Friday Morning Open Thread


Open Thread.

< Viktor Bout Sentenced to 25 Years, Judge Rejects Life Sentence | CNN's Unacknowledged Change in George Zimmerman Coverage >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Book recommendation (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 01:06:37 PM EST
    'The Night Circus' by Erin Morgenstern. I just finished the audio version, read by Jim Dale (of Harry Potter audiobooks fame).

    It is about magic and illusion and life and love...and beautifully written. I want to start over - maybe read it this time instead of listening.

    The book about Cleopatra is (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 02:08:24 PM EST
    everything that oculus promised.  

    If (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by lentinel on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 02:36:30 PM EST
    you like theatre and-or autobiographies, I just read Ben Gazzara's autobio and have started on Peter Falk's. Ben's has some of the best descriptions of what it is to want to be and to be an actor.

    And the writing is very personal and engaging.


    Morning, or meditative late night music (none / 0) (#3)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 01:30:52 PM EST
    recommendation: the Leo Kottke/John Fahey/Peter Lang collaboration recordings. I'm absolutley floored. Dreamy, firey-intense, whimsical and bittersweet..

    I don't think I've ever heard anything quite like it. Just what the doctor ordered, as they say.


    Late night music (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Peter G on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 02:43:04 PM EST
    I've been listening to Charlie Parker, c. 1947-1953.

    Morning music that may make you weep: (none / 0) (#6)
    by DFLer on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 01:47:03 PM EST
    (especially if you've seen The Mission, Once Upon a Time in America, Cinema Paradisio)

    Yo-Yo Ma Plays Ennio Morricone.


    That waterfall scene in The Mission (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 01:49:57 PM EST
    almost made me bawl like a baby right in the theatre, I'll tell you that..

    Yo-Yo Ma is amazing.


    "The Mission" was a beautiful film. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 03:08:55 PM EST
    I also found it, as a Catholic, to be one of the most depressing, because it was all too sad and real. Stories of people martyred for their faith may serve to remind us of the terrible atrocities that have been committed throughout history in the name of religion, but they are often not for the squeamish.

    I've always thought it surprising that Pope John Paul II had named "The Mission" as one of his favorite movies. Its haunting subtext of an ingratiating papal hierachy all too willing to placate Spanish and Portuguese business interests in 18th century Latin America, in quid pro quo exchange for maintaining the then-Papal States' autonomy in Europe, is not at all flattering to the Roman Catholic Church as an institution.



    Beautiful film (none / 0) (#26)
    by DFLer on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 03:58:39 PM EST
    Morricone should have won the 1986 scoring Oscar, imo. He lost out to Herbie Hancock, 'Round Midnight. The rest of the field, hmmmm.

    I think John Paul saw himself as a martyr in some (none / 0) (#63)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 10:15:29 PM EST
    ways.  He was a profoundly moral man, but his moral principles were horribly skewed.  I think he saw the misery they caused (particularly the abortion/birth control conviction) and I think he bore the pain and misery that caused quite heavily, but believed, in his mind, that God had some larger purpose it wasn't his job to contradict.

    Poor man.  I have often imagined him arriving at the Pearly Gates and finding out from Peter he'd gotten it all wrong.


    Oh thank you! looking for that (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 01:49:46 PM EST

    Recently read the best bio (none / 0) (#29)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 04:22:14 PM EST
    on Ike I've come across:  Jean Edward Smith's* new one volume bio that is both fair and readable (another new bio on Ike that's out there, by a reporter, I found exceedingly dry and couldn't pick it up after a few tries).  

    Smith I found was a little more consistently thorough and tough at times in evaluating Ike's generalship.  I thought he went much too easy on him on the presidency and left out a few important things .

    Not many good (readable, comprehensive  one vol) bios on Ike though have ever appeared, so Smith pretty much is competing with himself.

    * JES also wrote a fine one vol bio on FDR a few years ago


    Forgot to mention (none / 0) (#34)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 05:14:27 PM EST
    There is a fair amount of material on the wartime romance with aide Kay Summersby, far more than you'll find in any other Ike bio.  And yes, the author persuasively concludes it was an actual affair.

     He speculates that Truman may have played a role in deep sixing incriminating written docs that Ike's boss Gen Marshall may have produced, and that, interestingly, Ike may have resented Truman for his knowledge of that relationship.  Those two certainly had an unusually frosty relationship in subsequent years, a testiness never previously adequately explained by the usual evidence..


    I'm going shooting (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by CST on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 01:32:59 PM EST
    this weekend with my occupy Boston friend.  Just goes to show a bunch of liberal hippies in MA are ok with having guns as long as they are a) permitted, b) for recreational purposes only, and c) passed a background check.

