BCS Nat'l Championship Open Thread

I'm flying tonight, with trial prep to the 13th and trial scheduled to start the next day.

So here is the last thing you'll hear from me for a while - I'm playing a reverse middle tonight - Notre Dame (+310) (9 units) and Bama (-9 1/2) (15 units.)

As long as Bama wins in a blowout or Notre Dame wins outright, I win (either 12 units if ND wins or 6 units if Bama wins.) Disaster is a close Bama win.

Between the 2, I think Bama blowout, but an ND win is better for me.

Open Thread.

< Obama Chooses Hagel and Brennan | Tuesday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    After all the talk of how bad FedEx field was (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 05:13:22 PM EST
    Wow. Looks like L.A. (none / 0) (#7)
    by brodie on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:26:55 PM EST
    was experiencing El Niño conditions years before scientists gave us that term.

    What I recall of those late 70s almost-champion Rams teams is the Warren Beatty (brother of Shirley MacLaine) movie of that time, Heaven Can Wait, a goofy rom-com remake of Here Comes Mr Jordan, only with the sport changed, and co-starring his girlfriend of the time, the lovely Julie Christie, with the Rams and the Coliseum in numerous scenes, but not nearly enough scenes of Christie in her prime.


    I remember seeing HEAVEN CAN WAIT (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:34:48 PM EST
    And boy did I fall in puppylove with Julie Christie, such a crush I had from that flick. And I was only eleven. Same thing would happen with Goldie Hawn and FOUL PLAY a year or so later. What a piece of work I was.

    I call falling in love (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:48:34 PM EST
    with Julie Christie in the sixties and seventies a profoundly normal responce..

    It is? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:00:58 PM EST
    That's news to me.
    Oh, wait, I guess you're talking about males.  So only a "normal response" for roughly half the population.   ;-)

    Maybe a little more than half if (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:04:25 PM EST
    you count lesbians. :-)

    If you add lesbians, do you have to subtract (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:33:18 PM EST
    gay males?  Maybe not, actually ....

    Well, I was sort of (none / 0) (#16)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:59:08 PM EST
    trying to roughly account for lesbians and gay males, both, in my calculations.
    But wait, what do you mean?  Are you hinting that Julie Christie was a gay (male) icon?  Really?  

    I dunno ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:01:32 PM EST

    I don't know if (none / 0) (#34)
    by sj on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:32:24 PM EST
    Julie Christie was a gay male icon, but judging from my friends I'm pretty sure that Julie Newmar was.

    I'd call it profoundly normal (none / 0) (#88)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:14:34 PM EST
    for men, women, giant anteaters, dolphins..

    I first saw Julie Christie in (none / 0) (#97)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:25:06 PM EST
    "Far From the Madding Crowd" and from that moment on, my 7-year old self wanted to be Julie Christie. Sadly, my blonde hair didn't even help. (My crush was on Terence Stamp...)

    She's one of the all time greats -- a deeply skilled actress and a real beauty.


    I was an 11 y.o. Freudian petrie dish (none / 0) (#44)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:50:30 PM EST
    Julie hit me HARD, baby. ;-)

    pertrie dish.. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:35:31 PM EST
    tell me about it.

    I was so perpetually horny in early adolescence, I remember getting turned on by a National Geographic special about the Dead Sea Scrolls.


    Dead Sea Scrolls??? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:29:42 PM EST
    Ok, you win the freaky-deaky award today. ;-)

    I forgot to say: (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:31:04 AM EST
    narrated by Julie Christie. :-)

    Ah, you have returned to sanity (none / 0) (#154)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:27:14 PM EST
    Makes complete sense now. For a day tho, I'd been convinced that you'd found erotic comfort in papyrus fragments as a teen.  

    Loved that flick. I remember seeing it (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:15:28 PM EST
    with my mom and sister. Can't say I noticed Julie Christie much- Warren was so adorable.

    I was a bad kid (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:23:08 PM EST
    I thought it a horrible movie and I thought Warren Beatty was pretty but a sad excuse for an actor.  Did I mention I was a precocious rotten kind of kid?

    Now, did I say it was a good movie? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:44:41 PM EST
    My sister and I loved Ishtar too.

    That's funny -- (none / 0) (#24)
    by brodie on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:10:51 PM EST
    so did I.

    In fact Ishtar had some of the same loveably stupid qualities (in the script and story) as Heaven Can Wait -- albeit for about $80m more in production costs, or whatever it was.

    Saw Ishtar not long after it came out in a giant, 1/3-filled theater in Westwood.  Lots of us were laughing at lots of stuff, particularly in the first half and at the goofy musical lyrics.

    Hey, we like what we like, the critics be damned.

    Never been much of a Mel Brooks fan myself, but (espec today) he's treated as a comedy god.

    Woody Allen -- (his deliberately funny movies) was funny. Ditto nearly every movie Albert Brooks has made.

    Steve Allen and Steve Martin -- funny.  Bob Hope and Jackie Gleason -- not so much.


    Oh come on (none / 0) (#35)
    by sj on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:39:25 PM EST
    Bob Hope and Phyllis Diller together were (sometimes) seriously funny.

    But to me?  Woody Allen not so much.


    Sounds like we have simpatico tastes (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 09:38:36 AM EST
    Here's the final test: The Three Amigos. My family died laughing in the theater. "Sew ladies, sew like the wind!". OMG.

    Lucky Day, Dusty Bottoms, (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:02:03 AM EST
    and Ned Nederlander...The Three Amigos!

    "Would you say I have a plethora of pinatas?"


