Super Bowl Sunday

I like the Giants (+3) (15 units.) Some late Pats money seems to be coming in.

Open Thread.

< Army Drops Murder Charges Against Last "Thrill Kill" Soldier | Madonna Time >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Here's my Super Bowl prediction: (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Zorba on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 12:34:02 PM EST
    Zorba will be frying four pounds of chicken wings.  ;-)

    Glad that predictions of the MVP (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Towanda on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 01:12:53 PM EST
    for Rodgers proved true.

    More important, as my football season ended weeks ago, we're having meatloaf.


    Am opting for "Tinker, Tailor." (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 02:08:28 PM EST
    Excellent. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Towanda on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 02:20:00 PM EST
    I ought to reread some LeCarre.  That's writing.

    For now, I'm waiting for my weekly Downton Abbey fix.  So nice to have melodramas back on the screen, where they belong, and not in my life . . . until the next one.

    Of course, the class warfare on the screen is nothin' next to what's in our lives now.


    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 02:45:53 PM EST
    And 'Luck' on HBO. Watched the first episode last week and got hooked.

    I've had a cold all weekend and have been really out of it. Mostly napping today. I hate to waste a weekend, but can't do much else.


    Ahhhhh. Sorry. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 02:49:23 PM EST
    I hope that your sniffles (none / 0) (#34)
    by Towanda on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 11:48:14 PM EST
    did not distract you from the Downton melodramas tonight!

    And that's nothin' compared to what's ahead.  I got a hint from a Brit friend, since they see the season ahead of us.

    Btw, have you seen the videos of just the Dowager/Maggie Smith's scenes?  She's so marvelous that I could watch her, and her alone, for an hour.  


    No distraction at all! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 09:32:47 AM EST
    such an interesting show....I really have no idea where it is going.

    So do you think that was the 'real' Patrick?

    I was too tired to watch 'Luck' after all...will watch it tonight!


    I don't think (none / 0) (#54)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 11:34:22 AM EST
    that was the real Patrick . . . but leaving it up in the air bodes for a reappearance, doesn't it?

    <cue swell of ominous background music>

    And perhaps just as Matthew's nether regions reappear, as it were, to cut him off again at the knees -- or other low joints?  What was that twinge he felt, and how far below the waist?


    I always this it is fakey when (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 12:17:18 PM EST
    people can't recognize someone they were close to, or rule them out, just because their face is disfigured.  I like to think I would recognize my brother or sister's body and voice as well as their face, but maybe I wouldn't. Who knows, I guess. That part seemed a little contrived to me.

    I forgive them though - here's to Matthew's tingling! I hope he get the 'nerve' to claim Mary from that awful marriage prospect!


    I'll llok for the Maggie Smith videos (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 09:49:47 AM EST
    She is so great. Just the right mix of dowager haughtiness and kindness.

    I also think Elizabeth McGovern's blue eyes should get an award of their own.


    Here's one for us (none / 0) (#50)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 10:48:07 AM EST
    h/t Digby, The Super-Proper Bowl

    Downton watches the big game...


    Donald, I kept meaning to ask you (none / 0) (#16)
    by Zorba on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 04:16:58 PM EST
    if you had seen The Descendants yet.  Thanks for the review.  I'll definitely watch it.

    Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (none / 0) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 04:25:28 PM EST
    was very good.  The screenplay did a great job with the book, made a little less hard to follow, but still, stay alert--don't keep you head down toward your popcorn too long  or you may fall behind.   "The Artist" is a also great for film geeks--old time silent (sort of) movie with a contemporary message. As entertaining as the seeing one of those 1927 Cadillacs of the movie equipped with a computer screen for backing up.  

    I second that Tinker, Tailor recommendation. (none / 0) (#18)
    by caseyOR on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 04:55:01 PM EST
    It is as true to the book as a movie can be. And even though I have read the book and so, knew what was going to happen, I was still surprised when it actually happened.

    Gary Oldman is an excellent George Smiley. And KeysDan is right, don't blink or you will miss important info.


