Wednesday Night Open Thread

I'm obviously focused on crime news today -- Zimmerman, Edwards and now Armstrong.

In TV news, why does TNT think Dallas can make a comeback? Michelle Obama is on Restaurant Impossible tonight.

For those of you with other topics on your mind, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< New Doping Allegations Against Lance Armstrong | Financier Allen Stanford Sentenced to 110 years >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kmblue on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 05:50:57 AM EST
    where art thou?

    Clemency in a Time of Crisis (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Rojas on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 08:10:14 AM EST
    Until very recently, clemency grants were a consistent feature of our criminal justice system. In the last four decades, though, state clemency grants have declined significantly; in some states, clemency seems to have disappeared altogether. In this Article, I contend that executive clemency should be revived at the
    state level in response to ongoing systemic criminal justice failings

    It just goes to show you (none / 0) (#56)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:21:44 PM EST
    What the effect of Big money on our society produces. Having captured all facets of our Government, and Media, Big money has finally produced their "Perfect World."

    Four decades of reduced clemency coincides perfectly with four decades of the prisoners voting for their captors.

    The "No Clemency & Citizens United" phenomenon are just exclamation points in case the Rabble gets any strange ideas.


    Here's a fun website (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:38:45 AM EST
    I've never heard of it, but it lists all of Obama's accomplishments to date.

    See if you notice a theme with about half the entries.... (hint:  it has to do with killing people)

    The List... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 12:04:09 PM EST
    ... is pretty weak, this is considered an accomplishment ?
    "Barack Obama becomes the first President to publicly support the legalization of same sex marriage"

    If I tried that kind of foolishness on my resume, I would be in the unemployment line.


    Well, yeah. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 06:47:56 PM EST
    Scott: "If I tried that kind of foolishness on my resume, I would be in the unemployment line."

    It would indeed be foolish of you to claim that you're the first president to support same-sex marriage, since you're not the president.



    Yuck ... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:52:22 AM EST
    might be worth looking at this clip from The American President again.

    What have we come to when we listing killings as Presidential accomplishments?  Killings ordered by a winner of the Novel Peace Prize.

    The cloud of irony is laying fat and thick across the land.


    Since the primary subject of that claim ... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 07:06:15 PM EST
    "It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we would grow too fond of it."
    - Gen. Robert E. Lee, after the Battle of Fredericksburg (Dec. 13, 1862)

    ... was the guy who was primarily responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans in New York City and Washington back in Sept. 2001, I raise my glass in toast to President Obama for that particular accomplishment.

    I'm not one who countenances summary execution, but in this case, I'll make an exception. And now that Osama Bin Laden's dead, let's claim victory in Afghanistan and get out of there.


    Cured Meats Summit... (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:09:10 AM EST
    Enjoyed a lovely meal of cured meats with the Dadler family last night.  They all looked dog tourist tired after a full day at the Tenement Musuem, trekking the lower east side, and Dadler getting Willy Loman'd but good on a new suit by an orthodox tailor (I'll let him tell you the story).  

    I really appreciated them all hanging around to meet up with ol' kdog.  They sure do eat like Californians, I was the only one to finish my sandwich;)

    Thanks Dadler and fam!

    Thank YOU, my good man (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 04:59:34 PM EST
    Just sorry we WERE so dog tired, wish we coulda had a longer party of it.  Next time.  As for good ol' Samuel Gluck on Orchard Street, well, story to come in the near future, but let's just say he could sell heaters in Samoa.  My best moment, tho, as I told KDog, came when the guy across the aisle from me at MEMPHIS (great music and voices) kept opening his friggin' Ipad during the show.  Finally I stared hard at him and mouthed "I will take that thing from you next time."  He looked at me as if he didn't think I'd said it, so I repeated with more facial gesturing, "I...WILL...TAKE...IT."  Never opened it again.  Lousy Philistine.

    Thanks again, Dog, hope to see you again soon.  Peace, y'all.


    But you left out ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 12:51:06 PM EST
    the important bit:

    What kind of meat did everyone have?  And, more important, what kind of pickles?

    I wish I could have met up with all of you, but I was stuck negotiating a contract all day.  And it's still not done.  

    I would have much preferred a tongue sandwich on rye, a half sour and an ice cold bottle of Dr. Brown's Cel-Ray soda!


    I told Dadler... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:01:05 PM EST
    my pastrami was for medicinal purposes after a rough day in the cube.  And it was highly effective relief.

    Dadler had the same, his son went with the corned beef, and his better half had the hard salami.  All with sour and half-sour pickle assortments if I'm not mistaken.

    Washed it down with a liter of Doc Brown's Black Cherry, while it's still legal in larger quantities;)  

    Next time Robo, if I have to drag you away from contract negotiations myself!


    Any talk of theatre? (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 02:07:39 PM EST
    A little... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 02:45:10 PM EST
    that I failed to retain...that's your bag! ;)

    I used to live near Katz's ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 02:31:31 PM EST
    right after college.  This is back when the Lower East Side was still scary.

    Yet, even then Katz's brought in the tourists.  And was a bit too expensive for every day.  But I remember when we had a bit extra money, we'd hit up Katz's for Sunday brunch.  Or for an after hours post bar nosh.

    Great place.


    I am saving this article. Not all that (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 02:40:10 PM EST
    near Katz's but good price, no?



    Yeah, it's pretty good price ... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 03:14:48 PM EST
    but as the article suggests it's getting that down payment that's the killer in NYC.

    I Never Get Past... (none / 0) (#83)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 02:56:36 PM EST
    ...the potato pancakes on the menu and they are one of the only games in town that serves liquor early on the weekends.  Nothing like a Holy Mary and potato pancakes at 7am.

    With sides (none / 0) (#102)
    by Towanda on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 06:53:06 PM EST
    of both applesauce and sour cream.

    Mmmmmm, I feel the need for a fish fry tomorrow night, with potato pancakes and the "double sides"!


    I totally Miss... (none / 0) (#123)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:17:29 AM EST
    ...Friday Fish Frys.

    Now my mouth is watering for both.


    Any dirty-water dogs? (none / 0) (#116)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:23:33 AM EST
    One of my favorite NYC treats... that and a trip to Ray's Pizza, Original Ray's pizza, or even World Famous Original Ray's pizza.

    A night at the Stork Club, a stop at Toots Shor's, Next night take in Martin and Lewis at the Copa, then back to the Biltmore (Right next to Grand Central, convenient for subways and taxis, and excellent rates... not the Waldorf, but Central Park's close, and the Oak Room an easy walk) for coffee, a copy of the Herald Tribune-- best written paper anywhere!

    Then take in a game at the Polo Grounds or Ebbets Field, preferably both, then hop a train to DC, and take the Southern Crescent to Birmingham.

    Ahhh. NYC, there's something about you...


    Ahhh... (none / 0) (#117)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:28:55 AM EST
    John's Pizza in the West Village is the best....

    Gotta watch.... (none / 0) (#122)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:15:25 AM EST
    with the dirty water dogs these days...alotta carts have gone generic and are not selling Sabretts...and its gotta be a Sabrett.

    As for pizza, ya gotta hit the outer boroughs people...Manhattan pizza is hit or miss with a whole lot more miss these days.  Amore Pizzeria in Flushing...best of the best of the best.  