    Hopeless (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:18:17 AM EST
    I've always liked edgy movies (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:25:45 AM EST
    I had to see 'Looking for Mr Goodbar'.  Can't imagine what I thought I'd see.  An independent woman shopping for a decent candy bar, it had Mr Goodbar in the title...it's chocolate.  I begged my sitter/nanny person to lie and say she was my mom and take me to it.  Dummy finally couldn't stand me any longer and agreed to.  I spent the rest of my early puberty in a self inflicted trauma stupor :)

    I read that book as a teenager (none / 0) (#78)
    by sj on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:47:15 AM EST
    so I absolutely did not want to see the movie.  I'm surprised I wasn't scarred for life.  Then again, maybe I was...

    The book! (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:04:41 PM EST
    I bow to your precocious majesty.

    Not precocious really :) (none / 0) (#81)
    by sj on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:24:53 PM EST
    Actually, more foolish.  I babysat one summer for a woman who had the book.  I had no idea what it was about and just picked it up and started reading with no one to say yea or nay.  

    She also had a copy of "Myra Breckenridge".  Which I also read.  I'm sure I didn't understand half of it.

    Those are the two I remember.  I expect I read more inappropriate material but those are the two that shocked me out of my middle class mind.


    Ah, the ways that babysitting expanded (none / 0) (#100)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:28:02 PM EST
    our youthful access to the world's literature.  For me, it was a father's copy of "Fanny Hill."

    Ha! (none / 0) (#102)
    by sj on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:57:01 PM EST
    I wonder if she had that one...

    It's a very good movie (none / 0) (#80)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:10:09 PM EST
    and I still find it kind of frightening, just thinking about it. Didn't read the book first, so, seeing at 18, had no idea what I was in for. No doubt, that movie could not be made today, in that same way.

    It (the book) haunted me (none / 0) (#141)
    by sj on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:45:39 PM EST
    for a very long time.  Since I couldn't bring myself to see the movie I have no idea how it was made.  But that was some grim stuff there.

    Yes, I agree. It was a very good film. (none / 0) (#146)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:40:03 AM EST
    Looking for Mr. Goodbar also totally creeped me out when I saw it for the first and only time at age 16. Its chillingly abrupt and very sad ending just depressed me for days on end.

    Such was the raw power of really great storytelling that it could move and affect me so deeply, I suppose -- but to this day, I've never again watched the movie, nor have I read Judith Rossner's novel. I still think Mr. Goodbar is the biggest cinematic downer ever pit to celluloid.

    You know, now that I really think about it, at 16 years I was probably just too young for the film's very mature subject matter. After all, my mother specifically told me that she really didn't want me seeing it, and she was usually pretty nonchalant about movies I saw.

    So of course, because Mom said no, I just had to go see it with my best friend. Should've listened to Mom this time, because there was a very good reason why Mr. Goodbar was rated R.

    Too bad movie theatres in L.A. back then didn't enforce the ratings code very vigorously. But then, had they done so, my friend and I would never have discovered Sybil Danning and The Women of Cellblock 7 (blush!) ...


    Well the movie did have (none / 0) (#20)
    by brodie on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:41:39 PM EST
    some amateurish qualities, probably owing to the fact it was a very early effort by Beatty and the co-writer Buck Henry to direct a major movie.  Just adds to the movie's charm, imo.

    Great supporting cast too.  Jack Warden, Charles Groden, and his wife the Mrs Cary Grant #3 -- Diane Cannon.

    Still though would have preferred some more scenes with Julie.  


    I remember that winter too. (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:13:23 PM EST
    It was my first semester break in SoCal after my mom had moved out there in the summer of 77. I was still in college in Illinois but came out for the Christmas break. Poured buckets, and I mean buckets like I had never seen before or since, nearly every day I was there.  Wow.

    Wasn't that the year that ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:36:19 PM EST
    ... Joe Namath was on his last legs as a player, and the Rams inexplicably signed him as their QB? The guy should've been playing with a walker.

    Oh, yeah, I remember that playoff game very well. I was their with my uncle and cousin, and the weather was miserable ghastly horrible wet freezing cold. That was my junior year in high school, and L.A. was just like Seattle at its worst, not only that day, but most of that entire winter, too. I don't ever remember it raining so much over a sustained period of time like that in SoCal, even in the film Blade Runner.

    (The upside to all that moisture was that the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains were always chock-full of snow, and the ski resort people up in Wrightwood, Lake Arrowhead and Big Bear were happy campers.)

    The Rams, of course, were the true Mr. Octobers of the 1970s well before Reggie Jackson made it fashionable, peaking early every season to position themselves as Super Bowl contenders, only to bellyflop spectacularly each December, just like clockwork.

    True to form, they slopped about in the Coliseum muck that day like hapless extras in a Three Stooges short, and couldn't do a damned thing in losing, 14-7, to what was a mediocre Vikings squad. By the second quarter, both teams were distinguishable only by their respective helmets.

    I believe that game also marked the end of Chuck Knox's "Ground Chuck" era as the Rams' coach, as well as the Rams' tenure at the L.A. Coliseum. They skeedaddled down I-5 to Anaheim Stadium in Orange County shortly thereafter.


    They played in the Coliseum... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:49:25 PM EST
    ...for all of the 70s, moved to Anaheim in '80, the season after making that Super Bowl against the Steelers in the Rose Bowl. And you're right, Knox left for Buffalo after that season, too. I believe in between Ground Chuck and John "Dickerson Right, Dickerson Left" Robinson we had Ray Malavasi.

    Correct. And the '79 Rams also had ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:19:46 AM EST
    ... a brash young QB named Vince Ferragamo, who came off the bench and took over when Pat Haden was injured and lost for the season.

    Ferragamo led the Rams to the Super Bowl after a decade of post-season heartbreak and playoff futility -- upsetting their longtime nemesis, the defending Super Bowl champion Dallas Cowboys, along the way.