    No, I don't plan on cruising the streets checking out delinquents after.  But then again every other person walking down my street is a black kid in a hoodie, so my version of delinquents might be different.  Like who is that hispanic guy cruising down the street slowly with a gun out?  I kid...  kind of.

    If you see a news article tommorow that says "Boston girl accidentaly shoots self in foot" it might be me though...

    Just remember Annie Oakley (none / 0) (#5)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 01:40:42 PM EST
    was feeding her whole family by hunting when she was like twelve or thirteen. And she was no 'Billie Jean King', either (not that there's anything wrong with that..:)

    The last time I shot anything (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CST on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 01:53:43 PM EST
    I was in 10th grade.  I was actually surprisingly good at it and really enjoyed it, I just haven't done it again since then.  Although the only thing to "hunt" in my hood are skunks, squirrels, cats, dogs and rats.  I prefer takeout.

    my advice would be not (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 02:01:13 PM EST
    to probe too much in tracing the ultimate origins of some of that takeout..:)

    "She was no 'Billie Jean King'"? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Peter G on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 02:45:16 PM EST
    What the hell is that supposed to mean?

    It means that in the end of days (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 04:20:53 PM EST
    she won't be cast into the Lake of Fire..:)

    Seriously, it just means that Oakley didn't fit into the mold of certain widely-held stereotypes people often associate with women who excel in activities that have traditionally been considered hyper-masculine -- like hunting and shooting.

    I'm also not suggesting that there's anything wrong with what Native Americans called the third gender. Sorry if what I wrote read that way.



    It did to me .... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Peter G on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 04:45:15 PM EST
    Not that I claim to know anything about Annie Oakley's sexuality (or want to).

    In fact, everything I ever wanted to know (none / 0) (#75)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 09:19:24 AM EST
    about Annie Oakley, I learned from Ethel Merman, thanks to Dorothy & Herbert Fields and Irving Berlin.  Enjoy here.

    So was (none / 0) (#14)
    by sj on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 02:28:24 PM EST
    Katniss Everdeen.

    And my YA guilty pleasure is revealed.


    We don't have a gun (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 02:10:49 PM EST
    But I like shooting as a sport.  The few times I got to do it I wasn't too bad either, except for skeet.  I was horrible at skeet.

    Sounds like a lot of fun! (none / 0) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 03:28:31 PM EST
    They just closed my local shooting range, sadly. I'd only been a couple times, but I feel like it's a loss not to have it available any more.

    It is a lot of fun (none / 0) (#76)
    by scribe on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 09:28:06 AM EST
    I shoot a couple rounds of trap pretty much every Sunday I'm home, and it's really fun.  I've been working out of town a couple months and miss it a lot.  It also requires an inner quietness and detachment that some would call meditative.

    I'd love to be able to shoot skeet, but none of the clubs near my home have it.  Too tough for a lot (the double targets can be nasty, if the machines are cranked up to be extra fast) and it usually requires cooperation among the shooters - taking turns to pull targets.  Trap, OTOH, can use the elecronic voice-operated pull - a microphone on a stand, basically - and is therefore a lot easier to run.

    It's something, too, b/c at skeet you'll usually  see someone shooting with their bird-hunting gun, often a high-quality double-barrel (Parkers, Sterlingworths, Ithacas and the like) old enough to collect social security, well-cared for, and dusting target after target.  None of that black-gun business.


    Emmanuel Ax playing Beethoven (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 05:15:33 PM EST
    WBerlin Philharmoniv/Simon Rattle; followed by Mahler's "Das Lied Von der Erde.".  That's what I call splendid.  

    Who sang?? (none / 0) (#67)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 10:34:43 PM EST
    Jonas Kaufmann and Anne Sofie (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 02:57:46 AM EST
    von Otter.

    Ugh. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 06:45:04 PM EST
    Double Ugh. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 07:31:47 PM EST
    The National Review needs to can his @ss immediately.  I'm sure that there will be his fans who will say that this is "satire," but really, this is chillingly horrifying.  This goes way beyond the pale.  Disgusting.

    Man (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 07:35:32 PM EST
    when they said that his rhetoric would be at home at a Klan rally they hit the nail on the head.

    Isn't this the guy that was so in love with George W. Bush?


    Yeah, they're 'not racist' (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 07:38:34 PM EST
    but, why is it that the only semi-respectable job putzes like Derbyshire can ever seem to get are at The National Review and The Heritage Foundation (and if those don't pan out there's always AM talk radio..)?