    The Blue Angels are circling around (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:43:30 AM EST
    the Inner Harbor here in Baltimore, as part of the bicentennial commemoration of the War of 1812; tall ships sailed in yesterday, to much cannon-firing, sailors standing on the masts.

    Here's a link to Sailabration.

    My building is right across from the National Aquarium, so we are getting a front-row seat to all the goings-on.

    And the weather is cooperating nicely, much to the delight of the people who put this whole thing together, I'm sure.

    Man, those planes are loud, though...one came swooping in really close, turning sideways; makes me a little queasy, actually.

    I live under their fave flight path (none / 0) (#103)
    by Towanda on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 06:56:11 PM EST
    for their annual show here . . . and their practices for a week beforehand.

    By day two of the week, we're already overdosed on the Blue Angels screaming down upon us -- and the dogs howling, the babies wakened from naps, etc.

    And since their accident a few years ago due to hotdogging, there is even less appeal when one lives under their flight path.  I swear they come so low that I can see the pilots in the cockpits.


    I guess I can understand, ... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 08:09:49 PM EST
    ... since it's Baltimore, Fort McHenry, Star-Spangled Banner, etc. But in my opinion, the bicentennial of the War of 1812 -- a time when our country openly took sides with Napoleon Bonaparte against Great Britain -- seems to me to be a rather odd and strange historical event for us to commemorate.

    And truth be told, the United States was extraordinarily lucky that the British were far too preoccupied with events in Europe, to put all that much effort into prosecuting the war on this side of the Atlantic.

    As it was, our primary reason for declaring war on Britain was to take advantage of said British preoccupation and conquer Canada -- and in that regard, we failed miserably. Our forces were repeatedly and unceremoniously repelled at the border by Canadian militia, who were augmented by a relative handful of British regulars.

    Only when Napoleonic France was finally defeated, were the British able to turn their undivided attention toward the Americans. And by that time, they were so tired after nearly 20 years of uninterrupted war that after their repulse at Baltimore, the government entered into negotiations with American diplomats at Ghent to bring about peace in North America.

    The two singular "glorious" victories we celebrate from the War of 1812, at Baltimore and New Orleans, were both wholly defensive in nature, in that we somehow managed to repel concerted British attacks on both cities, much to our own amazement at the time.

    And with regards to recounting events at Baltimore in mid-September 1814, we tend to overlook the immediate prior event, the capture and burning of Washington, D.C. three weeks earlier. This occurred after the Americans were utterly routed at the Battle of Bladensburg, MD and swept from the field by a British force that was less than half their size. This rather ignonimous event was ridiculed by President James Madison's many critics as the "Bladensburg Races," and remains a singular low point in American generalship and U.S. Army history.

    Strategically speaking, the "Star-Spangled" events at Fort McHenry were actually a sideshow, a diversion to keep as many regular U.S. Army troops in the city itself as possible, and away from the main British effort being made to the north and east of Baltimore at the time.

    The true glory at Baltimore actually belongs to Maryland's own 8,000-strong citizen militia, who sallied forth and so harrassed the British ground forces on their march west toward the city, that the British were twice halted in near-total disarray at North Point and Hampstead Hill. In this, the militiamen were fortuitously aided by the unerring aim of two teenaged snipers, who picked off and killed the British ground commander, Gen. Sir Robert Ross, albeit at the cost of their own lives.

    Command of the British forces thus passed to a far less competent commander, Col. Arthur Brooke, who subsequently lost his nerve, and gratefully beat a hasty retreat back to the ships when ordered to do so by Vice-Admiral Sir Alexander Cockrane, the Chesapeake expedition's overall commander.


    Buwhahahahahahaha! (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:18:33 AM EST
    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Heheheheheheheheheh...uhm heh heh heh huh huh.......a huh.....hicccccup

    Sorry, it just got away from me there.  My Conservatives friends are having a meltdown about this though, but come on you idiots, they didn't do it on purpose.  The dark side of my heart wishes they did though, and seriously most of the world does too :)

    I just want to know (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by CST on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:35:24 AM EST
    why they had a decapitated G. W. Bush lying around in the first place, and what was it's original use?

    If they hadn't told everyone about it no one would've noticed.  This almost got my aunt to start watching GOT :)


    Riighhhhttt.... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:02:03 AM EST
    This was an "accident". I believe that as much as I believe Mitt Romney say he'll have unemployment down to 6% - which is to say, not at all.

    And yes - why DO they have decapitated heads of GWB lying around?

    And why mentione it if no one noticed?  (Oh, because it gets picked up, stirs a controversy, and hopefully get more people to watch).


    Workin on a budget man! (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:49:45 AM EST
    They just threw some old prosthetic heads that were laying around in some storage room up there.  What can you prove my friend, what can you prove? :)

    They have pi$$ed me off though, because they aligned George W Bush with the Starks?  This is a Stark family, we root for Starks.  If we resemble any of the families we resemble the Starks.  Unfortunately the Starks have one hell of a time, and that pi$$e$ me off too.  What a downer :)


    I haven't watched it (none / 0) (#119)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:56:57 AM EST
    So I will take your word for it that the Starks are ones to align with.  :)

    I want to know who everyone else (none / 0) (#120)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:05:50 AM EST
    aligns with.  The Starks just resemble this family in too many ways.  We insist there is honor living in sub-hell :)  The Starks somewhat oversee and put to death those who desert from the Night's Watch which is the only not for sale military force.  They have wolves, we have German Shepherds.  They are short on cash, big on egos, big on sacrifice breeds better people...just ask them.  The actor that plays Brandon Stark even resembles Josh.  It is kind of creepy how Starky we are.

    I should have been born a Lannister though (none / 0) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:06:33 AM EST
    I think I'm adopted

    The MT family (none / 0) (#126)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:18:42 PM EST
    puts to death those who desert??  ;)

    Yes, most likely (none / 0) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 06:43:04 PM EST
    If we were in Game Thrones....different times jb :)

    Re: Dallas and TNT (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 08:52:00 PM EST
    Short answer:  because they think people have forgotten the original enough to allow them to rehash used up stories.

    That, and Larry Hagman's available.

    Actually, if they were going to make a contemporarily relevant show about the energy business and sleaze, they'd have to call it Frackville and it would not be as interesting, as those parts of the world are pretty boring, there are not the number of pretty women like in Dallas, and there are surely no good restaurants.

    Haven't watched yet (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 09:50:41 AM EST
    Probably tonight, but I am so excited because it's a new show that isn't another awful "reality" show.  Seriously - how many ways can we have for people to choose their future mate (yeah, right), sing, show a "talent", cook, decorate, or who just become celebrities for having no talent whatsoever, except for being dumb or behaving badly?

    "Suits" - season two - starts tonight (none / 0) (#21)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:03:42 AM EST
    on USA; I really enjoyed it last season, so looking forward to it coming back.

    USA has some fun shows - Royal Pains is one I like, too.

    Am kind of enjoying "Around the World in 80 Plates" on Bravo - it's kind of like Amazing Race meets Top Chef meets Hell's Kitchen.


    I love USA Network (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:13:27 AM EST
    Also tonight is "Burn Notice" (I love me some Michael Westen and things blowing up all over Miami).  :)

    I don't necessarily mind the cooking shows - at least there is a point and you can see some interesting stuff.  I'm just flabbergasted that we have so many shows dedicated to real people who are rude, obnoxious, and just - ugh.