    Ironically, the Rams' 9-7 regular season record was the worst in NFL championship game history at the time, and nobody gave them a ghost of a chance against the storied Pittsburgh Steelers, who were installed as formidable 16-point favorites in Super Bowl XIV at the Rose Bowl. But in what's since been called the first true Super Bowl classic, Ferragamo & Co. looked at Bradshaw, Harris and Hamm, et al., and refused to blink.

    And while the Rams ultimately fell in that wild back-and-forth affair, nobody could deny that they certainly went down swinging hard and gave Pittsburgh all they could handle. The Steelers really had to reach deep within themselves, and come up with the game of their own lives in order to match the upstarts and finally fend them off.


    Missed that one (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:40:14 AM EST
    I think that was Staubach's last game.

    Too bad. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:06:49 AM EST
    That was indeed a very sweet win, even more so because it was accomplished in the final minutes in front of the Cowboy faithful at Texas Stadium.

    Cowboys have faced worse (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:15:21 AM EST
    That they have, ... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:22:44 PM EST
    ... especially of late since Tony Romo has been their QB. Not that it's necessarily fair to pin the Cowboys' problems on any one player, because football is ultimately a team sport. Further, Romo's the type of NFL QB who will have ultimately compiled some pretty impressive career stats on paper when he finally hangs up the cleats.

    But while that's a lot of pretty high-priced talent assembled there in Big D, they just can't seem to pull it together enough to even make the NFL playoffs the last few years. Year in and out, they've been the best 8-8 team out there, bar none.

    And ever since he fumbled the snap on that potentially game-winning, 19-yd. FG attempt in the closing moments of that 2006 playoff game against the Seahawks, Romo's clearly been snake-bit in big, season-defining "win or go home"-type of games each December.

    And just like my L.A. Rams of yore, when that final gun sounds ending the critical game, Romo and his Cowboy teammates have been sent packing, their season done. This year's final game against the Redskins proved no different for him, tossing those three picks -- and with them, the Cowboys' chances at the NFC East title.

    Owner Jerry Jones has not been shy about changing coaches, but it still doesn't seem to make much difference, so to a certain extent any blame for the franchise's underachievement can be fairly laid at the feet of Cowboy players themselves. And in that regard, maybe we should start calling Tony Romo "Mr. October."



    I think Jerry Jones is a big part of (none / 0) (#98)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:25:13 PM EST
    why the Cowboys don't ever seem to achieve to the level of their players' talents; he's too involved, much the way Dan Snyder was with the Redskins - since Snyder's taken a back seat, and allowed his GM and the coaches to do what they do best, the Redskins have made a lot of progress, making the playoffs for the first time in a long, long time.

    Anne (none / 0) (#116)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:07:56 PM EST
    Jerry Jones is to blame, but to me it's because he loves drama, always something going on in Dallas because he's no scared to sign troublemakers, criminals, and disruptive players.  Irving, Pacman Jones, TO, and Dez.  I am guessing that team has had more players with serious legal troubles than any other 5 put together.

    This year it was Brent killing a teammate while drinking and driving. He's not the first Cowboy to kill someone behind the wheel of a car drunk.  Not that long ago ago a player was imprisoned for killing a couple kids who were helping someone on the freeway.  Can't remember his name.

    If your troubled and have talent, JJ will sign you, and there is a real good chance they will shine like a bright star for about half the season, then become a huge distraction.  IMO you can't consistently win with people like that.


    Not the case anymore (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:15:39 PM EST
    Michael Irvin was fine coming out of college.  Towards the end of his career, he had drug problems.

    And Jerry passed up drafting Randy Moss, when the Cowboys had a glaring need for a wideout, because of character issues.

    There are no more Pacmans, etc.  Dez Bryant has been just plain immmature.  Josh Brent who was driving when his teammate was killed is done playing football....

    Jerry Jones wants to win.   His problem is that he is not as football savvy as he thinks and should give up being GM.  Everyone in Dallas agrees--except Jerry.


    Irving Fine Ouit of College.... (none / 0) (#155)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:36:52 PM EST
    ... hilarious, I forget where did he go to college ?  Irving was in constant trouble, the only reason he wasn't in jail more is because the the Dallas Cops and their love of the Cowboys.

    He was a great player and I like him as a commenter, but he was troubled, as so many Cowboys.

    'Not the case anymore', you mean since the DD incident last month ?  Yeah, they have been clean for 5 weeks, I guess that's something.

    And Dez was charged with some kind of domestic violence before the season and was a distraction when he wasn't getting what he wanted.


    I think I started hating (none / 0) (#156)
    by brodie on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:54:41 PM EST
    the Cowboys even more (besides the "Dallas" part and the black mark on history for that city from 1963) sometime in the 70s probably, when the MSM began referring to them as "America's Team."

    Really?  When did we get to vote on that one?

    As for Landry, he had a good run there for a long time and no doubt was treated disrespectfully in his firing by new owner Jones.  But by then he'd been head coach there for nearly three full decades, and his final seasons were increasingly losing ones.  One almost got the sense, from the outside perspective, that Landry thought he had a lifetime contract as head coach, like one o' them fellers on the Supreme Court.

    He really should have stepped aside a few years earlier, or the GM of the team should have eased him out then, as apparently the previous owner had wanted.

    Great coach in his prime, but having done the same thing for so long, it might have clouded his ability to know when it was time to leave.  And callous Jones handled it all badly.


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#134)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 09:40:37 PM EST
    Honestly, if you're working in the front office and in charge of publicity, who needs the inevitable headaches that come with the signing of such problem children?