    Texting with Hillary. It's all good. (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by caseyOR on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 11:46:37 PM EST
    LMAO over these text messages that may or may not be from Hillary Clinton. I am especially fond of the Tim Geithner one.

    Read them all (3 short pages). Just too funny.

    Thanks for the laughs! (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 12:37:43 AM EST
    some very good ones in there :)

    Texts from Hillary (none / 0) (#78)
    by CoralGables on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 11:30:45 AM EST
    is Adam Smith and Stacy Lambe.

    "Mind you, this all happened at the bar after a few drinks," says Lambe. "Of course, I'm waiting for Hillary to text me."


    Drat... (none / 0) (#1)
    by fishcamp on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 12:20:57 PM EST
    now I have a fishing charter waiting and I'll miss all the arguments...however I will be working and trying to remember  the wind is my friend...

    From our "Hogs Gone Wild" file: (none / 0) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 01:48:09 PM EST
    Bobby Petrino, the popular head football coach at Arkansas who guided the Razorbacks to a No. 5 national ranking last season, may shortly find himself unemployed over a little matter that has nothing to do with football:

    Honolulu Star-Advertiser (Associated Press) | April 6, 2012
    Arkansas football coach on leave after crash reveals relationship with employee - "Bobby Petrino has improved every step of the way at Arkansas -- not just his team's performance but his image. The football coach's revelation Thursday of an inappropriate relationship and his attempt to cover it up now threatens to derail all the progress Petrino has made in four seasons. Arkansas is expected to return to spring practice this afternoon, led by a pair of Heisman Trophy hopefuls in quarterback Tyler Wilson and running back Knile Davis. The team will do so without Petrino, who was put on administrative leave Thursday night after athletic director Jeff Long learned Petrino had failed to disclose he had been riding with a female employee half his age when his motorcycle skidded off the road over the weekend. Petrino said he had been concerned about protecting his family and keeping an 'inappropriate relationship from becoming public.' It was as stunning admission for a highly successful coach who prides himself on complete control and intense privacy in his personal life. Petrino will now await his fate while Long conducts a review. Whether his uncertain status affects the Razorbacks remains to be seen."

    Like most college coaches, Petrino has a "morals clause" written into his contract that allows for his dismissal from Arkansas for:

    "... engaging in conduct, as solely determined by the university, which is clearly contrary to the character and responsibilities of a person occupying the position of head football coach or which negatively or adversely affects the reputation of [University of Arkansas] athletics programs in any way."

    The employee in question, Jessica Dorrell, is a former Razorback volleyball player who was hired by Coach Petrino last week as the team's student-athlete development coordinator. Petrino, 51, is married with four children.  

    To quote Texas Gov. Rick Perry: "Oops!"

    And somewhere today (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 02:46:48 PM EST
    Renee Gork is quietly smiling.

    But wait! (none / 0) (#31)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 04:38:28 PM EST
    Was Petrino wearing a motorcycle helmet with a Florida Gators logo at the time of the accident?  Inquiring minds want to know!   ;-)

    But seriously, according to ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 07:49:02 PM EST
    ... initial reports on ESPN, neither of them was apparently wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.

    If that's true (since such initial reports can sometimes be quite wrong), than that would render both of them, in my opinion, doubly foolish -- and very lucky.


    It's slightly worse (none / 0) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 02:29:25 PM EST
    in a not good for the athletic department camaraderie sort of way. It appears the rider is/was engaged to another employee of the athletic department.

    Oh, geez (none / 0) (#64)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 10:18:39 PM EST
    You men.

    ugh (none / 0) (#16)
    by sj on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 02:35:47 PM EST
    Reagan a "reasonable moderate"?  Let's hope the analysis is as flawed as it is brief.

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by lentinel on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 02:38:45 PM EST
    references Reagan every now and then - as if he's referring to something great - instead of that he's referring to some ahole.

    And nobody - no-fking-body - calls him on it.


    Look, a lot of people like Reagan. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 03:40:59 PM EST
    Truth is, Ronald Reagan cut a charismatic figure, and was a genial and likable fellow in person. He was also far more complex and complicated a personality than many people are willing to give him credit for being, given that he's still all too prone to caricature by both the right and the left, albeit for markedly different reasons.

    I happen to believe that while President Reagan was not a malevolent being in a personal sense and probably meant well, he nevertheless launched this country on an unsustainable and potentially self-destructive economic and social trajectory, of which many people in this country are only now beginning to become painfully aware.

    But that said, old habits die hard for a lot of Americans, and I prefer to patiently educate others concerning those policies which proved egregious, and which need to be tossed out or greatly amended.