    I watched one episode of "Bridezillas" a couple of years ago.  Two thoughts crossed my mind:  1) I wanted to start a rescue organization to save these grooms from these god-awful women - kinda like they rescue greyhounds; and 2) I realized that I had lost an hour of my life that I will never get back.

    And the problem with the reality shows is that you can't get away from them - the "stars" are always on the cover of every magazine -  and it's nice to know that on top of glorifying teen pregnancy, we now have one of them going to prison. What a great role model for her kid.

    Give me dramas / "dramadies"  any day.

    (And I love "Royal Pains" and love to imagine being rich and summering in the Hamptons and having a concierge doctor too)


    What is that new (none / 0) (#58)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:28:50 PM EST
    "reality" show I see coming up? All I recall is a chubby family down South, and it looks like they reposses things, while beating up people in the process. Not sure, but I think it has "Lick" in the title.

    My thoughts were, "that's it, this time they've gone over the top; this one signals the end of the Reality Boom."  


    Ah. Repo Man. Great movie. (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:35:11 PM EST
    nope, close, but (none / 0) (#61)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:36:41 PM EST
    that wasn't it.

    Lizard Lick Towing (none / 0) (#76)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 02:37:57 PM EST
    and I know that only from seeing the promos, not because I ever watched it...

    The one we've become strangely fascinated with features this guy who's known as "Turtle Man;" he removes various kinds of pesky critters - racoons, skunks, possum, and - of course - turtles, of the giant snapping variety, from homes and attics and ponds, etc., and punctuates pretty much everything he says and does with a kind of rebel yell.

    Weirdly fascinating.


    Lizard Lick Towing, that's it (none / 0) (#78)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 02:43:46 PM EST
    "Lizard Man?" Oh, no, they got to you too, Anne?

    Just kidding, I gotta admit, I'm sort of a hypocrite about these shows. Sometimes when I'm surfing the channels I stop on one those shows for a "second," that turns into half an hour.

    Oh well, I can hate'm and watch'm too, can't I?


    Two separate shows, Shooter - (none / 0) (#82)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 02:50:48 PM EST
    The one with Turtle Man is "Call of the Wild Man."

    It's on Animal Planet.


    Hey, what's (none / 0) (#87)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 03:16:02 PM EST
    a little "poetic license" among friends:)

    Perhaps one of the Yankees can chime in here (none / 0) (#106)
    by Rojas on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 07:17:16 PM EST
    Do you really need subtitles to understand the folks on Swamp People?

    you mean (none / 0) (#109)
    by Amiss on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 09:07:56 PM EST
    Lizard Lick Towing?

    I watched last night (none / 0) (#22)
    by dk on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:05:11 AM EST
    (don't worry, I won't give away anything), but I have to say I was pleasantly surprised.  Sure, it's not the original, but I thought they did a very good job with it.  And really, any change we get to see JR and Sue Ellen again is a good thing.

    oops (none / 0) (#23)
    by dk on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:06:32 AM EST
    I meant "chance" instead of "change", of course.  Sorry.  :)

    I also really enjoyted (none / 0) (#29)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:39:09 AM EST
    and Hagman was fantastic.  And the various plot machinations are suitably grubby.  And the whole thing felt very much like the original.

    Looks like it should make for a fun bit of summer entertainment.


    we have great restraurants (none / 0) (#111)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 04:39:25 AM EST
    we even have a town named Frackvile.  We also have lots of people with money who two years ago couldn't afford to get their bad teeth pulled.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               We are having a real economic boom around here.  I hate when that happens.



    Something to look foward to (none / 0) (#112)
    by Rojas on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:37:31 AM EST
    When the phone rings at 2:00 am and you get that initial rush of horror when you see it's youre child calling...
    The feeling of ease when they tell you they just felt an eathquake and want to know if you felt it too. Oh just an earthquake you think as your pulse rate returns to normal...

    OK...well there's (none / 0) (#2)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 08:53:35 PM EST
    a lotta tarpon being caught down in the fabulous florida keys...I think Eric  Holder is getting shafted...and Timothy  Geithner should probably go on a long fishing trip.  more to follow...

    Holder is getting Capone'd... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:31:15 AM EST
    he's untouchable for his real crimes (lack of finanical crime prosecutions, the drug war & all the standard DOJ dirty), so they're gonna get him over Fast & Furious.

    Not to say Fast & Furious isn't a bad scene, it sure is imo...just minor compared to other aspects of the DOJ crime spree.


    I loved Dallas (none / 0) (#3)
    by desmoinesdem on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 10:02:24 PM EST
    as a kid--watched that show every Friday night. I got a kick out of this story about how the show's creator was left out of the remake. He is so on target here:

    Jacobs says now the producers have cut him out completely. "I will not waive my rights. The material isn't bad. But I read the scripts and found they were very plot driven. I thought she was going to have trouble down the road. The original "Dallas" and "Knots Landing" ran five years too long because the audience was so engaged with the characters. You didn't need to come  up with constant plot points. The scripts are good. But they should have been Bobby's kid the bad one, and JR's kld the good one. Bobby has a new wife, and she's from Houston. She should have been from main line Philadelphia, or Boston or New York. Or very rich. But I never had the opportunity to express any of this."

    Only prime time soaps I enjoyed ... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 08:26:09 PM EST
    ... were Falcon Crest and Dynasty. Jane Wyman looked like she was having a ball playing the devious Angela Channing on Falcon Crest, manipulating people and events with the help of her ever-scheming grandson (Lorenzo Lamas).

    I thought Joan Collins carried Dynasty as the dastardly Alexis Carrington Colby, providing a much-needed counterpoint to ex-husband Blake's goody-two-shoes second wife, Krystle (Linda Evans). And honestly -- who can resist a good catfight?


    An Oregon man... (none / 0) (#4)
    by desertswine on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 10:53:42 PM EST
    is in critical condition with a case of "black death." Why on earth would you want to take a mouse out of the mouth of a stray cat?

    Maybe he's one of those PeTA types (none / 0) (#5)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 11:24:31 PM EST
    and has a prob with stray/feral cats killing 'wildlife'?

    I hope (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:28:00 AM EST
    nobody, even PETA, considers mice to be "wildlife" that even other wildlife shouldn't kill and eat.

    But why anybody would try to take a feral cat's hard-won food away from it is utterly beyond me.  No wonder the cat bit him.


    It's beyond me also (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 12:08:16 PM EST
    that's why I stretched with the Peta thought :)

    Oh, another thought, maybe there was rat/mice poison in the area and he was trying to spare the kitty?


    You have an excellent (none / 0) (#132)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:31:49 PM EST
    imagination.  Let's pretend that's what he was doing and give him a couple of good karma points.  I'd sure rather think that than that he was taking a starving cat's dinner away from it just for giggles.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 08:37:52 AM EST
    One of my friends was the lab tech that made the call for this guy.  He died though, but would not seek medical treatment.  The bobcat was sick too when he killed it and it was an illegal kill, so might have been why he was afraid to seek medical treatment when he became ill.  His wife and children were displaying symptoms though too when he crashed and was taken to the hospital mostly only to die.  He was so contagious that everyone who was exposed to him had to be treated too with antibiotics but everyone else recovered fine.

    I have read that the black death could never wipe us all out like it once did because todays human beings have developed some immunity to it that our ancestors did not have.


