have refrained from saying so, but since rudeness appears to be the order of the dya in this thread, I'll revert to form.


    It's all about perspective, isn't it? (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by sj on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 01:58:11 PM EST
    Reading this thread without sound provides a completely different one.  It also happens to be the one most of us have, I suspect.  Don't worry about being rude.  I've read you for years and expect it in varying amounts.

    And I still think the idea of a Twitter feed for the radio show is both good and appropriate.  Irrespective of Tracy.

    Again, no one else was commenting on the show.  But I, at least, had read Glenn even before coming here.  And there is lots of other commentary as well.  Are you saying that since it was a topic on the radio show that your discussion is ... required reading ... as it were?

    Is there anything else we shouldn't read or comment on until we've heard what you have to say? :)  I'd like to know what I should ignore.  

    When I put it that way it sounds silly.  And yet, that's the message I just got from you.


    Not to split hairs or anything, BTD, (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 02:07:18 PM EST
    but you don't seem to understand that people have been commenting about what Tracy is saying, which, in my opinion, doesn't necessarily require having listened to your show.  The things you are discussing are also being discussed - as your links indicate - all over the place, and Tracy seems unable to comprehend that people could be bringing to the discussion and responding to her comments with their own ideas and opinions about what they are seeing and hearing.

    Just because you are discussing this blasted film and the responses to the reviews of it and torture and related issues should not mean that everyone else is foreclosed from weighing in, should it?  But that seems to be Tracy's stock answer - she pretty much declares everything to be in some way connected to your show, and therefore, if someone hasn't listened to you, Tracy turns it from Talk Left to Talk to The Hand.

    In general, Tracy has been bullying people from one end of the blog to the other, and I know I and others thank you ever so much for giving her permission to continue.


    I don;t imagine how your point could be valid.

    I understand many of you were not listenting, and shame on you for that (joke), but Tracys point stands as valid to me.

    If she is referring to things I was saying, how could you possibly be responding to that?


    Have you read the thread? (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by sj on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 02:52:08 PM EST
    If so, in what format do you render comments?  Because what you just said doesn't make sense, really.  

    There are a lot of "if"s in your comment which leads me to ask:  exactly what point of Tracy's is valid?  And what ever that point is, is that the only possible discussion that can be held about the reviews about a movie that none of us have seen?

    What point of Anne's is invalid?  It doesn't sound like you know.  It sounds like you're declaring it invalid without even knowing what it is.  It actually sounds like someone whose just defending his fans from criticism.  

    Good thing I have a meeting to go to.  Hopefully when I get back there will have been enough time for the conversation to have evolved.  I can't believe I let myself get suckered into responding to chatter anyway.


    Okay...just help me out here: (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:11:05 PM EST
    Tracy seemed to be the only one of those commenting today who listened to your show - yes, shame on all of us.  Some of her comments were sprinkled with variations of  "BTD said..."  and included her interpretation and opinion on your radio discussion.  But included in her comments were reactions to and opinions about what others in the thread were saying, and what some of the linked bloggers/media people had weighed in with.  Somehow, the aspects related to outside opinions got drawn in with your radio comments, and rendered invalid and not credible - to Tracy - the comments of anyone who was weighing in on the outside opinions if they hadn't sworn they listened to your show.

    Compounding the problem was that some of Tracy's comments and reasoning were so garbled it was hard to understand exactly what she was talking about, and efforts to get her to explain and clarify either went unanswered or were met with more mangled rhetoric.

    It just seemed to me that if Tracy wasn't willing to engage anyone who hadn't listened to your show, what, really, was the point of her commenting about it?  Oh, wait - she happily engaged anyone who agreed with her even if they didn't listen, so it didn't take long to understand that it wasn't about not listening to your show, it was having an opinion that she didn't like.  Hard to see how that wasn't using you, BTD, but I don't expect you - or her - to see it that way.


    Maybe we could have a thread that is (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:48:28 PM EST
    just dedicated to your broadcast where only people who are listening can comment and a separate Open Thread. Might narrow the discussion and eliminate any confusion on whether or not people are commenting on your show or just responding to another person's comment.

    How does this rate a 1? (2.00 / 4) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:02:37 PM EST
    What is broken with you?

    LOL (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by sj on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:09:37 PM EST
    Broken with me?  You're busy shouting me and others down over a movie that hasn't been released yet, and you're asking with your high and mighty attitude what's broken with me?  That really is pretty amusing, when you think about it.

    I imagine your tendency toward verbal bullying has served you well in many aspects of your life.  But I don't provide a service to you and I can call it what it is.


    It's a computer (none / 0) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:22:43 PM EST
    I can't shout.  And if shouting is involved it would seem others are attempting to shout down as well.  Some people have claimed moral high ground by not seeing a movie that has even been released yet :)

    The problem is, I have a differing opinion from you on the possible importance of various aspects about the movie, added to an early firestorm of discussion about the movie.

    But I'm not going to discuss different aspects or points talked about in a radio show if you aren't going to listen to the program.  You can download it later and listen to it.

    I would discuss any of it with you too, but not if you don't listen to the program first.


    Oy (none / 0) (#148)
    by sj on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:25:42 PM EST
    Don't get a grip (none / 0) (#145)
    by vicndabx on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:19:45 PM EST
    some of these folks need to relax and stop reading so much venom into every comment.

    btw, I agree w/your entire argument

     - see the movie to understand for yourself what is presented to be able to make an argument against the efficacy of torture.  Of course seeing th emove is not necessary to make the argument against torture.  

    It's really kinda simple - don't know why people are jumping all down ur throat about it.


    Apologies (none / 0) (#136)
    by sj on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:51:56 AM EST
    You just pi$$ed me off with that very unnecessarily agressive statement.

    The suggestion of providing a Twitter feed was a neutral one.  And an obvious one, in my mind.  While it was inspired by your comments was not an editorial statement.


    It is his thread about his radio show (none / 0) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:01:14 PM EST
    It is also am open thread, but also contains his radio show.

    Gawd, you're ridiculous. (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:24:06 AM EST
    I am commenting on the radio program (1.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:38:16 AM EST
    Much of the goose chase info is discussed in the program.  What is wrong with you?

    Ridiculous and obstinate. (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:29:55 PM EST
    No not, not at all (none / 0) (#152)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:42:00 PM EST
    I am not going to sit here and transcribe for you a radio program that if you are genuinely interested in you would have the incentive to listen to.  Who is ridiculous and obstinate here?