    Remember the P.R. nightmare for the Carolina Panthers named Rae Carruth? He was a very talented wide receiver on the field, and a soulless, self-absorbed monster off of it, who hired two thugs to shoot his eight-months-pregnant girlfriend in 1999 because he didn't want to pay child support.

    Somehow, his then-unborn son survived the shooting and was delivered of his mother posthumously. But at 13 years old, Chancellor Adams is cared for by his maternal grandmother, is confined to a wheelchair and can't feed himself, and will always be severely handicapped. All because daddy was too selfish to be tied down by his own kid.

    Then there's Antonio Cromartie, cornerback for the New York Jets, who's fathered 12 children with eight different women. And how about Steve Garvey, who long cultivated a squeaky-clean image as first baseman for the L.A. Dodgers, while fathering seven children by five different women. While Garvey's own website describes him as "a man of honor, integrity and quality," ex-wife Cyndy characterizes him as "cold, aloof and asexual ... a sociopath who doesn't take responsibility for his actions." What a guy, huh?

    Character and personal responsibility should matter, on and off the field, whether in sports or politics or whatever. I don't care how talented you are at your craft or in your professional field. If you're a bad actor, I'm not going to hire you.


    Anne, that hits the nail on the head (none / 0) (#133)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 09:24:58 PM EST
    The Dallas press has said that for years....
    The players say nothing as Jerry is pretty good to them...

    And that is an interesting take on the Redskins' owner.


    Romo (none / 0) (#103)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:14:00 PM EST
    Maybe not blame Romo, football is a team sport, but ever game they have needed to win to make the playoffs was lost because of some mistake Romo made.  Like the fumble you mentioned or his Favre like knack for throwing an interception at the worse possible time. Football is a team sport, but Romo's forte is figuring out how to lose a game with a 4th quarter lead, and he's quite skilled at it.  I remember one game, they were up by 14, with like 6 mins left.  I can't remember if he threw two interceptions or fumbled it, but 2, maybe even 3, turnovers that resulted in them losing.

    Twice tony Romo has blown games that would have kept the Giants out, including last year.  And since the Giants beat the Pack, in my head Romo's screw-up really lowered the odds of the 15-1 Pack going to the SB last year.  The Giants beat the them solidly, but it should have been the Cowgirls at Lambeau.  We love to crush the hopes and dreams of the Cowgirls, and we always to it with authority in Lambeau, not so much in Dallas.

    I should note as a GB fan, I absolutely despise the Cowboys.  But Romo is from Wisconsin and is a really good quarterback, but when the game is on the line, the guy can't make a good decision.


    You do of course remember (none / 0) (#113)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:56:26 PM EST
    the Thanksgiving Day game that Jason Garrett started?   Come from behind win....Long passes to Alvin Harper....Against whom?

    And wasn't that, like, ... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 08:55:12 PM EST
    MKS: "You do of course remember the Thanksgiving Day game that Jason Garrett started? Come from behind win....Long passes to Alvin Harper....Against whom?"

    ... 18 years ago? I mean, that season was the last time the 49ers won the Super Bowl, and the season after that was the last time the Cowboys won one.


    Renaissance Cowboys (none / 0) (#131)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 09:21:37 PM EST

    After the Age of Classical Cowboys with Roger Staubach and Bob Lilly.   After the Dark Ages Cowboys with Danny White.  After Prehistoric Cowboys of the Ice Bowl.

    And after that mud bowl with the Rams you posted....

    Much Cowboys history to be contemplated.   Landry's play calling was like listening to the Music of the Spheres....


    I've never liked the Cowboys. (none / 0) (#144)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:17:35 AM EST
    I'll always root against them. But curiously, I always liked Tom Landry, and more importantly, I respected him.

    When I think of a football coach, Tom Landry is still the first image that pops into my head -- his trademark fedora, coat and tie included. He was always stoic in comportment, gracious in victory and noble in defeat, he carried himself with dignity, and he treated others with respect.

    My dislike of the Cowboys turned to rage when Jerry Jones bought the Cowboys from the Hunt family and fired Tom Landry in such a disrespectful and contemptuous manner. Okay, so granted, the guy was probably a relic of a bygone era at that point, whose best days were obviously behind him. He was still football royalty and legend, and he clearly deserved better.

    And yet true to form, even thogh the dismissal hurt him deeply, Coach Landry accepted his fate calmly, politely thanked the Cowboys and the people of Dallas for the opportunity to have coached there for nearly three decades, and walked away with his head held high, without any public expressions of personal regret or bitter recrimination.

    "People say you have to know when to retire, which is a dumb thing to say. If you want to go out on top, yeah, it becomes important when you quit. But I wasn't afraid of that. And I wasn't worried about getting fired. I knew the risk. To me, it's not an ego thing. I enjoy coaching. I enjoy helping people achieve something. But it's all over now. And I can't worry about things over which I have no control."

    That, in my book, is the mark of a man with class and character. Living by example is something that can't be taught, only emulated. I think that pro football would be in a far better place today if there were more teachers like Tom Landry, and the self-promoters like Rex Ryan, Bill Bellichek and Jerry Jones weren't a dime a dozen.



    Jerry tried to make amends (none / 0) (#152)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:55:33 AM EST
    Inducting Tom Landry in the Ring of Honor and instead of a number next to his name, used a fedora.

    Tom Landry was revered in Texas.  What is truly fascinating is that Landry and Lombardi were both assistant coaches with the New York Giants in the 1950s:  Landry was the defensive coach, and Lombardi was the offensive coach.   Landry pioneered the 4-3 defenses.

    But when both became head coaches they were known for the opposite of what they did as assistant coaches in New York.  Landry was the pioneer of the shotgun with Roger Staubach, multiple formations, motion, shifts--and caused defenses to invent zone defenses because of Bob Hayes.