    Matt Cain (none / 0) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 12:15:15 AM EST
    threw a perfect game for the Giants tonight. If there was player that stood out in addition to Cain in creating perfection, it would be
    Gregor Blanco with this catch in the top of the 7th

    wow, fun game at the park tonight (none / 0) (#7)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:00:29 AM EST
    (and I wanted to say "at the 'stick' tonight"). Some nice plays there, but it looks like a totally lopsided score (10-zip in the 7th?) . . .

    Good for Cain!


    Here's what we saw tonight: (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:44:57 AM EST
    Nobody Loves You

    Kind of a musical spoof of The Bachelor, et al.  Pretty funny.  

    Sounds great (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 07:45:42 AM EST
    I want to see it.  Sounds exactly like something that I would love, cuz I always thought the Bachelor was pathetic and stupid and I couldn't believe anyone had the free time along with the incentive to watch it :)

    I asked a friend who is devoted to (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:30:10 PM EST
    the Bachelor genre if the spoof was good.  She sd., oh yes.  

    There was a bit of civil unrest in the (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:41:31 PM EST
    audience.  The two women sitting in our assigned seats refused to move.  They are season ticket holders AND donors, had exchanged their tickets for a different night, but changed their minds, so just sat in their originally assigned seats.  It was a sold out performance and they wouldn't budge.  But we ended up sitting in the front row.  So there!!!!

    Entitled thieves (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 03:38:05 PM EST
    They are scourge of the world!

    U.S. Drones Hugely Unpopular Worldwide! (none / 0) (#9)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 05:50:32 AM EST
    I posted this yesterday. But I think it might have been missed by most. This is from a Salon article by Greenwald:

    The new multi-nation poll finds that "in predominantly Muslim nations, American anti-terrorism efforts are still widely unpopular." Beyond Muslim nations, "in nearly all countries, there is considerable opposition to a major component of the Obama administration's anti-terrorism policy: drone strikes." Specifically, "in 17 of 20 countries, more than half disapprove of U.S. drone attacks." As usual, "Americans are the clear outliers on this issue - 62% approve of the drone campaign, including most Republicans (74%), independents (60%) and Democrats (58%)." But in every other surveyed country besides India (which naturally supports any attacks in Pakistan), more people disapprove of Obama's drone strikes than approve, usually by very wide margins. Indeed, "the policy is unpopular in majority Muslim nations, but also in Europe and other regions as well"; specifically, "at least three-in-four [are opposed] in a diverse set of countries: Greece (90%), Egypt (89%), Jordan (85%), Turkey (81%), Spain (76%), Brazil (76%) and Japan (75%)."

    Rand Paul agrees with you (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:15:46 AM EST
    and Glenn. He wants to require that the government get a warrant before using them.

    The expected influx of drones in U.S. airspace by 2015 prompted Paul to introduce legislation this week called the Preserving Freedom From Unwarranted Surveillance Act, which would  "prohibit the use of drones by the government" in the United States unless authorized by a warrant. The only exceptions identified in the legislation, first proposed by Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., are the use of drones for patrolling of national borders and "when law enforcement possesses reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift drone action is necessary to prevent "imminent danger to life." The Paul-Scott legislation does not make any provision for military unmanned aerial vehicles flying in domestic airspace, as envisioned by Pentagon officials.

    Who says Republicans and Democrats can't get along?


    The far Left ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:06:39 AM EST
    and the libertarian right has a long history of agreeing on these matters.  On these issues liberals are the problem.

    Absolutely right... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:18:58 PM EST
    He's in the right here, and was in the right when he was the only senator refusing to make fake weed illegal and punishable with prison, even though he caved later on that one.

    If the Dems, or liberals, would just get on board with more libertarianism on social issues, cut the nanny-state bullsh*t, they would stop driving so many freedom-loving liberals from the party.


    Add... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:50:23 PM EST
    and, of course, can the empire-building militarism.

    Yup ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 02:46:11 PM EST
    these moves by the Dems have pushed me away from the Party as well.

    So, apparently (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 07:34:30 AM EST
    Mayor Bloomberg is going to copy the infinite wisdom of Mayor Daley in Chicago and lease the revenue stream of 90,000 parking meters in NYC to private investors.

    Yeah - that sounds like it's a good idea. Not.

    Off Topic (none / 0) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:50:07 AM EST
    But you might find this funny.

    A guy in DC has vanity plates that read 'No Tags'.  So he ends up with every citation in which cops put 'No Tags' in the tag box.

    $20,000 in fines he estimates, but like the knuckle head he is, he's kept them for 25 years and uses a lot of his vacation time in court.


    I've heard abotu this guy (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 12:54:23 PM EST
    What a maroon.

    But thanks for sharing. :)


    My kind of knucklehead... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:12:39 PM EST
    if he's got the patience for it, I think it's f*ckin' brilliant political theater actually...jam the traffic court system up but good!

    Besides, if the cops are filling out the tickets "No Tags", and his tag is "No-Tags" with a dash, all those tickets should be thrown out for being incorrectly filled out.  


    Most of those tickets (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:16:54 PM EST
    ARE being thrown out, because they aren't for his car.  Any time a car that doesn't have tags is ticketed that ticket goes to this guy, who has to take time off work to go and prove they aren't for his car.

    I got ya... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:21:17 PM EST
    but even the ones causing him a problem, the Chevy's with no tags, those tickets should be thrown out too if they have no dash.

    They are Suppose... (none / 0) (#73)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 02:16:39 PM EST
    ...to put the last six of the VIN when there isn't a tag.

    The thing is he's got a red Chevy and the tickets might say blue Volvo or green Ford.  It's total theater, which I love, but spending all his vacation days in traffic court is the fortitude of a crazy man IMO.


    Indeed... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 03:20:52 PM EST
    but I'm glad that kinda crazy is out there, making trouble for the sh*tstem for all us sinners who have other ideas for how to spend a day off, like avoiding the traffic court system at all costs!;)

    Sandusky (none / 0) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 08:41:57 AM EST
    I haven't been following the trial all that closely, but the testimony has been heart wrenching.  The line I can't get out of my head is when the defense asked on of the witnesses why he kept going back and he said because Jerry is the only one that listened to me.  

    Sounds like Mike McCreary did tell the head of campus police about what he saw the next day which is something I didn't know.

    And I wonder if the NCAA is going to do anything, I know it's not free sneakers...

    I think any punishment of Penn State by the NCAA (none / 0) (#17)
    by Farmboy on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 09:43:29 AM EST
    has to be based solely on violations of NCAA rules. As much as I want to see them punished if they knowingly allowed Sandusky to prey on kids, the NCAA may not be the proper authority for that punishment. Any punishment of the school may rest with the legal system.

    Then again, there may be NCAA rules against what he's accused of. I'll admit to not knowing. What I do know is that if the school followed the Pennsylvania procedures for reporting child abuse, which many have claimed that they did, it'll be hard to punish them for Sandusky's alleged actions.


    Seems To Me... (none / 0) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:37:50 AM EST
    ...if the NCAA doesn't consider a cover-up of a serious crime involving coaches and school higher-ups, a violation of their rules, well then I don't even know what to say about that kind of non-sense.

    I am still holding out hope that they are waiting for a verdict.


    What punishment should follow then? (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:40:34 AM EST
    Punish the players and fans (and coaches) who had nothing to do with this (as this had nothing to do with the football team, except for Sandusky's access)?  Ban the football team from post-season play?  Take away scholarships?