    Yup. Everyone's out of step but you. (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:54:49 PM EST
    Ridiculous and obstinate.

    Continue on if you must, I'm done with you.


    At this point (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:56:26 PM EST
    I would be done with me too if I were you

    Well,... (none / 0) (#172)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 02:31:53 PM EST
      I guess maybe I was overly optimistic to think the fighting and insanity had abated  since 2007. Well, at least the sujects have changed.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 02:48:05 PM EST
    Sometimes the subject that chased you away is exactly the same.

    There are actually some good disussions (none / 0) (#175)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:15:13 PM EST
    that still occur here, however, not usually with this particular person if it has anything to do with the military, abortion, unions, Colorado, housing tract developers, race, dogs, the south, horses, or politics.

    OK, I exaggerate, I did once actually have a very good convo with her about dogs (my dog), she was quite helpful and I am grateful for that.


    From what I have read (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:10:44 PM EST
    This movie is being used by some to say torture works.  I haven't seen the film yet, but 45 minutes of torture followed by we get some alias for bin Ladens courier is being described.  Peter Bergen fears that this film says torture works to the masses who will file in and file out to see it, Joe Scarborough says this film says torture works (Joe Scarborough says a lot of $hit though).

    In BTDs radio program though he points out that we got disinformation out of torturing KSM and Al Qaeda's #3.  This led the CIA into wild goose chases into nowhere.  When this is their mode of intel gathering though, it would seem they are screwed in their endeavors.

     Because of what our family experienced with deployments, and particularly the last deployment, I have a solid taste in my mouth that the Bush administration tortured for intel and that was the only intel they were really interested in.  Obama on the other hand demanded REAL intel.  I think he was completely backed by Petraeus on all this too.  It created a lock on how we moved forward.

    Haven't seen the film, interested to see if there is a visable shift between administrations.  But she is so factually inaccurate I am not going to be shocked if there isn't.  How I have experienced the hunt for bin Laden, torture prevented us from finding him until those who chose to embrace it leads to nothing but torture and all the torture intel was false became our leaders.  BTD seems to have come to a similar conclusion based on the facts we know, that attempting to give credibility to torture prevented us from finding bin Laden sooner.  Sadly, if we had found bin Laden sooner the nation probably would have had no political will to continue Afghanistan.  Without a crystal ball we will never know, but I'm pretty sure.

    In that light though, a film with this storyline that is this emotionally attached to people of this country cannot be given a pass on inaccuracies.  And not at all when the director claims "access" and "journalism".


    So, it seems (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Towanda on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:28:23 PM EST
    that, after all that, you actually agree with Anne on important points in her post.

    I guess you missed everything else I (none / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:38:52 AM EST
    Said or deliberately cherry pick my points.

    MT, I see your blasting off (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:12:59 AM EST
    In BTDs radio program though he points out that we got disinformation out of torturing KSM and Al Qaeda's #3.

    I don't think anyone outside the real haps know what we got.

    All information is useful because it shows what the person knows, doesn't know and wants you to know.

    I haven't seen the movie. And the above is not about the movie.

    But it must have struck home to upset you so much.


    Sorry Jim (none / 0) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:43:06 AM EST
    6,000 page report on all of it, and if they would have got any info via torture every Republican Senator would be talking about it.  They are quiet as church mice.  I know this bothers you, that torture doesn't work and when it came to finding bin Laden it actually hampered the situation.

    MT (none / 0) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 09:01:22 AM EST
    The producers had all the help in the world from the Obama administration.

    Strange how it was first going to be released before the election and was then postponed.


    That's what you guys wanted (none / 0) (#177)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 10:18:32 PM EST
    Great filmaker or no.. (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:40:45 PM EST
    you can't obtain that kind of access without a degree of embeddeness..

    I suspect Bigelow's one of those folks who has a 'thing' for a man in uniform, but that's just me..


    On Tweety's show, a guest (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:57:40 PM EST
    said the screenwriter was bamboozled by pro torture CIA faction.  

    That would suck (none / 0) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:44:21 AM EST
    I don't think we've heard the last of this.  More please

    Career warriors (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 12:48:31 PM EST
    can be very charismatic and persuasive.

    As Yeats said, "the worst are full of passionate intensity."

    Plus, since the Illiad, we've all been cutlturally condition to be enthralled, to a greater or lesser degree, by those who "withhold not their swords from blood"..

    And, lets not forget, Beigelows probably aware, on some level, that if "the economy" keeps moving in a Third World-stratified direction, these ex-Delta Force guys are oing to be the one's doing private security for the gated community-and-compounds crowd.  


    There (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:09:04 PM EST
    was a short-lived tv show called "V" on awhile ago. Not the first "V". The second one - the post 9/11 one.

    It glorified torture.
    "Our side" tortured the "visitors" (aliens - enemies) to get "needed" information. Without mercy.

    I won't go into detail here. Too sick.

    It was pure and simple propaganda.


    Excellent post Anne -- (none / 0) (#62)
    by Cashmere on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:51:19 PM EST
    I agree 100%!

    Conoce al nuveo jefe, (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 11:29:41 AM EST
    mismo que el viejo jefe.  New Mexican President Pena Nieto vows to continue the war on marijuana south of the border, despite drug war violence being a major reason Calderon's party lost power, and despite the recent victories for liberty and justice for all in Washington and Colorado.

    Pena Nieto got no problem working on Maggie's Farm.  

    The dawning of the new consciousness has alotta work to do before 12/21...or do the perpetually unconscious just get raptured or something? ;)

    First day of same-sex weddings in Seattle. (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:52:08 PM EST
    This past Sunday was the first day that same-sex weddings could be held under Washington's new law. Seattle City Hall was well-prepared with five wedding stations, pens that worked and lots of tissue.

    Here are some photos of that day taken at Seattle City Hall. By the time I got partway through these pics I was nearly sobbing.

    I think all the couples are sweet, but I was especially moved by the older couples who have been together for 3 or 4 or 5 decades, and by the children who were there to see their moms or their dads get married.

    Yikes, it's getting scary in Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:03:45 PM EST

    I read in another report that one of the protestors was trampled by a police horse.

    The GOP police state means business.

    Oh yes, indeed (none / 0) (#81)
    by sj on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:12:54 PM EST
    The GOP police state means business.
    That's been obvious for some time.  But I think you limit the scope of the police state.  Recall who it was who used these tactics on the Occupy groups nationwide.