    Therefore, calling Reagan an a$$hole or labeling anyone who admires him a right-wing shill serves no useful purpose to me, because that will tend to alienate many more people that it will every attract. I try to maintain my focus upon policy, and not personality.

    Please accept the fact, as I have, that ours is not the definitive opinion on the man, any more than is Peggy Noonan's hagiographical incantations, and move on.



    Look... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by lentinel on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 03:52:09 PM EST
    What you say is correct. And obviously so:

    (Reagan) launched this country on an unsustainable and potentially self-destructive economic and social trajectory, of which many people in this country are only now beginning to become painfully aware.

    If you and others including me are painfully aware of this rather obvious truth, I have a right to call a sitting president, a former professor of constitutional law, a community organizer, an ahole for not knowing it - or worse - knowing it and dissembling to the American people about it.

    The people, like me, need to and want to hear the truth, not politically expedient bromides.


    Amiable dunce. I think it was (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 04:10:32 PM EST
    Tip who made that succinct and apt observation.

    Let's also not forget how he spent his first term rather recklessly playing brinkmanship cold war games with the Russkies, to the point where a lot of normally intelligent level headed people thought he was actually planning to carry out a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviets.  And thus the Sane Freeze anti nuke movement of the early 1980s and the landmark Hollywood film The Day After, perhaps the most directly influential movie ever made.

    Fact is Uncle Ronnie for a while there darn near brought us to the brink of WWII, just because he was blindly driven by RW ideology.  Thank goodness for the freeze people, that one filmmaker, and one Gorby Gorbachev, who rescued Ronnie and the rest of us from the brink.


    An amiabable dunce, (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 05:29:01 PM EST
    and amiable Cold War demagogue, who knew just enough to know you could go far playing to the amiable dunces in the audience..

    And if the post hoc reports are to be believed (none / 0) (#77)
    by scribe on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 09:48:47 AM EST
    Reagan started coming to his senses about the nukes when he saw an advance screening of "The Day After", commented he understood why ABC was unable to sell any commercial time during it, and then got around to getting briefed on SIOP, finding out about 2/3 of Americans (150 mil +)would die outright in a nuclear war.

    Even so, if the TV shows are to be believed (and they sound very plausible and well-researched, relying on original sources) that didn't stop us from a couple near-incidences of getting blown up in the second half of 1983.  It was a Soviet duty officer who refused to launch on a warning that turned out to be erroneous, and a spy inside NATO HQ.  Go read.


    You can say whatever you want. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 07:33:16 PM EST
    Just be prepared, when wielding "the truth" as the rhetorical equivalent of a cudgel or hammer, for more than a few of "The People" to think that YOU'RE the a-hole, and to cease listening to anything further you have to say, no matter how accurate, informative and prescient it might be.

    I've either worked directly in politics or been politically active for almost 25 years. And if I've gained anything regarding personal wisdom over that period of time, it's an understanding that all politics is relative -- meaning that we each have our personal views and opinions, which are shaped by both our individual and collective experiences.

    Back in the late 1980s, when I helped lead the effort to preserve the Ka'iwi coast of east Oahu from resort development by convincing the public that it should become a state park, I learned that if I desired to effectively shape political consensus in a positive manner, then I had to first find the common ground amongst people, and then respectfully appeal to the better angels of their nature.

    So, you can either patiently impart knowledge and build consensus in a respectful manner -- or you can harangue the crowd with "the truth," and thus offer up your own stridency to others as all the excuse they'll ever need to dismiss you as some sort of militant and / or extremist.

    I think you need to ask yourself this question, just as I once did: Is my goal here is to actually work for positive and progressive change, or is it more important to me to always be right or be proven right, regardless of the potential fallout?

    Speaking for myself only, if someone thinks that I can somehow be bullied into believing in the righteousness of his cause, I'm afraid that person is going to find me an awfully tough nut to crack. Indeed, it's my personal nature to either tune out or push back -- hard.

    Just remember that when it comes to politics, you do not enjoy the monopoly on "the truth," any more than I do on "politically expedient bromides" -- a product which, I might add, you've doubtless managed to offer more than your share over the years, as well.



    Well, we do do a little venting (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 07:57:40 PM EST
    here on occasion, Donald..

    It's allowed once in awhile, no?

    Perceptions aside, any way you slice it, Reagan NEVER in any meaningful, substantial way, stood in or up for the huddled, oppressed masses of this country (who have to live with consequences of what he set in motion..) Godspeed to all this who still resolutely think he did - and to Ron's family. But really, screw 'im.  