    Me too on TTSS... (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 09:36:02 AM EST
    I have not read the book but really liked the movie a lot. I loved seeing something that kept me thinking the whole time.  Want to see it again.

    I've fallen behind on my movie viewing, being out of town last weekend and sick this past one. Really want to see both 'The Descendants' and 'The Artist' before Oscar night. Maybe a marathon this coming weekend....


    Zorba might (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Edger on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 01:28:07 PM EST
    need more than four pounds, when the rest of us show up... ;-)

    Just stop at (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Zorba on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 02:28:17 PM EST
    the grocery store and pick up a couple more pounds of chicken wings on your way up.  I have enough extra sour cream, mayo, and blue cheese to make more dip, and enough Frank's Hot Sauce and butter to float a boat.

    KFC? ;-) (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 05:18:11 PM EST
    Eeeeewwwww! (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Zorba on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 05:39:44 PM EST
    KFC is an Abomination Unto the Lord!  No, bring raw chicken wings!  I'll fry them and drench them with my homemade Buffalo sauce.   ;-)

    And PS, Edger, (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Zorba on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 05:41:08 PM EST
    I have shrimp with cocktail sauce, too.

    Mmmm! (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 06:06:49 PM EST
    Now you're talkin'! :-)

    Russia in color from a century ago (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Dadler on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 02:50:13 PM EST
    Nice photos, Dadler, thanks for the link (none / 0) (#13)
    by Zorba on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 03:17:07 PM EST

    Wonderful. Espec. # 5 and 6. (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 03:52:47 PM EST
    Beautiful (none / 0) (#36)
    by sj on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 01:44:18 AM EST
    Thank you

    Anyone else see Wisconsin protests (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Towanda on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 11:45:13 PM EST
    in the "Halftime in America" ad, the one narrated by Eastwood?

    yes! (none / 0) (#35)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 01:36:31 AM EST
    wasn't Eastwood a Republican once upon a time, when he was mayor of Carmel?

    it was nice to hear a Republican (if that's what Clint is) praising the auto bailout


    He has been all over the place (none / 0) (#37)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 02:20:09 AM EST
    politically, registering as a Republican long ago but refusing labels of right wing or left wing, calling himself a moderate, as a liberal on civil rights -- and he's pro-choice.  I think he tends toward fiscal conservatism, and thus to the GOP, but can't stand it on a lot of social issues.

    He would fit right into Wisconsin in all of that.  That said, I've watched the ad again, and the script is a marvel of ambiguity, with the words "discord and blame" as the Wisconsin protest scene is on the screen.  Local bloggers there on all sides are hearing what they want to hear in that, finding deeper meanings.  I bet that Eastwood would be tickled rather than ticked by that.


    Man oh man oh Manningham. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 10:58:53 AM EST

    Full Spectrum World Dominance (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 11:23:59 AM EST
    The US/NATO/Neocon/PNAC/republican/democratic sole superpower vision for the 21st century keeps on keepin' on with Syria next on the list after Libya. "The trillion-dollar question in the 'Arab Winter' is who will blink first in the West's screenplay of slouching towards Tehran via Damascus."

    Essentially, the GCC created an Arab League group to monitor what's going on in Syria. The Syrian National Council - based in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member countries Turkey and France - enthusiastically supported it. It's telling that Syria's neighbor Lebanon did not.

    When the over 160 monitors, after one month of enquiries, issued their report ... surprise! The report did not follow the official GCC line - which is that the "evil" Bashar al-Assad government is indiscriminately, and unilaterally, killing its own people, and so regime change is in order.

    The Arab League's Ministerial Committee had approved the report, with four votes in favor (Algeria, Egypt, Sudan and GCC member Oman) and only one against; guess who, Qatar - which is now presiding the Arab League because the emirate bought their (rotating) turn from the Palestinian Authority.

    So the report was either ignored (by Western corporate media) or mercilessly destroyed - by Arab media, virtually all of it financed by either the House of Saud or Qatar. It was not even discussed - because it was prevented by the GCC from being translated from Arabic into English and published in the Arab League's website.

    Until it was leaked. Here it is, in full (.pdf).