    Lombardi was not known for being an offensive innovator.  The Packer Sweep was not so much novel as it was an exercise in will and excellence by repetition--everyone knew what was coming but still could not stop it.  The Lombardi defenses were outstanding and fear provoking.
    That is why stands out about those Packers teams.

    It is as if both Landry and Lombardi knew from their days as assistant coaches where the weaknesess were in the areas they coached, and they exploited those weaknesses as head coaches....


    Giants owner Wellington Mara ... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:06:43 PM EST
    ... actually offered Tom Landry the position of head coach with the Giants in 1960, but he turned it down to take the reins of the expansion Cowboys.

    Seems he was already living in Dallas during the off-season anyway, and he decided that he didn't want to spend any more half-years in New York, and thought it would be fun to try and build a team from the ground up. He had no way of knowing that he'd be in Dallas for the next 30 years, and would become a legend.


    I Don't Remember... (none / 0) (#159)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:51:22 PM EST
    ...a game from '94.  The 90's Packers/Dallas competition was no good for a Packer fans.  3 times in a row we had to go to Dallas for a playoff game only to lose.  That's when I started really hating them, all we wanted was them in GB.  One year especially, same records, same division records, same opponent wins/losses.  It was down to like total yards or something similar.

    This is when Favre was getting his legs and we were so hungry and it's not that Dallas beat us, it's that it was always in Dallas.  This is before Favre's last years years and GB had never lost a playoff game in GB.  We wanted the Almighty in GB in December, not that god forsake Texas Stadium and it's nearly 3' playing field crown was so obviously rigged for the home team.

    A couple of FAQ's about the old stadium, it was dry in 1993.  Originally designed to have a retractable roof, but the owner decided last minute to scape that plan, but kept the design, aka the infamous hole.


    Romo could fall (none / 0) (#115)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:59:41 PM EST
    into the Dandy Don Meredith/Danny White category.

    Dandy Don really got the shaft, though.  It is not as if he lost to just any schmo...He just quit too soon....

    Elway almost missed out too.

    The issue is talent....and the Cowboys need more on the O and D lines....



    Then the Cowboys should ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 08:43:56 PM EST
    ... jettison the excess baggage that's presently taking up space on their roster, and fork over the bucks to get the linemen they need. It's not like they can't afford it.

    Think you could persuade Jerry of that? (none / 0) (#132)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 09:22:14 PM EST
    That's what I was going to ask you. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:08:58 AM EST

    Vince Ferragamo - now HE was hot! (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 09:41:10 AM EST
    I got his autograph - used to go to a lot of Rams games at Angles stadium - yes, it was a travesty playing there, but I took advantage of it! My mom worked at a hotel near there and they had season tickets we could use when no important gusts wanted them.

    Freudian slip? (none / 0) (#70)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:35:46 AM EST
    "when no important gusts wanted them"

    referencing those self-important wind bags?


    ha - maybe! (none / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:01:52 AM EST
    And you know something else? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:31:15 AM EST
    Even after 18 years, whenever I hear the words "St. Louis Rams," it still doesn't sound right.

    Nope, and further... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:58:11 AM EST
    ...even the blue and gold/yellow seems not quite right, as my first and founding memories were of Merlin and Deacon and the rest of the gridiron herd in plain navy and white.

    "Vince Ferragamo to Billy Waddy...Watch. Him. Go!"

    Ah for a Howard Cossell call.

    When halftime highlights on Monday Night Football were an event.

    Where have you gone, Lawrence McCutcheon?


    The very first Ram game I ever saw ... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:36:54 AM EST
    ... was a few weeks before Christmas in 1967 at the Coliseum, when the Rams blocked a Green Bay punt in the final minute to set up the game-wonning TD and beat the Packers.

    I was a very excitable youngster at the time and quite honestly, I really didn't understand the game well at all back then and probably annoyed my uncle and older cousin by peppering them with lots of questions all that afternoon.

    But I do distinctly remember that blocked kick, and how much fun it was to be in the Coliseum that day and yelling at the top of my lungs with all the grownups -- and not have my mother or grandmother come and tell me to pipe down.

    Baseball's always been and always will be my first and one true sports love, but football runs a close second, followed by women's college volleyball.


    I remember Gabriel hitting (none / 0) (#96)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:02:05 PM EST
    Bernie Casey in the back of the end zone with a perfect thirty yard pass, and then Travis Williams returning (was it the ensuing?) kickoff 104 yards..

    I believe it was indeed ... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:26:45 PM EST
    ... the ensuing kickoff. That game was a real barnburner. No wonder I got hooked on football.

    Gabriel (none / 0) (#121)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:24:30 PM EST
    my first football crush . . .

    Doesn't sound right (none / 0) (#83)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:31:35 PM EST
    to me, either, Donald.
    But then, I was in junior high school when the Chicago (Football) Cardinals moved to St. Louis, so my reaction was "meh" when they left for Arizona 27 years later.  It wasn't a team that I had grown up with.
    Then when the Rams came to St. Louis, I was also "meh."  
    (And, BTW, the Rams were originally a Cleveland team, anyway, and went to Los Angeles in 1946.)
    Teams move around.  
    I was always a baseball fanatic.  I grew up listening to Harry Caray call the Cardinal games on KMOX.
    And St. Louis was always more of a baseball town than a football town, anyway.

    Zorba, I will go to my grave (none / 0) (#85)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:39:38 PM EST
    telling people Harry Caray was really a Cardinals announcer, no matter how long he was Cubs announcer. I never accepted him!