    Hear Fox News tell it... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:55:29 AM EST
    Michigan is awash in union tradesmen lumping up geeky-meek true-patriot counter-protesters.

    First the Stage Deli, (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:04:09 PM EST
    closing its doors because the rent went sky-high - and now this:

    MOSCOW -- The Russian government said Tuesday that it would shut down operations at a major radar station in Gabala, Azerbaijan, that can detect missile launchings throughout the Middle East, after failing to reach an agreement on a new lease with the Azeri government. The radar station was built in 1985 when Russia and Azerbaijan were still part of the Soviet Union. For the past decade, Russia has paid Azerbaijan $7 million a year in rent for the facility, along with other operational charges. With the lease set to expire, the two countries had been in protracted negotiations over new terms, with Azerbaijan demanding $300 million a year.

    So funny.

    Azebaijan says, if you want to know about incoming missiles, you'll have to fork over another 293 million bucks a year. Russia says, you know what... to hel! with it.

    I hope all these starwars SDIs and whateveryoucallits go the way of the 8 track cassette.

    Why doesn't Russia just say... (none / 0) (#103)
    by unitron on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 09:02:29 PM EST
    ..."We're retargeting some of our own missles.  If anything hits us that we didn't know about in advance but could have if our station in Azerbaijan were still online, they'll launch automatically, and Azerbaijan will need a new capital city."

    This is why I rarely read reviews until after (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 06:02:15 AM EST
    I see the movie. I've seen so many reviews that get even basic plot points of the movie wrong that I prefer to make my own judgements first and then read the reviews to get opinions. I don't like to have the other person to have that much more more info than I do when I read their opinion!

    Haven't seen Begelow yet, but if she is presenting her dramatic rendition as journalism, she is not to be believed. The trailer I saw over the weekend made it look like an episode of 'Homeland'. I would be thrilled if Jessica Chastain took over the role from Claire Danes.

    Fortunately, for all y'all torture nonfans, (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:29:57 PM EST
    ... it's no longer necessary.  The government's new plan:

    Eavesdropping on every private conversation on American public transportation.

    So... if you feel better, thank your Eavesdropper-in-Chief.

    Joe Scarborough is at best a scumbag these (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 10:03:11 AM EST
    Days.  He is so intellectually dishonest.  He clutches wildly blindly to any disconnected premise that would indicate that his party leaders aren't the most soulless pluckers we've ever had to deal with.  He is a horrible joke.

    I have read that the film also portrays the disinformation we got torturing.  A thinking American will notice that immediately, a Fox News American will not.  Disinformation will get your soldiers killed for nothing, like Iraq did.  Nothing changed much there.  And I've also read that the torture scenes leave most of us who aren't broken stunned and repulsed.

    My one annoyance, there will be and needs to be tons of commentary out there that this is a movie, not a documentary....and KSM did not give up the courier until months after his torture ended.  While being tortured he gave up disinformation, anything to make it stop.  Unfortunately good films outlive the initial commentary on them so everyone is forever obligated to clarify where the film is inaccurate to those who don't want it to be so.

    I thought Bigelow did a very good job on The Hurt Locker in portraying how addictive combat can be for some.  They leave their families for it, they leave everything.  It appears that one of the SEALs killed in Benghazi experienced this, and I don't fault those soldiers either.  They aren't our first workaholics.  The most amazing thing she did though IMO was used fresh new actors in the leading roles and well known much beloved faces in the supporting roles where they show up and just get killed and that's that.  That depicted so much what it is like when the guy down the street gets killed.  You see his face a lot, taking the trash out, mowing the lawn, he is a visible known, a face that causes you to experience feelings of comfort, and then suddenly he's just gone and that's that.

    Pretty dicey, MT, using the word (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:07:52 PM EST
    intellectual anywhere in the vicinity of Scarborough. :-)

    I do fault the soldiers to this extent (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 10:45:41 AM EST
    This is 2012 and nothing about the military's complete lack of concern for its own employees is unknown.  Some free Americans, however, freely choose to ignore that, and fall prey to the worst aspects of human instinct -- vengeance. Yes the government and military hierarchy abuse soldiers, and yes, too many soldiers abuse their own intellects before that ever happens, for the sake of that last bastion of scoundrels -- empty headed illusions of patriotism.  IOW, an utter lack of critical thinking skills will lead a person into disaster.

    And I do realize... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 10:49:07 AM EST
    ...all sorts of people give in to all sorts of addictions all the time, and I would be a hypocrite to say I do not understand. The difference is those other addictions don't require a person to be a tool of the military industrial complex, don't require them to kill others far away, etc., to feed their addiction.

    There is no shame in being a (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 10:52:27 AM EST
    Person in Libya securing arms working to prevent terrorists from obtaining them.  I just don't get you.

    I have no idea what you are talking about (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 10:49:50 AM EST
    This lack of concern thing.

    The occupation of Afghanistan... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 10:59:34 AM EST
    shows a total and utter lack of concern for our soldiers...isn't it obvious?  The paychecks don't exactly ooze concern either.

    No it isn't obvious to me at all (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 11:02:34 AM EST
    And I have to keep bringing up that even Code Pink had to revise its views on  Afghanistan because of its female members who are Afghans.  It's not black and white and it never will be like Iraq is...not ever.

    People have their reasons (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 11:08:05 AM EST
    and justifications for that sinful waste of American blood and treasure, I just ain't buying any of them...never did.  Agree to disagree.

    Fact is (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 11:13:40 AM EST
    Bush and Iraq = horrible, soldiers leaving in droves.  It was all lies and inhumanity and death, none of the people were not protected, not soldier and not civilian.  An all volunteer force stopped volunteering.

    President Obama as the CIC, we have too many volunteers.  We are going to have to actually force people out.  It has already begun.


    Non-Sense (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:47:34 PM EST
    ...where exactly do contractors fit into this equation ?  Beyond the small percentage of glory seekers, people who volunteer to go into the military, when we are at war, have very few options.

    While they may be forcing people out of the military, the number of people employed and on the ground in Afghanistan remains steady.  They are playing shell games with titles.

    There are 99,800 contractors in Afghanistan, 19,000 are classified as private security, aka titleless soldiers.  For every titled soldier we withdraw, 1.4 contractors will be added.  LINK

    It takes six figures to get private security contractors to volunteer, not exactly the wages of an over-abundant force.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 11:14:41 AM EST
    Auto correct...none of the people were protected in Iraq.

    Is it possible the high unemployment (none / 0) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:45:47 AM EST
    rate since 2008 might have something to do with the increase in the number of people volunteering?