    Ban From Competition (none / 0) (#39)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:42:37 AM EST
    They do it all the time for what I would call minor recruiting violations and grades, certainly not actual crimes.

    And if the fans and players need to place blame, look to the people running the program and school who thought this wasn't worthy of any meaningful investigation.

    The coaches, really, the ones that have either been let go over their in-actions in this case, or the one in court today ?


    I get it (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 12:53:40 PM EST
    But you are punishing students who had nothing to do with this.

    Hey - I hate most of the NCAA rules.  The fact that Reggie Bush just "forfeits" his Heisman is no big deal.  Tell that to the kid in 2nd place.  I'm one who believes that the NCAA should be able to go after someone like Reggie Bush's NFL salary and leave the freshman alone.


    Firstly, it's an alleged cover up. Secondly, I (none / 0) (#50)
    by Farmboy on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 12:56:15 PM EST
    don't know if the NCAA has a specific rule that calls for punishing the school if coaches and/or school officials break the law. I kind of doubt it, as the NCAA was formed to deal with collegiate athletics. The alleged abuse and cover up have nothing to do with what happened on the football field, recruiting, or any actions relating to players.

    As a side note, it sure would be nice to know why Ray Gricar chose to not prosecute Sandusky back in 98.


    Or What in the Hell... (none / 0) (#62)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:37:24 PM EST
    ...happened to him or why his replacement wasn't brought up to speed.

    I am not going to say alleged before every comment, so consider this an all encompassing agreement in that no one is guilty of anything.

    It did have an effect on what happened on the field.  Presumably they didn't want their name tarnished, but also they didn't want a winning coach leaving.  They could have made him resign or let him go, but they didn't.  They kept in on, much like a school might fluff grades to keep players on the team.

    How is this any different than banning a program for grades, which have no direct impact on play beyond some players not be eligible.  This would be a coach that in a sense would not be eligible to 'play' had the truth been known.  

    Seems like your saying that they are only concerned with people who are on the playing field, and not the people who direct them.  Which of course isn't true, coaches get banned occasionally for stuff that happened in their program that may not have known about.


    I'm having pronoun difficulties here (none / 0) (#72)
    by Farmboy on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 02:12:44 PM EST
    To which "winning coach" are you referring? Are you saying Joe Paterno was in on a cover up? Or are you referring to Sandusky, who was told to retire after the investigation in 98 and left the program back in 99? Or to one of the other assistant coaches?

    As to the NCAA, yeah, it's my impression that they are more concerned with sports related activities rather than all activities by coaches. For example, there have been - sadly - instances where members of the coaching staff at universities have been caught with kiddy pix on their computers, and have been prosecuted. Those programs weren't punished by the NCAA. And there are many, many cases every year of players breaking the law, and again, no penalties toward the school.

    But let an upperclassman scholarship player send a text welcoming a new recruit to the program, and blammo! end of the world for the NCAA.


    I had to read... (none / 0) (#74)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 02:27:57 PM EST
    ..pronoun a couple times, kept reading profound.

    I was thinking all 3 coaches.  The secret was kept for the sake of the game/program it seems.

    I am going to drop it because I don't know enough about the NCAA jurisdiction.  

    Let's see what the trial brings, maybe they will release something.


    At this point in the week I often find myself (none / 0) (#84)
    by Farmboy on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 02:57:22 PM EST
    having "profound" difficulties - usually relating to making it through one more day of work. ;-)

    Which reminds me of (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 03:05:04 PM EST
    Bugs: It's true, Doc; I'm a rabbit alright. Would you like to shoot me now or wait 'til you get home?

    Daffy: Shoot him now! Shoot him now!

    Bugs: You keep outta this! He doesn't have to shoot you now!

    Daffy: He does so have to shoot me now! [to Elmer] I demand that you shoot me now!

    [Elmer raises his gun. As Daffy sticks his tongue out at Bugs, he is shot. Daffy walks back over to Bugs, gunsmoke pouring out of his nostrils. He walks over to Bugs].

    Let's run through that again.

    Bugs: Okay. [deadpan] Would you like to shoot me now or wait till you get home.

    Daffy:[similarly] Shoot him now, shoot him now.

    Bugs: [as before] You keep outta this, he doesn't have to shoot you now.

    Daffy: [re-animated] Hah! That's it! Hold it right there! [to audience] Pro-noun trouble.  It's not "he doesn't have to shoot you now", it's "he doesn't have to shoot me now" [Pause] [angrily] Well, I say he does have to shoot me now!! [to Elmer] So shoot me now!

    [Elmer shoots Daffy again]  

    I haven't really been following it all that (none / 0) (#20)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:00:10 AM EST
    closely, either, but last night while I was making dinner, NBC reported that in yesterday's testimony, they played video of the 30 Rock Bob Costas interview in which Amendola was present in the studio and Sandusky was on the telephone.  I cringed once again when Costas asks Sandusky if he's sexually attracted to young boys, and Sandusky has to repeat the question a couple times, and meander through an explanation of how he enjoys young people, before he finally says he's not attracted to boys that way.  Just too creepy for words.

    The testimony of the alleged victims is just heartbreaking; I can't imagine the courage it takes to sit there and essentially tell the world about what was done to them.  I had a brief thought while watching the report that I wouldn't be surprised if, after the cumulative effect of all the victim testimony is assessed, Sandusky doesn't end up striking a deal to plead guilty to some number of charges.

    My sense of whether the NCAA gets involved in some punitive way is that, unless the programs themselves are somehow in violation of NCAA rules, I don't think that's likely.


    No real plea deal (none / 0) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:34:12 AM EST
    From what I understand, there's no plea deal possible that wouldn't result in Sandusky ending his life in jail, given his age.

    The analysis of the defense case I heard yesterday is that the only hope they have is to convince one person to have a little bit of doubt or sympathy when they present their evidence about what a wonderful person Sandusky is and get a hung jury.

    Whoever it was (I think Kendall Coffey, but I wouldn't swear to it) said it was an extremely slim hope but basically all they have.


    Various (none / 0) (#26)
    by Makarov on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:29:43 AM EST
    cable news outlets are reporting today that the prosecution will wrap up their case this week, earlier than expected.

    I haven't seen any reporting about cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, but if they are cranking through 3-4 witnesses per day, I can't imagine it's very extensive.


    Reporting I heard was (none / 0) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:35:50 AM EST
    that there was almost none.  Tough cross of a string of weeping 18-yo boys is unlikely to achieve anything good for the defense.

    According to the NYT (June 14) (none / 0) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 12:16:54 PM EST
     Joe Amendola's main defense strategy has been to try to find inconsistencies in the witnesses testimonies and earlier statements.  Questions related to differences in dates and the number of times sexual abuse actions took place.  Amendola has not directly questioned whether a witness ever had some sexual encounter with Sandusky, but the hope is to question witness reliability, sort of like saying that if something happened 10 times or 30 times, it might not have happened at all.

    While the defense has to work with what it has, it seems to be tough sledding.  In a cross-examination, one accuser did admit that he previously failed to reveal that Sandusky had forced him to have oral sex, but he also said that he did not want to go into such details with his wife and mother present during  the earlier interview.

    By the way, a curiosity is the NYTimes coverage of this trial in the Sports Section of the paper, as if the priestly pedophile/Bishop and Pope cover-up news should appear in the Religion Section--or maybe it should.