    Bravo (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 10:21:26 PM EST
    50 points, if the system allowed it.

    Godspeed to all those.. (none / 0) (#51)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 07:59:00 PM EST
    And another thing..:) (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 08:30:24 PM EST
    hate to bring it up but, as we saw in places like Italy and Germany in the thirties, a little too much unbolstered-by-substance 'charisma' and populist appeal can sometimes contribute to creating a very dangerous situation..

    And, if pointing out (diplomatically, hopefully) that the emperor has no clothes - or, as in the case of Ron, the clothes have no emperor - alienates some people, well, what are you going to do?  


    And Godwin's law (none / 0) (#59)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 08:54:52 PM EST
    is proven.

    yeah he's not named God-win for nothing.. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 09:32:48 PM EST
    he chisled the rules of net discussion into stone for all time..

    I'll say it again, charisma - 'christian' or otherwise - is vastly overrated as a leadership quality, especially in this country.


    Overvalueing leaders as charismatic (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 10:08:12 PM EST
    -ceremonial figureheads (the way some people do Ron) is, imo, a remnant from a more primitive period; when hominids were overawed into submission by the chest-beating, howling territorial displays of Alpha males and females.

    It's (none / 0) (#82)
    by lentinel on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 04:28:11 PM EST
    not about the righteousness of a cause.

    Obama is trying to get over that Reagan was somehow someone to be admired.

    I think he must have a pretty low opinion of the American people to try to put that one over.

    And I am returning the compliment.


    Not Malevolent personally????? (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by observed on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 09:39:39 PM EST
    IIRC, you claim to be somewhat of an amateur historian on Presidents. All I can say to that is.....wow.
    Just for starters, anyone familiar with the history of AIDS would disagree with you.

    Agreed. and for a second course, (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 12:01:29 PM EST
    anyone familiar with the death squads of Latin America, and the Reagan Administration's aiding and abetting of the right wing generals' atrocities in  Guatemala, Nicaragua,  El Salvador and other Central American countries (acts of genocide on Mayans, killing and torturing of dissidents, killing of nuns and clergy, "rifles and beans" programs for the villagers). The next stop was the illegal and buffoonish Iran-Contra scandal which put the fear of impeachment into the Reagan administration.  

    President Obama and some Democrats apparently see the deification of Reagan as harmless and a way to make nice with Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents in the name of bipartisanship.  Not to mention their (futile) hope of getting kudos from FOX and friends.  But, this is another  case where looking forward and not backward does a disservice not only to history, but also, to the present and  future.


    I lived on welfare and food stamps... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 10:53:13 PM EST
    ...with my mother when I was very young.  Reagan's welfare queen bullsh*t alone, to me, renders him nothing more than a steaming piece of feces with peanuts on his head.  He was more than malevolent, he acted on it in the most powerful position in the world.  What's more, he had Alzheimers from the moment he took office and took the whole country into his addled phucking useless mind.  Dare I say, if you belonged to a group that worthless motherphucker demonized, you would spend Zero time trying to figure out if he meant well or didn't.  He did not.  He was as malevolent a presence in the White House as we have ever had, and he was probably worse because his "skills" as an actor took him further than he ever would have gone.

    Obama's constant talking about him, IMO, is more evidence that our president doesn't possess and imaginative or creative bone in his skinny body.  It is pandering of the worst sort, and a sort that no one should engage in because it is beyond dishonest it is lying revisionist history,


    welfare queens in cadillacs.. (none / 0) (#80)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 03:45:29 PM EST
    homeless people who eat out of garbage cans because they choose to; trees as a pollution source to be concerned about..

    Yes, a lot of people still like Reagan and, unfortunately, "some of them want abuse you...some of them want to be abused.."

    America would just like to say: Thank you Ron, may we have another?


    As has been noted many times by other people (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Farmboy on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 04:24:46 PM EST
    besides Obama, the modern GOP would run Reagan out of town on a rail as a commie - yet they venerate their false memories of Reagan to sacrilegious levels.

    And that's exactly why Obama made the comment. He's pointing out that today's GOP has twisted itself into a klein bottle full of right wing crazy sauce.


    There, you see? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by sj on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 05:34:33 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ's comment at #33.  That's who should be speaking admiringly of Reagan.

    That would work if (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 10:24:08 PM EST
    it was the first time he'd spoken admiringly of Reagan.  But it isn't.  He's done it a lot, way back to one of his books, and then the 2008 primaries.

    There's just something wrong with a Democrat, IMO, who can do that without the gazillion qualifications that need to go along with it.