    Before anyone goes there, I am not blaming Obama for the increased rate merely stating that the military offered people jobs during a period when no other options were available.


    One of the things that noticed as well (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 10:17:57 AM EST
    As long as we had an administration who thought torture worked, they were reluctant to much effort into other forms of intelligence gathering.  They all stood around waiting for the torture to produce the golden egg and it produced no such thing.

    And because the disinformation was so discouraging, it seems like the Bush administration stopped looking for bin Laden.  Because they couldn't get over the fact that torture doesn't work in gaining intel.  If they didn't get the intel it was because it didn't exist, and/or was impossible to obtain.  Obviously though the intel did exist, but you weren't going to go in that direction if you were determined to torture people.

    Yeah, agree with you (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 10:22:30 AM EST
    Just because Spencer wanted to throw up watching the torture scenes doesn't mean that other people aren't going to be turned on by it and fueled by it and argue for it.

    which is why many don't want to see it.. (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 08:08:28 PM EST
    doesn't mean that other people aren't going to be turned on by it and fueled by it

    I can understand that in a way (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:53:24 AM EST
    We have watched films portraying the torture of other nations though.  This one bothers us so much because it is about us.  My only way to credibly argue those who will attempt to use the film to justify torture is to see the film.  Because others who have seen it see inaccuracies and certain portrayed facts as ignored by the justifiers. More Americans are going to see this film than not.

    The role that torture played and myths that can be created by this film are too important to me to not see it.  The torture in the film is a portrayal of torture and not actual torture.  Most of us seen films about the Khmer Rouge and it didn't turn us into torturers.


    Try as I might, I simply do not understand (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:43:18 AM EST
    these arguments you're making.  Are you saying that people who have seen films where other countries were the torturers really can't know how they feel about torture unless they see a movie that depicts our country inflicting torture?  That somehow, the whole shoe-on-the-other-foot will change some minds?

    Well, maybe it will, but it makes no sense to me that you feel you can't credibly argue against torture unless you see this movie.  You can make the argument that it wasn't torture that led to the killing of bin Laden, but if the film depicts or suggests otherwise, how is your having seen the movie going to make your argument for the truth easier?  You'll get the response that the film's makers have been giving: it's not s documentary, it's artistic license. Or more likely, you'll get "so what?" it's just a movie."

    But maybe you're arguing that you can't counter the inaccuracies unless you see the movie - that I can agree with.

    But whether it's accurate or not, I don't know how that helps anyone see the validity of arguments against torture, because it seems to me that your argument then gets perceived as torture only being wrong when it doesn't work - and if you believe that it's wrong regardless of whether it works even one time, you don't need to see this or any other movie to make that argument.  And it doesn't matter how many people see the film, how many awards the movie gets, or what the reviewers - or the reviews of the reviews - say.


    Have you watched other films (none / 0) (#122)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:52:53 AM EST
    Depicting torture?  If so why are you shunning this specific film?  Look, I'm not saying you have to see any film.  But as Donald pointed out how can you criticize any film you haven't seen?  And if you have allowed other films depicting torture into your psyche why is this the horror film you cannot expose yourself to?  Lastly, being a person who is never going to expose yourself to this film does not make you morally superior to anyone who will see it but you seem to think it does.  I don't care if you see this film, that is up to you.  But your criticism of it carries absolutely no weight with me.

    Oh, for the love of God... (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:01:38 PM EST
    are you so intent on whatever it is your point is that you cannot absorb what people are actually saying?  How many times do I have to write that I am not critiquing this movie before you process it?  None of us can critique the film, because it hasn't been released yet, for crying out loud.

    I don't know how I could have been any clearer in my initial comment, that I am just not a war movie person; they don't do anything for me, so I don't seek them out.  Have I seen a few in my almost-60 years?  Sure, I have, but not being a war or history buff, I couldn't tell you if whichever movies I did see were accurate or not.  I watched "Platoon" with my husband, as he is a Vietnam vet, and he opined on the accuracy, not me.  

    Your crack about moral superiority is just crap.  If anyone took a morally superior tone, it was Donald - he's really good at that - who drew himself up to whatever his full height was to announce his intention to see the movie, and then took the opportunity, as you have, to bash anyone who wouldn't be as open-minded as he thinks he is.

    And you - well, anything military sends you off to the races, and no one can ever get a freaking word in who dares to contradict any opinion you have in that area, and you're doing it here, all through this thread.

    And the hilarious thing is, that even though no one in the general public has seen this movie, including you, the only people you're "dogging" are those who have said they probably won't see it, but don't need to in order to know how they feel about torture or war.  And you have, quite frankly, been all over the place in your comments, to the point where some of them just don't make any sense.

    I don't even know why I am wasting my time trying to figure out what you're saying - it's not like I haven't asked you to explain -  and continuing to respond to someone who is so intent on bullying her way into having the argument she wants that she has to distort what I have said more times that I should have had to.


    Oy (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by sj on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:06:59 AM EST
    More Americans are going to see this film than not.
    USA population is about 314 million.  Adult population is about 250 million.

    I just deleted everything else I was going to say about that.


    Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:01:33 AM EST
    If 20% of the US population saw a movie today it would be the biggest grossing domestic blockbuster of all time.

    The closest I could find to tickets sold as a  percentage of population was a nearly four year constant run of Gone With The Wind, and that didn't reach 50%.


    I, also, agree (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:30:08 AM EST
    Gone with the Wind was rated "G"

    Zero Dark Thirty is rated "R"

    The "R" rating by restricting the viewing population will by its nature reduce the number of people viewing the film. From what I can determine, the films on the current top 20 list are all PG-13 or below.

    My google skills are not advanced enough to get data on just "R" rated films, but I would hazard a guess that the box office is reduced substantially.


    An R Rating (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:26:57 PM EST
    probably doesn't appear in the top 50 by domestic gross. If you go with adjusted gross counting inflation "The Exorcist" would make it into the top 20 but that's just one in the last 40 years.

    Good point (none / 0) (#169)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:55:36 PM EST
    We will see won't we? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:55:07 AM EST
    I count seeing this film on Netflix and eventually on television as seeing this film too.  Because all of that viewing adds up to "seeing this film".

    Oh, for crying out loud (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by sj on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:13:15 AM EST
    Of course go see the movie.  I don't care.  I don't care who else goes to see the movie.  Any more than I cared who went to see "Bridesmaids".  Seeing it will make you much more knowledgeable about the movie than I will be.  