    Baseball (none / 0) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 09:00:10 AM EST
    Good job Giants.
    Cain threw the first perfect game in the Giants' long and storied history Wednesday night at AT&T Park, striking out 14 and getting great defensive plays from outfielders Melky Cabrera and Gregor Blanco in a 10-0 victory over the Houston Astros.
    Man, it sucks when your team can't make it to first base.


    And Clemens jury is still out.  Exciting stuff:

    Two jurors were dismissed for sleeping during the trial, and the judge said Wednesday that Hardin noticed another juror appeared to drift off during the lawyer's closing argument the day before. The judge said that's why Hardin pounded the podium multiple times.

    I'm waiting to watch Kevin Bacon's new show - (none / 0) (#19)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 09:58:08 AM EST
    The Following.  I'm ready to see him on the little screen.  

    Egypt's highest court (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:06:58 AM EST
    Just declared Parliament "invalid".

    Egypt's highest court declared the parliament invalid Thursday, and the country's interim military rulers promptly declared full legislative authority, triggering a new level of chaos and confusion in the country's leadership.

    The Supreme Constitutional Court's ruling means that parliament must be dissolved, state TV reported.

    The court also ruled that a former member of President Hosni Mubarak's regime may run in a presidential election runoff this weekend.

    The court found that all articles making up the law that regulated parliamentary elections are invalid, said Showee Elsayed, a constitutional lawyer.

    Parliament had been in session for just over four months. It was dominated by Islamists, a group long viewed with suspicion by the military.

    The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, in control of the country since Mubarak's ouster, announced that it now has full legislative power and will announce a 100-person assembly that will write the country's new constitution by Friday.

    Too bad we give Egypt (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 12:19:52 PM EST
    all those attack helicopters?

    Wondering where (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 12:51:47 PM EST
    All the folks are who hailed the Arab spring as a wonderful thing (which it was), but were foolish enough to surmise that demcoracy was being born.

    There is no certainty... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:28:13 PM EST
    when it comes to a revolution...only opportunity.

    I'm glad the people of Egypt seized an opportunity, took a chance at great risk...and I hope they have the fortitude to do it again, cuz its lookin' like they're gonna have to.  If at first you don't succeed...


    Well, unless the U.S. military (none / 0) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 03:28:14 PM EST
    gives attack helicopters to the Egyptian military..."opportunities" begin to shrink rapidly at that point my friend.  And Egypt's military has been a bunch of really undemocratic MoFos lately.

    I think the main discussions (none / 0) (#66)
    by CST on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:48:00 PM EST
    about the arab spring came down to this - do you think US involvement in these actions is a good thing or a bad thing.  More specifically, the US involvement in it is really the only discussion there was to be had from here.

    There were a few points of view that Americans seemed to have about it:
    1 - That the U.S. should stay the heck out of the way and let them sort themselves out.
    2 - That these things work better when the U.S. is the one "bringing the democracy" to the middleeast (like Iraq).
    3 - That this is bad news for everyone involved and the U.S. should step in and stop it.
    4 - That this is good news for everyone involved and the U.S. should step in and help one side.

    And then of course there is soft diplomacy, shades of grey between these 4 ideas, etc...

    To me, I fall somewhere between 1 and 4.  But in reality, whether it's a wonderful thing or not to the people there has nothing to do with us, and I don't think we are really capable of influencing it one way or the other.  To the extent where our involvement can help prevent people from getting killed, then I think that involvement is good, otherwise, it's not really our place to get involved.  

    And yes, there was excitement about the Arab Spring in the sense that it was nice to see people standing up for themselves.  But I don't remember too much hopeless optimism or feeling that this was the end of the road.  It was more a positive push-back against those who were spreading fear of self-imposed democracy in the middle east, in other words, the 2s and 3s.  Given the option between supporting and opposing it, I'd choose support every time.


    It is a bad thing when we outfit (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 03:29:11 PM EST
    The Egyptian military, and then the Egyptian military makes power grabs and magically our media doesn't seem to notice that much.

    front page of cnn, nytimes (none / 0) (#96)
    by CST on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 03:56:32 PM EST
    Who isn't noticing?

    We've been outfitting the Egyptian military for decades, long before the arab spring started.


    Where is Secretary of State Clinton on this? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 06:18:52 PM EST
    The Egyptian flight school students (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 06:26:04 PM EST
    at Fort Rucker are under her jurisdiction, why are they here and why is she sending arms to the Egyptian military?  Why isn't she cutting them off?  Most people do not know that the power of the Egyptian military is delivered to them via the hands of the United States.  And nobody is addressing that issue today.

    Well now (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:56:36 PM EST
    This is pretty much a military coup.  Those always work well for democracy.

    and before that it was effectively a dictatorship (none / 0) (#70)
    by CST on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 02:10:07 PM EST
    what would you propose the U.S. should do/have done differently?  

    Invade Egypt?  The reality is we cannot be world police officers.  It's unreasonable and frankly it doesn't work.  Should we have supported the Egyption government against the people when the people of Egypt were revolting against their government?  I mean we can sit here and throw up our arms at everything that's going on but I don't see any good options here.

    This strikes me as fundamentaly not our problem, because for one, we can't do anything about it, and for another, I think we are the last people that Egyptians want involved.  But I wish the Egyptian people the best.  And if at some point it becomes necessary to intervene to prevent widescale atrocities than I might support those actions if I think we can effectively accomplish those goals.

    Ultimately I don't really understand the point of your posts here unless it's to say "bad!"  Given that we now have the clarity of hindsight, what would you have done (or do) differently?


    I wasn't commenting (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 02:12:26 PM EST
    on US policy towards this.  My comment was directed more to those around the blogosphere who refused to take the changes with caution and were proclaiming how everything would be grand.

    It was surprising how many ... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 03:51:45 PM EST
    fell for that sham.

    And, you know what, they'll fall for it again.


    They are visiting the graves of their (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 05:56:05 PM EST
    parents and grandparents... who, btw, told us Mao was good and then Castro was good and Che didn't really exist and ho ho and the revolution in Iran would be really really swell.....

    Oops (part 1) (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:37:50 PM EST
    Bill Clinton - in 2010:

    "The Democrats are saying something like this: 'We found a big hole that we did not dig. We didn't get it filled in 21 months, but at least we quit digging,'" Clinton said at the time. "'Give us two more years. If it doesn't work, vote us out.'"

    Hmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 03:30:28 PM EST
    Unregulated derivatives and Jamie Dimon running an FDIC insured hedge fund is still digging Bill.

    Oops (part 2) (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:40:27 PM EST
    A Hillary boo-boo or caluclation?

    When Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton accused Russia on Tuesday of shipping attack helicopters to Syria that would "escalate the conflict quite dramatically," it was the Obama administration's sharpest criticism yet of Russia's support for the Syrian government.

    What Mrs. Clinton did not say, however, was whether the aircraft were new shipments or, as administration officials say is more likely, helicopters that Syria had sent to Russia a few months ago for routine repairs and refurbishing, and which were now about to be returned.

    "She put a little spin on it to put the Russians in a difficult position," said one senior Defense Department official.

    Mrs. Clinton's claim about the helicopters, administration officials said, is part of a calculated effort to raise the pressure on Russia to abandon President Bashar al-Assad, its main ally in the Middle East. Russia has so far stuck by Mr. Assad's government, worried that if he were ousted, Moscow would lose its influence in the region.