    -- Exposed: The Arab Agenda in Syria

    a. you'd like the giants to win? (none / 0) (#2)
    by seabos84 on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 11:57:51 AM EST
    b. you think the giants will win IF they start the game with 3 points?

    c. you think the giants will win?

    d. if you were betting, you'd take the giants with their 3 points ...

    Enquiring Minds

    Seattle + Boston + 1984 = seabos84

    I'm rooting Pats, although, football (american) wears me out.

    American football DOES somewhat reflect how American organizations run -

    • for every few grunts in the trenches, there is a boss working to being a boss of bosses and grunts.

    • the 60 minute game takes over 180 minutes because the marketing (commercials) and legal (refs) and manager (coaches) departments need to show everyone how important they are.

    Where football REALLY falls down is that there is actually some merit in their merit pay system!  (Brady and Manning ARE worth more than an average lineman or very good tight end) Also, the reason fans flock to the tube and to the stadiums is to watch the players - NOT the Mara Rooney Kraft owners - and those players get a good cut of the pie.

    As much as we Americans like to pretend & think & worship all those making 6 and 7 and 8 figures a year, cuz those big money people are Gawds who grow our water and harvest our shirts ---

    very few of those 6 and 7 and 8 figure a year salary suckers did anything useful or marketable.


    So if someone "like[s] the Giants" (none / 0) (#30)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 10:26:21 PM EST
    "+3" -- and the Giants then win by 4, does that hypothetical "liker" win the bet?

    I believe so. The liker should be happy today! (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 09:37:39 AM EST
    Yes, but they don't need to win by four (none / 0) (#61)
    by Rupe on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 04:45:56 PM EST
    They basically just can't lose by more than 3.  So if the Giants lost by two points they still cover the +3.  If it were -3 then they'd have to win by four points.

    INteresting to click the link in BTD' (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 02:39:59 PM EST
    Armando's Sunday post at DK.  Link is to TL post.  Whatever happened to those commenters though?  Not many in evidence here now.  

    I have no dog (none / 0) (#20)
    by cal1942 on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 05:30:33 PM EST
    in this race.

    There are former Michigan State players on each team.

    Both are blue states.

    After the tension of a Michigan State vs those other people basketball game earlier this afternoon, which we won 64-54, I'll be able to relax a bit.

    I think the Giants defense and Patriots lack thereof will be the difference although never count Brady out.

    Pats over the Giants (none / 0) (#21)
    by DFLer on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 05:32:28 PM EST
    okay...what not: 35 to 24

    I'll agree (none / 0) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 05:39:10 PM EST
    I'm liking the Pats by about 10

    Giants 23 to 13. (none / 0) (#26)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 06:21:20 PM EST
    Only because I have 3 and 3 in the office pool and after that safety, that's my best chance at winning.  

    Well that was some drive (none / 0) (#27)
    by smott on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 07:11:26 PM EST
    We'll see if the PAts turned the tide completely. What an awful end of half for the NYG D.

    How many seconds (none / 0) (#28)
    by christinep on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 07:25:47 PM EST
    for Brady to complete passes. Good offensive blockers or poor Giants' defense?

    Archie Manning Karma (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 09:12:54 PM EST
    All the bad luck and playing well for the perenial losers the Saints, has been turned into reverse good Karma for his sons.

    I never thought of that but you have a point. (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 08:27:44 AM EST
    I pull for Eli, and think he is a clutch player, because he spent all those years with the usually not so great Rebels.

    He understands being behind and not having much help.


    I'm glad the Giants won (none / 0) (#31)
    by lilburro on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 10:35:04 PM EST
    but I'm sure CST isn't feeling too happy tonight :/

    thanks (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 09:35:24 AM EST
    A win would have been much better, but it was a good game, and I can't complain much about getting to the superbowl.  I certainly wasn't expecting it earlier this year, and when Gronk went down against the Ravens there was a collective "there goes the superbowl" sigh in New England to some degree.  Not that that's necessarily what happened yesterday (although it didn't help), just that I was pretty resigned to not winning.  Throw in the 2007 factor and there's no way any Pats fan was feeling optimistic.  It felt like everyone was just happy to be there.  Although of course it still stings.