    It won't make you any more knowledgeable about torture and it's efficacy than I am, however.

    What a lot of words spent defending a decision on how you're going to spend your free time and entertainment dollars.  It's completely your decision and doesn't require my or anyone else's approval or blessing.  


    I'm just generally not interested in (none / 0) (#128)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:52:02 AM EST
    war movies, never have been.

    Who said you had to be? (none / 0) (#129)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:58:57 AM EST
    Nobody, and you aren't issuing scathing criticisms about something you haven't seen or those who will see it either.  Unlike some people

    I missed that (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by sj on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:01:36 AM EST
    Show me a scathing criticism of the movie?

    You have to see the film (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 10:59:17 AM EST
    You can't dog something without knowing all of what you are dogging :)

    Lots of possible definitions ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by sj on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 11:31:21 AM EST
    ...for "dogging".  What's yours?

    Giving someone a hard time (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 11:56:29 AM EST
    Which is what BTD does when he disagrees with something he thinks is important to the implementation of policy, and he discusses it.

    If you listened to his radio program he said that he was going to see the film.  He said that maybe he shouldn't after already shooting it down.  I think it is fine to shoot the film down for reported inaccuracies about the torture our government participated in, because this is a film subject that most Americans are very emotionally attached to.  The myths that this film has the ability to create because this is a film about us and times of feeling unsafe should be addressed vigorously.  I think it is fine for him to hit it like he did today and then see it and refine his thoughts on all this.


    I never listen to his radio (none / 0) (#21)
    by sj on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 12:09:05 PM EST
    program.  It isn't possible.

    Forgot to say (none / 0) (#25)
    by sj on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 12:14:13 PM EST
    thanks for the clarification.  It's what I assumed, but since I don't listen to the radio show, and do read the blog, I couldn't be certain what you were talking about.

    I only know two... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:37:16 PM EST
    Tracy's usage...meaning to sh*t on or criticize, and the other is not for discussion on a family website;)

    Yeah, I'm trying to recall (none / 0) (#59)
    by sj on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:42:10 PM EST
    how I got suckered into uncertainty because those are the two that I use also.  But once uncertainty hit, I hit Google and was then led completely astray.

    It must have  been lack of coffee.


    I imagine will probably see ZD3. I think it would be pretty interesting, much like Argo.

    I really did not get what the big deal was (none / 0) (#22)
    by vml68 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 12:11:01 PM EST
    about The Hurt Locker.
    I also thought Avatar was god@wful, which considering its success puts me in the minority.

    and lacking any real theatrical storyline that I had to force myself to watch it to the end.

    You are not alone (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Zorba on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:14:36 PM EST
    in thinking that Avatar was g*dawful.  So did I.
    Mr. Zorba wanted to see The Hurt Locker.  I simply could not watch the whole thing.

    It's interesting to note that ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:13:48 PM EST
    ... "Avatar" director James Cameron felt his ex-wife's directorial efforts in "The Hurt Locker" greatly exceeded his own. He went on record as saying that he hoped she would win the Best Director Oscar in 2010 -- which she subsequently did, along with the Oscar for Best Picture.

    Glenn Greenwald's review (none / 0) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 12:11:52 PM EST
    and commentary of the reviews and commentaries  of 'Zero Past Thirty" would have greater force if he had waited to see the movie.  The film's  assertions and conclusions of the role of torture in the search for bin Laden, as seen through the filter of  film critics eyes, could have used the filter of Glenn's own eyes.

    It could be that some film critics interest in the art form may have eclipsed their ability to discern between depicting and glorifying torture.  However, a movie on this gravitas needs to be seen and then reviewed by other than movie critics.   Just critiquing the reviews may be useful, but it lacks something--sort of like a review of a  collection of essays on being good parents, by the childless.

    Glenn Greenwald (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by sj on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:30:59 PM EST
    specifically did not review the movie.
    "I have not seen this film and thus am obviously not purporting to review it; I am, instead, writing about the reaction to the film: the way in which its fabrications about the benefits of torture seem to be no impediment to its being adored and celebrated.]

    Just saying.


    Yes, Glenn Greenwald (none / 0) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:52:16 PM EST
    makes that point clear.  My point is that his point would benefit by an undergirding from the primary source.  That's just good scholarship, and, even, good journalism.

    I see what you're saying (none / 0) (#42)
    by sj on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:56:48 PM EST
    but I don't think I agree with you.  He isn't commenting on the movie.  He's commenting on the reviewers and the commenters.  And those he has observed.

    Although, to be fair, I might be... (none / 0) (#43)
    by sj on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:59:53 PM EST
    ...saying that due to the how extremely repulsed I am by this entire affair and everything that surrounds it.

    Well, I don't think that's the right comparison (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:53:39 PM EST
    at all.  In his update, Glenn says:

    If writers at major media outlets who review the film all say the film shows torture being helpful in finding bin Laden - all while the film's director runs around the country praising herself for her journalistic approach to the film while the film's screenwriter defends this artistic license to depict the non-existent value of torture (as he did to Filkins) - then people are going to talk about that, and they should. They're also going to talk about reviewers who simultaneously gush about the film while noting that it falsely depicts torture as helping find bin Laden, and they should do that also.

    That so many reviewers walked away with a pro-torture message from the film - that torture was key to finding bin Laden - means that large numbers of viewers likely will as well, regardless of the after-the-fact claimed intent of the filmmakers. That, by itself, is highly problematic and worthy of commentary.

    I wasn't previously aware of this rule imposing a blackout on discussing film reviews that appear in major media outlets prior to the film's opening. It's an inane prohibition, and particularly strange to watch film critics, who write these pre-opening reviews, lead the way in imposing this blackout period on discussing what they write.

    I think it's important to note that neither Glenn nor I nor anyone else could have seen the film, because it hasn't been released yet.  So, what we have going on now is the only thing that can go on: discussing the reviews of those who have screened the movie, and noting the reactions of the film's makers, which are of the talking-out-of-both-sides-of-their-mouths variety.


    Only documentaries are supposed to be (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 12:31:31 PM EST
    Factual.  Movies are supposed to entertain you, BUT Bigelow claims to taking on some sort of journalistic aspect, and how can you say that when this is not a documentary?  She has really messed up in saying that.  I suspect, though may be incorrect, that she was given certain access because she was making a work of fiction.  It is a big deal in the intel community being able to say they can neither confirm or deny.  She has gone out on a limb though equating her work with the work of a journalist.  First of all.....bullshit.  Second of all, she has equated herself to a journalist and before any of us have seen the film we already know of several factual inaccuracies.