    I don't care if the helicopters were (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 03:35:20 PM EST
    a previous purchase.  You should see what "refurbishing" an older attack helicopter entails.  They probably had copters down for some not air worthy too and now they all are. And they are air worthy for a reason.  I will bet you $10,000 when we get back to the clubhouse that the refurbishing included shootdown deterrents like our own helicopters all have now.  It is classified what those actually are but notice how few shootdowns we have when compared to 2002, 2003, 2004.  It is easy for the rebels to get rpgs that will lock onto the heat coming off a helicopter, gotta figure out how to keep those mass mob killers in the air instead of crashed and burning on the ground.  Russia don't fool me on this one :)

    It seems to me (none / 0) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 02:49:59 PM EST
    that it is both, a boo boo and a calculation.  Unless, the calculation includes another "memorandum of understanding" that Dimitry will " transmit to Vladimir."   The tragedy of Syria is a civil war with the complex religious overlay of rule by the minority Alawites (an offshoot of Twelver Shia) and a Sunni majority.  My sense is that Secretary Clinton knows that our real options are limited and the Republican criticisms of the options taken and underway are purely political.   Public chastisement of Russia is always a good way to sound tough, especially for those Republicans nostalgic for the cold war.  While the Middle-east has lots of oil, we need not throw more of it on their fires.

    Listening to (none / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 03:23:39 PM EST
    The Tigers vs. Cubs game, game 3 of a 3 game series.  The stadium announcer just announced that this is the largest crowd total over 3 games in the history of Wrigley Field (but hey - it's only been around since 1914).

    The fun part is that all the Tigers fans have been drowning out the Cubs fans with their cheers, and even when singing "Take Me Out to the Ballgame".


    Romney polls ahead of Obama (none / 0) (#104)
    by Towanda on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 06:59:35 PM EST
    in Wisconsin now, screams the headline in the local newspaper-slash-conservative waste of trees.

    But it's a Rasmussen poll.


    Nevermind, fuggedaboudit, carry on. . . .

    You know the drill (none / 0) (#110)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:49:34 AM EST
    Throw out the high, the low, and Rasmussen.

    this is an interesting development (none / 0) (#124)
    by CST on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:51:20 AM EST

    "Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children will be able to obtain work permits and be safe from deportation under a new policy announced on Friday by the Obama administration."

    "The policy, effective immediately, will apply to people who are currently under 30 years old, who arrived in the country before they turned 16 and have lived in the United States for five years. They must also have no criminal record, and have earned a high school diploma, remained in school or served in the military."

    Is this purely a political calculation - IMO, yes.  That being said, politicians make purely political calculations.  One of the reasons I support D over R - is that when they pander, they pander to views I agree with.  When Republicans pander, they pander to people I vehemently disagree with.  Ain't politics grand.

    Applause for the administration (none / 0) (#125)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:17:46 PM EST
    Except (none / 0) (#128)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:53:35 PM EST
    Doesn't this seem like a weird time to announce this policy?  On a Friday (also known as "take out the trash day" for the news cycle)? And after yesterday when he gave a very long speech on the economy (that was not well received - even by his cheerleaders in the media)?

    Why wouldn't you make this announcement on a Monday or Tuesday - when people are paying attention?


    I think it makes sense (none / 0) (#129)
    by CST on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:14:21 PM EST
    the GOP and some independents might HATE this.  Way more than the gay marriage stuff.  It's a wink/nod to the base, and I think they're hoping not too many other people notice.

    Then (none / 0) (#130)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:23:34 PM EST
    Won't it make it hard to run on it if people don't know about it?

    Oh I don't expect him to run on it (none / 0) (#131)
    by CST on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:28:03 PM EST
    Like I said, wink/nod to the base.

    In some ways, the fact that it's an executive decision and not legislation is also a bit of a hostage move.  "If you want this to stay you'll have to vote me back in".

    To be blunt, I don't know if this is a good political move.  I just think it's blatantly a political move and I approve of the policy so I'm not complaining.  He's trying to give hispanics a reason to show up, but doesn't want to take any heat for it.  So in that vein, a Friday news dump kind of makes sense.


    It is BIG in certain Western States to start (none / 0) (#146)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 06:04:27 PM EST
    Here in Colorado, Nevada as swing states in this election (9 electoral in Colorado & I believe it is 5 or 6 in Nevada.)  Very big, and (undoubtedly) quite significant potentially in terms of increasing Hispanic voter turnout.  Almost immediately today: La Raza spoke quite supportively (calling the move "bold" etc.) and the LA Archbishop Gomez commended the President first and suggested that the Congress follow-up with broader reform steps as well.

    This will have practical significants for Dems soon in Arizona & Texas too.  

    Consider the "wedge" aspects: OTOH, both W and Jeb have spoken in the past and fairly recently for immigration reform at odds with their party and so has McCain and (somewhat) so has Rubio. Then there is the other hand, full of fire-breathing Tancredo-like Repubs that will brook no move short of deportation or darn close.  

    The emotional content of this issue in the West can be explosive in many ways.  Yet--in an electoral sense now--the Hispanic reaction is very positive, very energized.

    Do not underestimate the changing populace alliances as well.  In my parish, e.g., the Monsigneur continually pushes the National Council of Catholic Bishops negative position as to who-pays-for-birth-control under the ACA...but, this same Monsigneur has previously taken courageous steps in the field to shelter in the Church family members during a Bush-sponsored INS raid/deportation action several years back. In terms of voting effect, Los Angeles' Archbishop Gomez plays an important role in this dynamic...and, now, the "closeness" of a number of Church hierarchy and the more conservative Republican members is about to be tested or neutralized...in terms of numbers of votes among a high-voting populace that has real implications.


    More (none / 0) (#150)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 07:41:54 PM EST
    The timing of this announcement was not to cover nor hide nor dump.  It was designed for maximum impact...to dominate the weekend news & reflection & Sunday talk.  Please consider the powerful effect in the Hispanic community at large when hundreds of thousands of youth are given a chance (via legal work permits) to pursue dreams here...if only as a transition to future affirmation.  It is galvanizing for many.

    And, now, it has been reported that Romney is being asked today if he would keep or throw out this policy.  Stay tuned.
    (Meanwhile, our local news has been focusing on the happiness of young people's responses...hugs, kisses, cheers...while the announcer intones how President Obama has "spared" so many from being separated from families & deported.  Oh, it is quite real.)


    I Agree... (none / 0) (#134)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:40:37 PM EST
    ...it's odd, maybe his people figured out more Hispanics get their news on Fridays, just kidding.  More likely he needed something to take the focus off last nights non-sense.

    I like it, but why does it take an election for a Democrat to behave like one.  And like the gay marriage declaration, it's more talk than walk.  A good step, but is he going to follow it up with anything, or is the next Prez just going to deport the same folks ?

    Why call it "prosecutorial discretion" when it's really not, either Obama is making the call or he's not.  "Presidential discretion" would be more appropriate.


    It's a given the GOP and some independents will (none / 0) (#133)
    by Farmboy on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:35:44 PM EST
    hate this. Any fence sitters or single issue voters just shut the door.

    And as it won't affect many hispanics of Cuban origin, it won't help Obama in Florida.

    Given the media claims that Rmoney is neck and neck with Obama in the polls, losing those votes may cost Obama the election.