    Epic battlle, start to finish. (none / 0) (#52)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 11:06:30 AM EST
    Probably the best quality of games in the playoffs in my lifetime. Seems like every game came down to the wire, including the SB, which is often not that way. Fantastic stuff.

    yea (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 11:22:13 AM EST
    it was a good game.

    It's just hard cuz it feels like the end of a dynasty (yours is possibly just starting, enjoy it).  There's always next year, and Brady certainly didn't "suck" in this one.  But I do wonder how many more of these he'll be in, if any.

    They were in a position to win it and the Giants got the stop they needed, followed by the score they needed.  It totally sucks, but they earned it.


    I think Brady has what it takes to continue to be a top NFL QB for at least several more years. I sure wouldn't write him off just yet.

    oh I didn't mean that (none / 0) (#60)
    by CST on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 02:28:38 PM EST
    I know he's got some more solid years.  But the reality is there are no guarantees they will be back.

    I think I estranged my (none / 0) (#32)
    by ZtoA on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 11:07:12 PM EST
    beloved nephew when I announced I was for the team who could score by planing one's giant tight end into the end zone. He and my brother in law seemed rather p!ssed.

    How to pi$$ off Madonna (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 07:49:06 AM EST
    or, atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position,


    Bill Maher UNbaptizes Ann Romney's atheist dead father Edward Davies

    Loved his incantation. Really funny. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 09:40:44 AM EST
    More on the Planned Parenthood decision (none / 0) (#40)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 08:34:49 AM EST
    Turns out that the decision by Susan G. Komen for the Cure to defund Planned Parenthood was pushed by Komen's anti-abortion VP Karen Handel:

    "Karen Handel was the prime instigator of this effort, and she herself personally came up with investigation criteria," the source, who requested anonymity for professional reasons, told HuffPost. "She said, 'If we just say it's about investigations, we can defund Planned Parenthood and no one can blame us for being political.'"

    Emails between Komen leadership on the day the Planned Parenthood decision was announced, which were reviewed by HuffPost under the condition they not be published, confirm the source's description of Handel's sole "authority" in crafting and implementing the Planned Parenthood policy.

    Yes as I said a couple of Komen threads ago (none / 0) (#41)
    by smott on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 08:51:14 AM EST
    This is largely about Karen Handel pushing Komen blatantly into the political arena.

    The meme is "Komen didn't CAVE to the Right Wing - they ARE the right wing."

    Their board is loaded with wingers. CEO Brinker is a former Bush Ambassador.

    I think the miracle is they've remained more or less apolitical up til now.

    But the wave of vitriol from the Left has been nauseating. They pay for education, awareness, screenings and mammos.

    But Brinker's a b-tch cos they don't pay for the chemo.  

    I am left to wonder if Brinker was a Dem, and male, and an Obama Ambassador and if Komen was based in CA or NY, would we have seen this kind of demonization?

    And bottom line, Obama/Stupak has done more to endanger women's health than Komen.


    If Brinker fires Handel ASAP (none / 0) (#42)
    by smott on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 08:51:56 AM EST
    And then camps on Mollie Williams' lawn until she comes back, I can wear my pink shirts again.

    The vitriol is about feeling betrayed, (none / 0) (#49)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 10:42:49 AM EST
     I think, by the massive advertising/promotional/all-things-pink efforts by Komen over the years that have masked the fact that - among other things - a rather puny percentage of funds collected are being directed at research - the thing that is likely to lead to a cure for breast cancer.

    Yes, the funds have also been used to subsidize screenings, and for education - good things, no question.

    But, if your mission is finding a cure and early diagnosis of women so they can get the treatment they need, the Planned Parenthood decision seems contrary to that mission.  Komen has never advertised itself as anti-choice, and apparently, for many years, deemed the work Planned Parenthood was doing in the area of screenings and early detection to be worthy of grants from Komen to continue that effort.