    Fox News viewers and Conservatives have always had a hard time distinguishing between fiction programming and documentaries though.  Because of the subject content of this film and the country's attachment to the subject, and what Bigelow has made claim of, she is going to have to be shot down vigorously and often for awhile.  She is going to have to walk back that claim of journalism.


    And almost everyone in this country is going to (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:11:08 PM EST
    See this film at some point.  I understand if you don't want Hollywood getting a prime cut of your cash, but this film is going to be nominated.  And we will be up late one night with insomnia and nothing on except this on HBO or stuck in some hotel room, our best friend will invite us over for wine and they will have decided to watch this.  The percentage of Americans who will go to the grave not having seen this movie will be in the single digits.  

    What's your point? That it is the (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:18:09 PM EST
    number of people who see a movie that make it worthwhile?  The number of awards it gets?  I mean, some people think it means something that Katherine Bigelow is "hot," always a metric that matters, right?

    Maybe being one of the few people who doesn't see this movie is something that matters to you, but if I go to my grave never having seen it I don't think I will die a lesser person than I would be otherwise.


    I'm not sure this movie will be (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:53:22 PM EST
    as far-reaching as you seem to think, MT. Maybe a huge percentage of people who go to all or most first-run movies and then die on the way home will go to their grave having seen ZDT, but, unless the Mayans are right, millions of Americans will never see ZDT. Just the number of Americans who are too young to get into the theatre makes your claim unlikely.

    I can easily believe that a large percentage of the people that you know will see it, even a large percentage of people living in your town. But the country as a whole? Yeah, I don't think your claim holds up, kiddo.


    All I know is.... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:12:12 PM EST
    I'm going to see "Django Unchained" when it is released...that's the only new release that has me stoked to drop 15 bucks.  

    This flick can wait till a cable channel picks it up.


    I'm waiting for the release of Les Miserable. (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:18:16 PM EST
    I loved the play. So, I anticipate that I will, at a minimum, like the movie. I am a big fan of musicals both on stage and on screen. I am also a big fan of Hugh Jackman.

    Top price for a first-run movie here is $10. Now that I am 60 I get in for the senior rate, which drops my price down to $7.50. That is still to my mind a lot of money for a movie, but then when I started going to movies it only cost me a quarter to get in. Of course, in those days we had to walk five miles through the snow, uphill both ways, to get to the theatre. :-)

    And I am finally going to see Skyfall. Daniel Craig is, IMO, the best Bond since Connery, maybe even better. And I love Judi Dench. Plus if the reviews are right, Skyfall is the only Bond movie ever that could qualify as Best Picture of the Year. So, if you have seen it and hated it, please don't tell me. :-)


    Les Mis... (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:30:30 PM EST
    is such a great story (and very Talkleft!;), I will check out the latest remake eventually...love me some Jean Valjean redemption!

    I really liked the film version with Liam Neeson, Geoffrey Rush, Uma Thurman, & Claire Danes...that one will be tough to top.


    It's a story near and dear to the pirate crew's (none / 0) (#61)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:44:42 PM EST
    collective heart.

    I am on the hunt for an unabridged translation (French to English) of the book Les Miserables.Does anyone here have favorite? One you've read and consider good? One you would recommend?


    I have the opposite of that (none / 0) (#139)
    by CST on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:01:37 PM EST
    I love Les Mis.  Loved it when I had to read the abridged version in school, loved it when I saw the musical 2-3 times, loved it when I saw the movie version that already came out.  Very excited to see this version.  I loved it so much I went out and bought the Signet Classic unabridged version.  I bought it maybe 12 years ago, and the subtitle says its "the only complete and unabridged paperback edition" (no idea if that's still true).  With that, I finally found a version of Les Mis I didn't like.  I am an extremely fast reader.  I read the abridged version in a night.  It took me over a month to slog through this, and not because it's that long (1463 pages), but because it's that hard to slog through.  I finished it, if only because it became a personal challenge of me vs. this book.  I will say it provided a lot more information about the story and the french revolution.  I guess I'm glad I read it because it provides more depth to the story, and I love the story.  But I can't say I enjoyed it or I'd read it again (I often reread things, one of the side affects to reading fast is that I sometimes miss details, and therefore enjoy rereading things).

    The main problem, IMO, is that he tends to go off on 100 page tangents describing some specific aspect of french culture/the revolution that seem to have little to do with the plot, using rather dense language.  There might be one sentence in that 100 pages that relates back to the story.  If you're interested in that, by all means go for it, but it's less of a story and more of an encyclopedia.


    I really enjoyed (none / 0) (#60)
    by Zorba on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:43:56 PM EST
    Skyfall.  Yes, Craig is definitely the best Bond since Connery.  I don't think he's better than Connery, but he's right up there with him.  I think you'll like Skyfall.  And some neat references to early Bond- I won't give away what they are.
    I hope that Les Mis as a movie is as good as the play, because I loved the play.

    I'd have to agree (none / 0) (#64)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:08:44 PM EST
    I liked it - and I like Craig as Bond.  His character seems much more physical than prior bonds - don't know if they made that change because of him or not.  My wife doesn't like him as much, though - she's a Pierce Brosnan fan.

    I'm with your wife on this one (none / 0) (#68)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:28:40 PM EST
    I just saw "Skyfall" this past weekend and was really turned of by him. But I'm in the minority here on the quality of the movie itself. Thought it s*cked. Too long, too many holes, and Craig just made me wish for someone with less of a six-pack and more natural humor.

    I will say, a Judi Densch performance is always worth the price of admission.


    She's not a fan of ... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:36:02 PM EST
    ... the physical stuff.  Mainly, though, she just likes a "prettier" Bond, ala Pierce Brosnan or Roger Moore (maybe even Connery).  Craig doesn't do it for her.

    I think because I (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Amiss on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:26:59 PM EST
    was such a Simon  Templar fan, I preferred Roger Moore to Pierce Brosnan, tho I did like Remington Steele back in the day.

    Dame Judi Dench just can't be topped. Still watch the old "As Time Goes By" episodes. However I do like Dame Maggie Smith in "Downton Abby".


    While I loved Steve McQueen in (none / 0) (#109)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 01:19:29 AM EST
    The Thomas Crowne Affair years ago, I thought  Pierce Brosnan was just fabulous as T. Crown in the remake. And, could Rene Russo have been any more beautiful as the Insurance investigator out to nail Crowne? I'm a big fan of Faye Dunaway (the Original TC Affair), but Rene did herself proud filling those big shoes.