    I wonder (none / 0) (#135)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 02:06:15 PM EST
    How he will reconcile his comments with last year's comments about this maneuver? Because it's already being pointed out...What changed between May 2011 and now?

    Washington, DC - On Monday night, on Univision network's Latino youth town hall, President Obama said that it wasn't his responsibility to stop the deportation of DREAM Act youth. Just the week before,  on the same television network, he said his administration was not deporting those youth at all.


    Faced by a young person who disproved his claim about his Administration's treatment of these young people, the President now seemed to concede that students and young people eligible for the DREAM Act are being deported and says that it's not his responsibility to change that: "America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law.  I don't have a choice about that.  That's part of my job," he said. When Ramos asked a follow-up question about granting formal administrative relief to undocumented youth, Obama was even more forceful: "There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President."

    Seems like THAT'S going to be a topic for the Sunday talk shows!


    Didn't he pull out that line (none / 0) (#136)
    by CST on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 02:32:47 PM EST
    for DADT too?  I think the only difference is that one was able to pass the legislature before the election.  The Dream Act - not so much.

    I guess he could go the "I tried to pass legislation" route.  But it does seem like he painted himself into a corner with the "America is a nation of laws" blah blah stuff.  It's especially weird given that they chose not to defend DOMA in court.  So much for "obligated to enforce the law".  He needs to choose his words better.

    If he was smarter about it he would have said something like "I would prefer to pass legislation that will be around after I am".  Rather than saying his hands were tied.  Since they aren't.  No wonder they went for the Friday news dump.  Good thing (for him) he's running against Mr. Flip Flop himself.


    Probably (none / 0) (#137)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 02:54:57 PM EST
    Except,as you said, DADT was repealed by Congressional Act, not an executive order.  His statement above clearly states that (he thinks) he cannot issue an executive order to do what he just did today by executive order.

    Now, maybe he was wrong a year ago, or maybe what he did today was wrong - I don't know and smarter minds will figure that out.  But I also seem to remember somebody campaigning on how horrible it was and what an affront to our Constitution it was when the executive bypassed Congress.....


    As a longtime USEPA enforcement person (none / 0) (#139)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 03:34:35 PM EST
    Let me refer to what the President said today:"Enforcement Discretion". That approach has longstanding acceptance and practice in the government under Administrations both Democratic & Republican.  Usually the nature of the Discretion to be exercised is spelled out in policy, agency directive, order...as the President has done.  It can be occasioned by a number of factors...sukch as resource allocations, priorities, changing considerations of fairness (a kind of equitable balancing.".). In the end, it underscores the importance of who the President is...similar to Supreme Court appointments.

    And that goes along with what I've read elsewhere (none / 0) (#144)
    by Farmboy on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 04:42:35 PM EST
    that the new policy will be implemented through a DHS directive, not an executive order.

    Thanks for the info.


    That's Easy (none / 0) (#143)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 04:03:31 PM EST
    The world is a different place when you are trying to get re-elected and you realize you have screwed over a good portion of your base.

    Reality is a beotch, but the $100k question is who will be running the show if he gets re-elected.  The grand compromiser of the past 3 years, or the somewhat left leaning candidate who can't run away from his record fast enough ?


    These days in Florida (none / 0) (#147)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 06:11:09 PM EST
    there is a growing number of recent immigrant populace not within the traditional Cuban settler.

    Trust me: He will gain more on this one (none / 0) (#148)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 06:16:00 PM EST
    than he loses.  Why? Because he is shoring up the most important sector of the time...in a very real sense.  This issue is close to the hearts of a lot of people I know.  A brilliant move under the circumstances.  

    I agree , it's a Winner for "O" (none / 0) (#154)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 02:36:19 PM EST
    but, I have a question.

    There has been quite a crank-up of deportations over the last couple of years. Will any of those deported be, retroactively, eligible for this new, enlightened policy?


    A good, caring question (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 03:25:49 PM EST
    I noted an article (AP, I recall) earlier today on the sad contrast to which you allude, NYShooter. The tone of the article is the sadness that a too-late-for-some change can mean.  The article does point out, from a limited overview, that a mix of emotions surface even in those instances...e.g., positive reaction for the change combined with the sad tings of the reality for those already deported.

    I wonder if the previous situation of future applicants for entry could/would be considered as a special plus factor in future...especially after any longterm legislative reform. It seems like a list of factors to be considered should include the earlier disposition.

    Very few times do I get teary-eyed about a political act--whether supported or the opposite.  This determination to exercise enforcement discretion--this major & open & forthright act, this political and moral act--feels so good.  That the motion may have started in an inevitable way causes happy tears for me.  I've always believed, wanted to believe that this country is a "nation of laws & immigrants" as the President stated on Friday. 'Wish both sets of grandparents--immigrants from Poland (then Russia) & Slovenia (then Austro-Hungary) were here to relay their reveries & dreams.


    I guess (none / 0) (#156)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:35:25 AM EST
     we'll just have to wait & see

    ...and hope


    It is a conversation changer (none / 0) (#138)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 03:24:04 PM EST
    ...among other things.  The Sunday talk shows will be able to have a new topic, etc. And, Mr Romney will be on his first non-Fox appearance on CBS' Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer...could be an interesting discussion about immigration.

    While clearly the timing of today's enforcement discretion approach for many young immigrants reflects some political influence, the matter of "timing" is always central in politics & government.  To me, this announcement is heartening for a number of reasons including the combination of compassion & all-around pragmatism as well as the astute timing.  It may also have an "interesting" effect vis-a-vis the Bush family members, McCain, aspects of Rubio and the more conservative base. Although figuring how this all plays out politically--in view of the emotions often invested in this subject--is not a given, it is reasonable to suggest that it will have concrete positive effects in an electoral vote sense for the President.

    Aside: I applaud your applause above.

    Aside #2: the ol' EPIC survey of Michigan seems outdated now by (of all sources) Rasmussen that shows a several point lead for the President.  Another poll released yesterday in MI shows a one-point lead for Obama.


    Which proves (none / 0) (#140)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 03:37:39 PM EST
    that it's all within the margin of error. And considering Obama was leading in Michigan until recently, shows that it is ripe for the picking off.

    I'm surprised you didn't pooh-pooh the EPIC poll when it showed Obama ahead...


    Of course not :) (none / 0) (#141)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 03:40:50 PM EST
    Politically, this announcement will make more (none / 0) (#127)
    by Farmboy on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:21:23 PM EST
    conservative heads explode than Obama's support for same sex marriage.

    Polls are showing that the right can slowly rationalize their way around the existence of gays - nearly 30% aren't against it - as long as they don't "act" gay. But recognizing even a small percentage of illegal immigrants as productive members of society? Somebody pass the smelling salts.


    How About the Openly & Undocumented Gay... (none / 0) (#142)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 03:53:20 PM EST
    ...people this will most certainly cover, got any stats on how many R's are down with that ?

    Try Google, that's a good place to start when (none / 0) (#145)
    by Farmboy on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 04:47:47 PM EST
    looking for info.

    Tim Tebow is coming to the Q! (none / 0) (#151)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:56:04 PM EST
    The anti-freeper (none / 0) (#152)
    by Rojas on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 01:18:23 PM EST
    It's wasn't really GOP ideology was it, when Dick Morris's parrot said it with that charming southern drawl?

    "Dick Morris's parrot" - heh (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 02:14:53 PM EST
    The CDS is strong in this one ...