    Ruffian, Caray (none / 0) (#87)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:08:19 PM EST
    was a Cardinals announcer for many more years than he was a Cubs announcer.
    And he was born in St. Louis.
    I recall there being a huge amount of brouhaha over his firing as the Cardinals announcer in 1969.
    Then he very briefly went to Oakland, then the White Sox, then finally the Cubs.  (And man, were my parents ticked off when he went to the hated Cubbies, even though, of course, St. Louis had canned him years before, and he had a right to make a living.)

    Well, neither did team owner Augie Busch ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:36:20 PM EST
    ruffian: "Harry Caray was really a Cardinals announcer, no matter how long he was Cubs announcer. I never accepted him!"

    ... in St. Louis, after being purportedly cuckholded by a romantic dalliance between Caray and Busch's first wife Susan.

    To be fair, Harry Caray's long since deceased, and Susan Busch has always insisted that rumors of an affair was simply a bunch of nasty gossip. Still, Caray got sent packing in a hurry, without much if any explanation from upstairs, and thus inexplicably wound up as the announcer for the Cards' hated rivals from up north.


    Believe me, (none / 0) (#95)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:01:09 PM EST
    the rumors were flying in St. Louis at the time.  Nobody said bupkis publicly, though.
    And it was thought that Augie's dad, Gussie, was the one who actually canned Caray, because of the rumored affair with his son's wife.

    Since you're a former StL resident and ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:24:49 PM EST
    ... still-active fan, I'll have to defer to your take on the subject, which sounds eminently more plausible if the old man was still alive at the time. I was only 8 years old when the Caray scandal first broke in 1969, and further, as a Dodger fan I've had only Vin Scully to listen to as announcer during my entire lifetime.

    Anyway, Scully's such a class act and bona fide Dodger legend that most people probably refuse to believe that he even goes to the bathroom, heaven forbid that he should have been capable of boinking Katherine O'Malley or Jamie McCourt on the side.

    But then, Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo enjoyed a similarly longstanding reputation as a Mormon teetotaller who abstains from alcohol -- that is, until he recently got arrested in Alexandria, VA for DUI and publicly admitted to a fondness for vodka tonics.



    Gussie didn't die (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:32:19 PM EST
    until 1989.  
    I was in college, in St. Louis, when Caray was fired.
    And who knows if Harry really was having an affair with Augie's then-wife?  A lot of people believed it, but nothing was ever proven, and nobody admitted to anything.  A lot of St. Louis fans were unhappy that Harry was fired, though.  I can still hear his voice proclaiming "It could be, it might be.....it is a home run!"

    Had no idea about all that intrigue. (none / 0) (#124)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:07:50 PM EST
    I don't know if (none / 0) (#125)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:51:23 PM EST
    I would exactly call it "intrigue," but there sure were a lot of rumors.  
    And plenty of unhappy radio-listening fans of the Cardinals. Like my parents.  And me.      ;-)

    OMG (none / 0) (#160)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:06:36 PM EST
    I remember that game.  IIRC the Vikings let it all hang out early before the field became mud gumbo then held onto the lead.

    As long as Alabama doesn't win (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 05:18:21 PM EST
    It's a grudge thing

    MT (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:06:59 PM EST
    as hard as this is, SEC fans stick together. You've got to bite your tongue and Roll Tide.

    You should hear Miami as they host this game. They are in turmoil. Dolphin fans hate Saban and Hurricane fans hate Notre Dame. They hope they both lose.

    Not a whole lot to go on here. Alabama played 6 bowl teams during the season and those 6 went 3-3 in bowl games. Notre Dame played 8 bowl teams but they went 3-5 in bowl games. With two teams with good defenses, I'd go the opposite of BTD and bet at the Mirage and take Notre Dame +10 and expect Bama to get a win no cover.


    I just can't (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:16:23 PM EST
    And I don't even really like ND either.  Our niece was offered a 4 yr scholarship to Alabama though and all I could silently think to myself was YOU CAN'T GO THERE!

    She took a 4 yr to Vermont though, closer to home and some extra stipendy stuff thrown in......whew


    Good choice. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:56:19 AM EST
    The University of Vermont is in the same conference as Elder Daughter's college, the America East, and Burlington has to be one of the most gorgeous small cities to be found anywhere in the country.

    They are very fortunate (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:43:05 AM EST
    to live in Burlington

    The real Burlington: (none / 0) (#71)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:47:36 AM EST
    Burlington- Unprovoked, the Burlington Police Department opened fire on unarmed civilians with pepper spray, rubber bullets, and brutal force in order to crush dissent and political opposition to the Northeast Governor's Conference in Burlington.

    The militarization of police (none / 0) (#72)
    by sj on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:00:03 AM EST
    is hugely disturbing. And I'd say this is a fairly astute assumption:
    "So what on earth prompted BPD in riot gear to open fire on passionate Vermonters?" asks Robin. "My guess? The FBI in cooperation with Homeland Security. "
    And the police department was actually closed to the public!
    ...throughout the weekend, civilian access the Burlington Police Department building on North Ave. was strictly prohibited. Instead, a handwritten note proclaimed the building to be "Command Unit" as several vehicles from the Department of Homeland Security waited outside. "In what world is it appropriate for the police department of a city of 40,000 people to close its main office to the public on any given day without any information about alternate offices?"

    It sure is... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:29:19 AM EST
    and hardly mentioned in the national debate on gun control...unless you're Alex Jones that is.

    Well, I didn't get pepper-sprayed ... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:37:50 PM EST
    ... when I was there a year ago -- and besides, I believe we were talking about MT's niece at the University of Vermont, and were not discussing the excessive force and overreactive brutality of the Burlington Police Department, which I believe to be pretty much a common trait shared with most urban police departments across the country.