    The Critics' Choice Award nominees were ... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:54:55 PM EST
    caseyOR: "And I am finally going to see Skyfall. Daniel Craig is, IMO, the best Bond since Connery, maybe even better. And I love Judi Dench. Plus if the reviews are right, Skyfall is the only Bond movie ever that could qualify as Best Picture of the Year. So, if you have seen it and hated it, please don't tell me."

    ... announced this morning, and "Skyfall" received three major nominations for Best Cinematography (Roger Deakins), Best Supporting Actress (Judi Dench) and Best Supporting Actor (Javier Bardem). This is a milestone accomplishment for a James Bond film.

    On a personal note, I absolutely loved "Skyfall." In my estimation, the tremendous advance buzz it was receiving prior to opening nationwide last month proved to not be studio hype at all, and the critical praise it's gotten since is every bit deserved.

    In terms of filmmaking, it's simply light years ahead of the campy adventures of Sir Roger Moore's James Bond in "Moonraker" and "A View to a Kill." In fact, when Sir Roger himself was interviewed last month by NBC's Matt Lauer, he praised "Skyfall" as the best James Bond film EVAH!

    I won't give anything away, other than to note that the respective supporting performances by Javier Bardem and Judi Dench are certainly Oscar-worthy. Dame Dench's M comes out from behind her desk at MI6 in a pivotal role, becoming the film's emotional center.

    As for the other major films, "Lincoln received 13 Critics' Choice nominations, "Les Meserables" took home 11 nominations, and "Silver Linings Playbook" got 10.

    Unfortunately, at least in my estimation, there is still appears to be a lot of residual buzz amongst film critics for Paul Thomas Anderson's "The Master," which IMHO at 140-plus minutes has to be the most tediously pretentious film I've seen so far this year. In fact, it was one of the very few movies I've even seen, period, where the ending couldn't possibly have come quickly enough -- all in all, a great big ZZZZZzzzzz!!!



    Got advance tickets to see Les Mis Christmas day (none / 0) (#161)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 01:55:41 PM EST
    at the local iMax. Can't wait!

    $15 for a movie? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:17:45 PM EST
    Geez, kdog, here in the islands movies are only $8.50 to $10.00, depending on the time of day. I think that's the only thing in Hawaii that can be had cheaper than the rest of the country!

    Afternoon matinees... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:36:32 PM EST
    can be had for cheaper, but prime time stadium seating is gonna run ya 15 bucks, give or take a buck or two.

    Stunningly, even I knew (none / 0) (#66)
    by Towanda on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:26:48 PM EST
    that NYC prices (and for much of the Northeast) tend to be higher than just about anywhere else.

    Yes, I know that your islands have high costs attached for shipping of perishables and such.  But why in the world would that be so for films, and especially those coming from the West Coast?


    I mean, where else can you go for a $6 bag of popcorn and a $4 soda?

    $15? Is that how much it costs now? (none / 0) (#55)
    by vml68 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:09:29 PM EST
    The last movie I saw in a theatre was Brokeback Mountain.

    I'll probably wait for that one (none / 0) (#144)
    by CST on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:16:52 PM EST
    on netflix.  These days I only go to the movies if I can find a visual reason why it is something that won't translate as well on the TV.  It's way too expensive to justify otherwise.

    Anyone else here excited about the Hobbit?


    Yes (none / 0) (#147)
    by sj on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:23:29 PM EST
    I'll probably go see The Hobbit over the holidays.  Hopefully with all my sibs and my offspring.  I think I want to see it in 3D and see what all this fuss is about 48 FPS.

    But really?  Three movies?


    3?? (none / 0) (#149)
    by CST on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:28:48 PM EST
    I heard 2, which I already thought was a bit much.  The book is pretty short.  Full of action, but moves quickly (note to Peter Jackson - that's one of the things I liked about it).  Oy.

    I know, right? (none / 0) (#157)
    by sj on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 01:14:26 PM EST
    Can't find it now, but I read that Peter Jackson is using material found in appendices in LOTR.

    Guess I'll be among the single digits. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 08:09:24 PM EST
    Same for Hurt Locker.

    Why would I want to watch this kind of thing?


    Don't feel bad. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 09:15:02 PM EST
    Dr. Molly: "Why would I want to watch this kind of thing?"

    I felt exactly the same way about "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," "ET: The Extra-Terrestial," "Chariots of Fire," "Forrest Gump" and "Titanic."

    Unfortunately for me, I came to that realization belately, and only after I saw each of them.

    To each, his or her own, I guess ...


    I don't. (feel bad) (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 06:55:58 AM EST
    Oh, that Scalia (none / 0) (#73)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:48:11 PM EST
    Such a canny and clever SC justice, engaging the world in important, provocative legal arguments, like:

    "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder?" Scalia asked in response to a question. "Can we have it against other things? I don't apologize for the things I raise."

    And all in the service of equating homosexuality with bestiality and murder. Such brilliance!

    I (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:55:25 PM EST
    must agree.

    Assuming that quote is accurate, I wonder if Scalia is remotely aware of how dumb he sounds.

    We have Reagan (the "transformational president" according to the incumbent) to thank for this azzhat, along with a Senate judiciary committee that asked him virtually nothing and a Senate that voted for him unanimously.


    I think "azzhat" is being charitable (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:57:23 PM EST
    He's a scourge.

    Do you think Scalia has tipped his (none / 0) (#75)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:56:42 PM EST
    hand with regards to his vote on the Prop 8 and the DOMA cases? Maybe he should be excused from hearing these cases.

    It seems obvious to us, but (none / 0) (#78)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:59:37 PM EST
    do you think Roberts has the guts to even suggest it?

    Also alarming were these statements: (none / 0) (#82)
    by DFLer on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:40:53 PM EST
    as reported in The Daily Princeton:
    "The Constitution is not an organism; it's a legal text for Pete's sake," Scalia said.

    He argued that while viewing it as a living document can guarantee new freedoms, it can also eliminate old ones. That is in part why Scalia said he views the structure of the Constitution as more important than the enumerated rights contained within it.

    "Every tinhorned dictator in the world has a bill of rights," Scalia said. He explained that the Founders rightly spent most of their time debating the structure and treated the Bill of Rights as an "afterthought."

    Well! An afterthought! Not exactly, Tony.