    What changed?  Why, seemingly rather suddenly, was Planned Parenthood singled out ?

    We know the answer to that, I think.

    Will getting rid of Karen Handel solve the problem?  I'm not so sure it will, because if Komen was committed to the health of all women, it would have shut down the Handel idea in a hot minute.  It would have been, no-way-this-isn't-political-we're-about-breast-health-no-thank-you.

    But they didn't, and it wasn't.

    Is Karen Handel the only problem with Komen?  I don't think so.  I think their corporate alliances, including those in the medical and pharmaceutical fields, need some looking into: is Komen funding the best research, the best drugs?  Is it even spending enough on research, given the amounts of money collected and donated?

    My own feeling is that Komen isn't what a lot of people thought it was, and that didn't just happen with the hiring of Karen Handel - that decision was, in my opinion, the people at the top of the organization believing that their brand would trump the collective common sense and intelligence of millions of people who don't see breast cancer as a political issue.

    As for this:

    I am left to wonder if Brinker was a Dem, and male, and an Obama Ambassador and if Komen was based in CA or NY, would we have seen this kind of demonization?

    And bottom line, Obama/Stupak has done more to endanger women's health than Komen.

    You're missing the point that Komen made a decision based on politics, not health - and so did Obama/Stupak - who also generated a deservedly high level of vitriol.

    I have no doubt that the Komen decision would have enraged people even more had Brinker been a Democrat, an Obama bundler, and based in California or NY.

    That you think Obama/Stupak was even worse says more about the people who excused and justified and defended it as a necessary sacrifice for historic legislation - and it also says that with Democrats in power routinely abandoning women and the poor, we can almost not even blame Komen for thinking the time was right to take this stand over fear that their right-wing/anti-choice supporters would bolt, instead of a stand that emphasized their commitment to a mission of curing breast cancer in all women, no matter what those women believe, what their station in life, or where they obtain their screenings.  


    I don't think I missed any point (none / 0) (#58)
    by smott on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 01:33:10 PM EST
    And I think we're naive to expect a 100-million dollar organization to be immune to politics.

    So we'll agree to disagree.

    On this especially:
    "I have no doubt that the Komen decision would have enraged people even more had Brinker been a Democrat, an Obama bundler, and based in California or NY."
    That's a convenient assertion and I disagree.  I think we'd have seen progressives bending over backwards to support this just as they did with Stupak.


    The mission of Komen is to eradicate BC by advancing a number of things - including education, awareness, screenings, treatment, research, not necessarily in that order.

    Because Komen hasn't funded enough research to please some people, or spent all its dollars in progressive-approved places,  or people have recently made unpleasant discoveries that have been in plain sight for decades, that's conflated with not caring about women's health.

    The fact is BC is enormously difficult to treat and research has not made particularly huge advances in the last 10-15 yrs. There have been several false starts, Tamox among them.

    In that light,  you could make the argument that - given BC is clinically incurable once it's outside the breast, dollars are better spent at this point on education/awareness/treatment with the goal of very early detection prior to metastasis.

    Here in Pgh, the Komen affiliate has never funded PP. That didn't stop thousands of people calling up and screaming at them to start funding it or they'd never send another dollar and so on.  In fact the Western PA chapter sends its funds directly to Adagio Healthcare which provides mammos directly. Unlike PP,  which does not - and just gives voucher to women to get their mammos elsewhere. And let's be clear that screening, and mammos are often conflated which is in error. Screening is a general term that can include something as  simple as a breast exam. Yes these you get at PP. Mammos - a radiological diagnostic test - no (or at least rare few PPs offer it).

    However to everyone's point - Komen (in large part due to Handel IMO, given their board has been loaded with wingers since forever and they've never stepped this far onto the political front) went off the reservation this week (well, last Dec with their transparent policy switch) and politicized women's health, much to their detriment.  

    The fact remains that they spend millions which goes to education and early detection, which saves women's lives.

    We can always find issues, but I think the fact that they have been revealed this week as  deeply Republican has fueled the vitriol to large degree.

    I still  think we can give them credit for the prevention they do fund.