    But anyway, speaking as someone who's actually been involved in such matters in the past from an oversight perspective, here are a few of my thoughts on the subject:

    • Public vigilance and oversight over the activities and actions of local law enforcement is really best accomplished by those citizens who actually live in that locale, such as those civilian members of a local police commission, who in turn are accountable to a city council / board of supervisors-trustees and a mayor / city manager.

    • Only when there's a very clear breakdown in a community's public oversight capacity over a public safety agency like a police / sheriff's department, which either (a) precludes officers and officials from otherwise being held to public account for their activities and actions, or (b) places one or more community residents at grave or imminent risk of personal harm, should outside intervention by state or federal authorities in a community's internal affairs be actively contemplated.

    • Even then, it should be readily understood by state and federal officials contemplating such an intervention that regardless of one's altruistic motives for doing so, more often than not that intervention will be interpreted by locals as outside meddling. Such "meddling" is generally not much appreciated by otherwise insular communities such as villages, towns and even small cities, whose residents and leaders will often unite counterintuitively to shield the bad actors amongst them.

    • To paraphrase Frank Malloy's admonition to Elliot Ness in The Untouchables, once you cross that threshold and intervene uninvited in someone else's affairs, you best then be prepared to go all the way to finish the job. So, unless one is willing to ultimately seize operational control over a city department or county agency by a court-ordered consent decree as may be necessary, more often than not such outside intervention proves both fleeting and fruitless, if not genuinely counterproductive.

    • Therefore, if you as a state and federal official don't pick and choose your regulatory battles wisely, you could wind up quickly dissipating your agency's fiscal and human resources on the bureaucratic equivalent of snipe hunts, and incurring a lot of animosity for your trouble. Uncompromising public crusaders in positions of authority tend to quickly exhaust their welcome in the community, which most often leads to either their termination or resignation under fire.


    That's certainly my dilema! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:11:00 PM EST
    The funniest thing I have heard on this was from Dan LeBatard.  When asked who Miami fans would be rooting for in this game, he said Miami fans will be rooting for locusts and a meteor.  

    Well ND has managed (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by brodie on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:15:02 PM EST
    to hold Bama to only a 28 pt lead at the half.

    And there's still hope for the Irish to put points on the board as they have a full 2 qtrs to play.

    Like I said, the Ducks would have been a more worthy opponent.  Or Stanford.

    But McCarron, whether bec he's great tonite or ND's secondary is so awful, is just steady as can be and is laying in the passes where they need to be 90% of the time.

    Gods be damned (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:35:16 PM EST
    Another year of super crappy racks of Auburn 2nd's school clothes!!!! That's how it works down here.  Damn it to hell!!!!

    Did BTD mean that for him to win on 'Bama (none / 0) (#33)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:30:09 PM EST
    Alabama has to win by a margin of 31 or more points (with "310" being a typo)?  Or does that mean something else?  I still don't get this point thing.  So if they win by 28, that doesn't do it?

    Makes no sense (none / 0) (#37)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:55:28 PM EST
    wirh, or without, a typo

    Spellchecker, BTD, Spellchecker


    No (none / 0) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:13:52 AM EST
    he went a little fancy this week.

    What it means is he bets Notre Dame straight up to win and he would get $310 for every $100 he bets. In this case he would lose $900 if a unit equals $100 because Notre Dame lost the game.

    However, he also has a play on Bama for 15 units giving 9 1/2 points which he wins since Alabama won by considerably more than that so he wins $1500 on that play.

    Net win...6 units or $600.


    O.K. I get it now, CG....thanks (none / 0) (#57)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:21:44 AM EST
    But, I still think it was a dumb play. And, before you rip my head off, it's only my opinion. I'm entitled to that, right?

    Here's why: Whether it's sports betting, or the stock/options market, the idea is the same. You place bets on both sides of a contest. There are many reasons why one would do that. You might win a lot more money. You might minimize risk. Or, you may believe you've discovered some anomaly that you can take advantage of.

    But, to be successful, you need to have developed two skills: expertise in picking winners, and expertise in managing your money.  

    I won't get into a long-winded thesis about this here so I'll just say that BTD is better at picking winners than he is at the money management thing.

    And, fwiw, if I was managing his money his winning bet would've netted him $1000. And, if he lost his losing bet would've amounted to "0."

    BTW, in the stock (options) market what BTD did is called a "Straddle."

    And yes, that's why they call it "monday morning quarterbacking."


    Excellent point (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 08:41:06 AM EST
    "expertise in picking winners, and expertise in managing your money"  

    The world is full of people that pick winners and still lose money...of course it's also full of folks that can't pick or manage.


    I just tried to tell my family that (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:18:53 PM EST
    Stanley McChrystal is going to be on the Daily Show tomorrow to push his new book and it isn't called 'All In'.  Josh asks me what it is called and I tell him 'My Share of the Task' and everyone is laughing so hard and loud it is pointless to try to say anything else they might hear.  I'm going to bed.

    Krugman (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 09:02:38 AM EST
    Thanks, but no thanks.

    Yes, I've heard about the notion that I should be nominated as Treasury Secretary. I'm flattered, but it really is a bad idea.
    But the main point, as I see it, is that it would mean taking me out of a quasi-official job that I believe I'm good at and putting me into one I'd be bad at.
    By my reckoning, then, an administration job, no matter how senior, would actually reduce my influence, leaving me unable to say publicly what I really think and all too probably finding myself unable to make headway in internal debates. link

    I (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 08:46:58 PM EST
    understand Krugman's reluctance to be part of the Obama administration. He feels that were he to join, he would have to refrain from articulating his views publicly.

    What a sad commentary on our government.
    Someone joining an administration is expected to tow a certain line and resist speaking what they believe.

    That is the opposite of the way I think things should be.