    Like Scalia's view of the Constitution (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:59:51 PM EST
    as being "dead, dead, dead" and not a living document,  so too is Scalia's thinking  dead, dead, dead.  In his dissent, Romer v Evans, Scalia writes..."the Court contains  grim, disapproving hints that Coloradans have been guilty of 'animus' or 'animosity' toward homosexuality, as though that has been established as UnAmerican. "  ...."But, I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible--murder,for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals and could even exhibit animus.  Coloradans, he continued, are entitled to be hostile."  

    The dissent (joined by Rehnquist and Thomas) could serve as a draft of his opinions for both the Perry and Windsor cases.  Some modifications would be needed owing to the subsequent ruling in Lawrence.


    Scalia's views are a direct line (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:32:16 PM EST
    backward to the bigots of the 19th and early 20th century courts. I can easily hear him proudly uttering the Henry Billings Brown quote that underpinned Brown's majority opinion in Plessy.

    But then, I can just as easily envision him burning crosses and giggling, from inside his white sheet head dress.


    Masked gunman on the loose in Portland mall. (none / 0) (#86)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:40:02 PM EST
    I am watching live TV coverage at a local mall, Clackamas Town Center. A masked gunman with an assault weapon, is loose in the mall. Preliminary reports are that 2 people are dead and at least 7 are wounded.

    The shooter, according to reports from people who got out of the mall, is that the shooter is wearing a white mask and body armor.

    Parts of the mall have been evacuated, but many people are still trapped in the mall, presumably hiding from the gunman.

    Sheriff's spokesperson is now saying that (none / 0) (#87)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:52:47 PM EST
    they believe the shooter has been "neutralized" because they are not hearing any more shots. The spokesperson does not know if this means the shooter is dead or captured.

    Looks like he has been "neutralized" (none / 0) (#88)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:53:22 PM EST
    The sheriff's office won't say, but (none / 0) (#90)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:55:15 PM EST
    neutralized usually means dead, right? If they had him in custody wouldn't they just say that?

    I read they may not have him in custody (none / 0) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:58:02 PM EST
    so they're not 100% sure if he's alive or not.

    Portland resident here... (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Cashmere on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 10:23:03 PM EST
    Late to the conversation.  Killer is dead from a self-inflicted wound last I heard.  Two others were killed and one other seriously injured and is at OHSU.  Numbers may change...  These tragedies are awful and heartbreaking..

    Some witnesses are reporting (none / 0) (#91)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:56:52 PM EST
    an automatic weapon. I guess we'll find out for sure soon enough...

    Witnesses have been consistently saying (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 07:00:42 PM EST
    the shooter had an assault weapon.

    There is some talk about a second shooter, but nothing confirmed.

    The emergency response is massive. TriMet has stopped light rail service and buses in that area. I-205, which runs right by the mall, is closed near the area. Everyone in the area of the mall is being asked to stay off their cell phones so that bandwidth is available to emergency and public safety workers.


    Thanx casey for the updates. (none / 0) (#96)
    by fishcamp on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 07:35:13 PM EST
    Portland is my home town but we were never allowed to go out to Clackamas County because it was too weird back then in the 60's.  Guess it still is.  Sorry for the victims and families.  Glad you are ok.

    Clackamas County has its own special (none / 0) (#98)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 07:42:24 PM EST
    brand of weirdness and mostly not in a good way. But the mall is a regional shopping destination. It is on TriMet's light rail Green Line. So, I don't think this rampage can be blamed on CC weirdness.

    Obviously you are a PDX resident as well.. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cashmere on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 10:24:47 PM EST
    I knew you were from Oregon.  

    The shooter is dead, according to the (none / 0) (#97)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 07:40:10 PM EST
    Clackamas County sheriff. Two others are dead. The shooter was male, and there was only one shooter.

    Sheriff's spokesperson has referred us to the sheriff's twitter feed for up-to-date info. Next update at 6:30 tonight.


    Shooting update: sheriff's office says (4.43 / 7) (#102)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 08:49:48 PM EST
    the gunman killed himself. Law enforcement did not fire a single shot. Counting the gunman there are three people dead. One person is critically injured.

    Police are still evacuating the mall. All the sheriff will say about the gunman is that it was an adult male.

    The mall will be closed until further notice.

    I just have to say that I hate this. I hate that we insist on letting any damn idiot have a gun. I hate that while many will condemn the gunman, we will refuse to condemn laws that let him get an assault rifle and ammunition. We will refuse to acknowledge that making it so easy for just about anyone to get a gun, even an assault weapon, a weapon of war, is what also makes it so easy for a tragedy like this to occur.


    Don't you just hate it when (1.00 / 3) (#170)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:04:28 PM EST
    A good ol' antigun rant gets deflated by
    pesky lil facts like the fact he used a stolen weapon?

    Rant not at all deflated. (none / 0) (#173)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 02:42:50 PM EST
    What was that guy doing with an AR 15 assault rifle? If we had sensible gun laws this gun owner would not have had an assault rifle for Jacob Roberts to take.

    See how that works?  I don't think there is any good reason for anyone who does not have a job that requires an assault weapon, like military or law enforcement, to have an assault weapon. get assault weapons off the streets and out of the hands of people who don't need them and people cannot then steal them and use them to shoot other people.


    Police have identified Jacob Tyler Roberts as the gunman who fatally shot two people at a crowded Oregon mall Tuesday before killing himself minutes later.

    There is no known connection between Roberts, 22, and the Clackamas Town Center, police said Wednesday. Authorities have yet to identify a motive for the shooting and said they are still piecing together the suspect's actions leading up to it.


    The shooter was wearing a white hockey mask, and a load-bearing vest. He was also carrying a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle and several fully loaded magazines. The rifle was stolen from a person known to the suspect, police said.

    Santa was at the mall during the shooting. (none / 0) (#99)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 07:56:10 PM EST
    He was just on TV letting everyone know he is okay. Santa heard the shots and hid from the gunman.

    There were people, kids I'm pretty sure, who were worried about Santa. So, he came on the news to assure everyone he is fine.


    Will (none / 0) (#105)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 09:48:46 PM EST
    we have to look forward to another speechie about how this sort of thing brings us closer together as the American family in closeness and Norman Rockwellian apple pie?

    Very disturbing pages from Cold War files (none / 0) (#95)
    by Politalkix on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 07:12:19 PM EST
    disturbing indeed (none / 0) (#108)
    by sj on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 10:43:59 PM EST