    That's true (none / 0) (#37)
    by sj on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 05:30:12 PM EST
    Is that supposed to make it all better that a Democratic president references him with admiration?  If he wants to point out how batsh!t the GOP is right now it isn't a necessity that he speak highly of GOP presidents while ignoring Democratic ones.  O is successfully making crazy Reagen the center.

    Say what??? (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 05:07:21 PM EST
    The only people who got their jockeys in a wad over Reagan's cold war policies were the ant-war Lefties and their water carriers in the Demo party and media. The vast majority of us cheered when he called the Soviets what they were.

    As for Tip's lip.... The world will remember Reagan long after Tip's name has disappeared.

    And BTW - The economic boom he started lasted until the Demo congress in 2007 put us on a track we're still on.

    Baa waa waa (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 06:10:22 PM EST
    You guys make me laugh. You said Bush Sr. destroyed the Reagan legacy. Then you said that Clinton's policies were going to make us have double digit UE. Then once Clinton was successful, you guys tried to take credit.

    Are you going to now give credit to Carter for the 80's if you give Reagan credit for the 90's? Don't answer I already know the answer to that.

    The policies that you talk about that "destroyed" the economy were done by George W. Bush and the GOP. That's the facts dear but I don't expect to actually have them take responsibility for what they did. I expect to hear more excuses.

    The truth of the matter is conservatives don't really believe in anything. They are just a bunch of knee jerkers worshiping a cartoon caricature of Reagan.

    Remember George W. Bush is the worst President this country has probably known leaving with the lowest approval rating ever recorded and there's a reason for that.


    Repeal of Glass-Steagall (none / 0) (#41)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 07:07:28 PM EST
    enough said.

    As much as (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 07:32:03 PM EST
    you might like to think that so as to make excuses, it's not true.

    BTD has made mincemeat of that argument numerous times.

    Baa waa waa. So now you're proponents of "big government"


    No excuses and it is true (none / 0) (#47)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 07:38:57 PM EST
    The repeal of Glass-Steagall was the crack in the dam that lead to flood of bad actions by bad actors.  Glass-Steagall was not "big government" but nice try.

    Okay (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 07:50:10 PM EST
    if you believe that then you have to say that the GOP is full of idiots with the biggest idiot of them all being George W. Bush because they sat there for six years and did NOTHING!!

    And yes, Glass Stegall would qualify as "big government" since the GOP believes that any regulation is a bad regulation. It would be more regulation on banks that the GOP has screamed about even the milquetoast ones Obama has passed.


    You're wandering off the reservation. (none / 0) (#52)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 07:59:03 PM EST
    In an attempt to score political forum points.

    As for the six years of "NOTHING", that is not 100% correct, same as the claim nothing was done to attempt to rein in Fanny and Freddie during that same period.

    You need to refresh your recent (the late '90s) memory on who all was also pushing the Gramm-Leach-Bilely act and the vote counts on its final passage. Maybe then the "idiot" term might be used a bit more judiciously.


    Before it is deflected (none / 0) (#53)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 08:00:15 PM EST
    the Freddie & Fannie comment was not directed at your comment specifically but to the general claims of that period.

    Fannie and Freddie again.. (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 08:12:12 PM EST
    that Fox - AM talk radio chestnut..

    BTAL, are you by any chance aware of the FBI memo that circulated a couple of years before the downturn began concerning the "epidemic of fraud" on Wall St and it's possible disasterous consequences?

    Fannie and Freddie are FAR from being the only meaningful facets to this story. You sound like you're reading from the same script that a certain social liberal always reads from..


    Jondee read my "deflection" comment (none / 0) (#57)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 08:22:53 PM EST
    The F&F reference relates to both the GS repeal environment and the comment of "nothing" was attempted to be done in the 2000s to reign in F&F.

    Now, back to the regularly scheduled programming.


    Did nothing?? Well, they tried: (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 12:07:28 AM EST
    Published: September 11, 2003

    The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

    Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...


    The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken.


    ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

    Link WSJ


    They "tried'?!? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 09:13:50 PM EST
    You mean they drafted a proposal which they then sat on in their own Republican-controlled committees without so much as a vote until after the scandal died down?



    It's not remotely true (none / 0) (#96)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 09:19:08 PM EST
    The repeal of Glass-Steagall was the crack in the dam that lead to flood of bad actions by bad actors.  Glass-Steagall was not "big government" but nice try.

    GLB did not cause the financial meltdown, ...

    ... but nice try.


    Quit making things up (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 11:58:38 PM EST
    And get me some more of that GWB economy before the Demos took over 2/2007 and in a short 17 months jacked gasoline to $4.00/gallon, put the markets in a spin and made unemployment shoot upwards.

    Those are facts.


    Baa waa waa (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 06:31:50 AM EST
    It has been proven to you numerous times about the gas and you can't seen to understand. The economy started collapsing in 2006 silly before the election.

    Yeah, I know the worst President in modern history bears no responsibility for anything. The fact that the GOP had total control of the government for 6 years doesn't matter and all of a sudden the GOP has control of 2/3 of the government and it's the fault of the 1/3. The ditto monkey talking points don't work on me nor most people. The approval of the GOP is in the toilet because most people realize this.

    But like most conservatives, you blame someone else for the failure of your own policies.


    No Ga, it has not been proven (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 04:05:06 PM EST
    It has been "claimed." I trust you understand the difference.

    Cause and effect. The Demos blocked Repub attempts to reform F&F. The Demos blocked Repub attempts to increase drilling in 5/2008 and pop the speculators who right fully thought the Demos were anti drilling and would force a shortage. (They were right on the first, wrong on the second.) Bush finally issued his EO around 8/1/08 and the bubble popped. Gasoline prices dropped like a rock to $1.81 when Obama took power.

    But the oil mavens took note of what he said on MSNBC that slow price rises would be okay and look what happened!

    Slow but steady increases. And, of course, he made it plainer by Salazar's shutting down what Bush had done.


    And the point is that Obama was elected to fix the problems. He has not. In fact he has made it worse. That's real time stuff. And that's what people live and buy groceries and gasoline in.

    The here and now.


    The d's (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 07:29:58 AM EST
    blocked nothing about F & F. The GOP had complete control of the government when that came to pass. link

    The link definitively proves that drilling is NOT The solution to our problems.

    You are grossly misinformed about Salazar. He has been handing out drilling permits left and right yet it has done nothing to reduce prices.


    Hahahahahahahahah .... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 09:15:41 PM EST
    the Demos took over 2/2007 and in a short 17 months jacked gasoline to $4.00/gallon, put the markets in a spin and made unemployment shoot upwards.

    Sooooooooo funny ....


    Occupy Iowa protesters convicted of trespassing (none / 0) (#55)
    by desmoinesdem on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 08:14:41 PM EST
    A group of Occupy protesters were arrested last October for staying on the Iowa Capitol grounds after 11 pm. The first defendant, former State Representative and Congressional candidate Ed Fallon, was tried for trespassing last month and acquitted; the jury accepted his First Amendment defense.

    Prosecutors tried and failed to get the judge not to allow a free speech defense in this week's trial of two other Occupy protesters. Still, they got the jury to convict (after nine hours of deliberations--presumably that means some initially wanted to acquit based on the free speech argument).

    question (none / 0) (#56)
    by desmoinesdem on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 08:19:24 PM EST
    a jury in Sioux City, Iowa, just awarded a Republican state senator $231,000 in damages for a defamation lawsuit based on a tv ad from the 2010 campaign. The jury ordered the Iowa Democratic Party to pay the GOP candidate $200,000 and the Democratic candidate to pay $31,000.

    I was under the impression that it is EXTREMELY hard to win a defamation case if you're a public figure, and also hard to claim that you have been defamed by political advertising, because political speech is so highly protected. Does anyone know if there are precedents for this kind of defamation verdict?

    I assume the Iowa Democratic Party and Democratic candidate will appeal.

    The gist of the defamation claim is that the tv ad aired in October 2010 claimed GOP candidate Rick Bertrand "put his profits ahead of children's health" and "was a sales agent for a big drug company that was rated the most unethical company in the world." Bertrand says "he never sold, marketed, or profited from" the sleep drug mentioned in the commercial.

    Augusta still dithering (none / 0) (#83)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 06:11:19 PM EST
    on offering membership to IBM CEO Rometty.  CS Monitor.  Here's a NYT piece that offers a somewhat sardonic view.  What a dumb situation.  I would hope if it gets to that point that current members, at least a few, would give up their membership as a protest.

    Nothing like a wedding to bring out the crazy (none / 0) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 06:56:32 PM EST
    I try with the groom's mom, I do you guys.  We live in the same subdivision, we make have similar household funding.  But when I bought a new car I bought a Hyundai to save on burning gas, and she bought an older red Corvette.  She is slightly older than I am, but the 20 somethings are wearing hello kittie t-shirts so she wears hello kittie t-shirts.  I'm trying....I'm trying....and for months she didn't care about this wedding and that was okay with me.  I've never needed someone to care in order for me to care.  I did ask her to have a small party at her house though after the rehearsal, they spend every penny they make so I wanted to go easy on them.  She surprised me yesterday by turning over the party to someone we know mutually who I know will do a really beautiful job though.  Suddenly she cared a little, it was only going to make things nicer then wasn't it?

    But just like someone who is 14 now, she is fighting with her other daughter-in-law and her own mother and threatening that they can't come to the rehearsal get-together.  She disinvited them to her house for Easter too and her own grandchild is part of being disinvited.  Yes, she and her aging boob job are important now.....and now that she's important she deserves drama.  I'm going to meditate now.  I always knew volatile was possible so I shored myself up well, I think she's even a little afraid of me because I have several plan B's and C's if she came after me in all this with some crazy....plus, all the money going into this event is really mine so I'm kind of bullet proof as long as I can her son to show up. Instead of doing something stupid to me I guess because she can't, now she's going to burn the rest of her immediate family down.  It was just going too smoothly wasn't it?  She only lives five blocks down, it wouldn't take anything at all to drive over in my gas saving Hyundai and have a hair pulling contest huh?  She kind of a wussy anyhow. Cripes alive!  Time to read some Tsung Tzu, the official guide to a successful wedding when your in-laws are nuts.

    She sounds well, let's say difficult. (none / 0) (#85)
    by caseyOR on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 07:39:56 PM EST
    Personally, i think once you hit high school it is time to put away the Hello Kitty stuff. That's just me.

    Where is your future son-in-law on all this excluding of family? If the groom wants his grandmother and his sister-in-law and niece/nephew at these wedding events, well, who cares what his mother says? Perhaps he needs to be clear with his mother that he and your daughter have the last word on invitees.

    Yes, it is ridiculous that the grooms's mother cannot see that this wedding is all about the happy couple, not her. I think the groom is going to have to stand up to his mother now or she will never stop insisting that she comes first even in their marriage.

    The groom, with the complete support of the bride and you and Mr.MT, needs to nip this in the bud. And where is the groom's father in all this?  


    Groom's father allows mom to do whatever (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 07:58:27 PM EST
    she wants.  When she gets really dumb he removes himself from indoors where she is.  But he is a fabulous hunter :)  And an amazing outdoorsman :)

    Sadly son-in-law handles mom just like dad does.  But I think her drama with her mom is going to be easier.  I lost my mom when I was little, and I always seek mother figures.  Because of that, I have come to understand that nothing heals mother/daughter fights like someone like me needing mothering.  Plus, grandma "E" is very practical like me.  We are always drawn to each other at mutual get togethers. I will take grandma "E" to lunch on Monday and I bet that fixes that.

    Other daughter-in-law is trickier, because she and her mother-in-law are tight until yesterday.  I'm ashamed to type this, but I think my daughter has suddenly become so cool to mother-in-law because of the stupid stupid hair extensions.  Daughter-in-law much trickier, seeking Tsung Tzu :)


    The hair extensions? (none / 0) (#87)
    by caseyOR on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 08:00:54 PM EST
    What is the conflict over hair extensions?

    I think it is a cool factor thing (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 08:03:54 PM EST
    My daughter and I fought over hair extensions, and then I checked into it and yeah....everyone is doing it.  So she did an experimental sew in and I have agreed to fusion extensions...it is her one giant bullshit want in my book that I have said okay to, but future mother-in-law fascinated with with all sorts of expensive face lifts and such things.

    Future mother-in-law is (none / 0) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 08:05:40 PM EST
    a wanna-be Kardashian or something.

    Well, I hope things calm down before the (none / 0) (#91)
    by caseyOR on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 08:07:03 PM EST
    wedding day. The bride and groom have enough to fret about. Still, this woman sounds like trouble, trouble that will stalk the young couple until the groom puts his foot down.

    She IS trouble (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 08:18:44 PM EST
    Has been since day one.  But she wasn't mine until recently, she is my daughters and my son-in-laws.  She can get a lot of dramatic bang for her buck right now though. I figure I MUST socially work this one day out with her, and get it going on for the couple and the rest of the family. After that, I can just sit here and breathe and until she grows an authentic soul I can't phuck this up. She won't change though, after the wedding it is about degrees of distance barring some kind of miracle intervention, Enterpise Alabama socially speaking...she is my Afghanistan :)  After this wedding though, I'm free....my troops go home....I got the bad guy and that was enough :)

    Grooms brother is a groomsman too (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 08:01:00 PM EST
    and a great guy and sweetheart.  My husband loves him after only meeting him once.  Getting daughter-in-law thing "fixed" important if I can swing it.