    It seems really bizarre to me that someone credible, a nobel prize winner, would consider his influence to be diminished were he to be an important government official. I don't know what his influence is at this time with respect to influencing government policy, so I don't see how it could be diminished. But I certainly can understand why he would refuse to be part of a machine that stifles him. It is just so unfortunate that he feels that would be the case.

    I can't disagree with him, but I certainly wish the administration would pay attention to his opinions, which I consider to be infinitely more valuable than those of Tim Geithner.


    You realize (2.75 / 4) (#135)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 09:45:46 PM EST
    that the truth is probably closer to, he wouldn't be interested because he makes more money doing what he's doing.

    There's more money and less stress in lobbing bombs at politicians where you can't be held accountable than in making less and being on the political hot seat on a daily basis. Nothing against Krugman, it's just capitalism in action.


    Yes, that must be it. He's a liar. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:16:01 PM EST
    He teaches economics and writes for the NYT because he doesn't want to be held accountable for his views. Krugman is such a coward! It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that he doesn't want to be held accountable for someone else's economic policies--policies with which he mostly disagrees and thinks are bad for the country.

    Do I need to put the snark tag in?


    Just so I'm clear (none / 0) (#137)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:23:27 PM EST
    You're saying opinion columnists are held accountable for what they write?

    What do you even mean by "accountable"? (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:45:08 PM EST
    Seems to me opinion columnists don't make policy for the White House, or anyone else. Krugman is free to opine in his role as an opinion columnist, and the NYT editor holds him "accountable" if, for some reason, Krugman has stepped over an ethical line with the NYT. I suspect the same goes for Tim Egan, Charles Blow, David Brooks, and the odious Russ Douthat as well.

    However, Krugman is an economics professor, and I'm pretty darn sure he is held accountable by the university administration and the university board for what he teaches in his classes and the way he behaves.

    True or not true?

    Who holds Geithner accountable? Only the president, who has the power to fire him, based on whether TG is satisfactorily carrying out the president's policies. I've been hearing for two days on this blog how we shouldn't be concerned about Hagel as DOD Sec, because he doesn't make the policies for defense, the president does, and Hagel will simply be carrying them out. Is that only true for DOD Sec, but not Treasury Sec?

    And let me be clear as well: You were commenting that Krugman's publicly written statement is not the truth, and that you know the real reason is because he doesn't want to be held accountable for his views, and because his priority is making money--more than he could make in the administration. And perhaps, the reason you were making those statements is because you simply don't like the content of what Krugman has to say about the economic policies of this White House.

    Just to be clear.


    I go to the news (none / 0) (#139)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:30:49 PM EST
    for facts not opinion.

    And (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 06:01:36 AM EST
    where, pray tell, do you go for "the news"?
    If there is a site which you consider is unfiltered by opinion, or slant, or downright commercial pressure, let me know.

    About Krugman.

    I am not an uncritical fan.

    But his opinions sure as he!! make more sense to me than the failures of Monsieur Geithner.


    Ooh. You probably dasn't diss (none / 0) (#140)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:42:35 PM EST
    Herr Krugman here.

    I don't think it is a matter (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:59:59 AM EST
    of dissing Dr. Krugman,  but disagreeing with the assertion that Krugman  would not join  the administration owing to a negative impact on his personal finances.  Understandably, becoming a Cabinet officer would reduce the degree of freedom he holds as a professor and opinion columnist.   When administrative officers chose to freelance, they  soon seem to  find a need to spend more time with their family.

     As for finances, if that were the issue, serving as Treasury Secretary for a few years may temporarily reduce his income, but it is likely that a Treasury tenure would not impede his longer term finances.  Mr. Geithner will probably soon point the way.


    As did the Admin. guru on health care bill. (none / 0) (#150)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:49:51 AM EST
    Ha (none / 0) (#142)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:57:47 PM EST
    I can always count on you for a laugh when I'm google dancing late night.

    Admirable introspection and (4.40 / 5) (#69)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:32:49 AM EST
    and astute realization.   As a part of the administration he would assume a different role, and, run the risk of being pithed.  That was a worry when Lawrence Tribe accepted the low profile position at DOJ as an advisor for access to justice.  Professor Tribe did not stay long; health reasons were cited.

    Just tells me that Krugman (1.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Politalkix on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:48:02 PM EST
    does not have much confidence in his leadership skills. The job entails advising and convincing the President about the correct course to take on the economy, convincing Congress and Americans regarding his policy decisions and making Republicans look bad if they opposed him while making use of the megaphone he would get. In other words it would provide him with an opportunity to show what he can do on the economy in areas where he feels that the President has not done much or been wrong.

    It is my take, and (4.00 / 4) (#162)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:33:40 PM EST
    you are entitled to yours. Trolling is not constructive.

    ACLU funds put to good use (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 09:14:41 AM EST
    WASHINGTON -- People discharged from the military under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" since November 10, 2004 who had only received one-half separation pay following their discharge but who otherwise would have received full pay now will be entitled to that full separation pay, according to the terms of a settlement agreement reached Monday between the American Civil Liberties Union and the federal government.

    "It makes no sense to continue to penalize service members who were discharged under a discriminatory statute that has already been repealed. The amount of the pay owed to these veterans is small by military standards, but is hugely significant in acknowledging their service to their country," said Joshua Block, staff attorney for the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, in a statement. link

    I'd Like to Hear Something About Steubenville (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by msaroff on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:39:09 PM EST
    From a defense attorney's perspective.

    I'm just saying.

    I've been following that case and would love if (none / 0) (#86)
    by Angel on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:56:10 PM EST
    Jeralyn would post something about it.  

    Can't find anything ... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:14:47 PM EST
    ... from a defense attorney's perspective, but there's a good background piece in the NYT and a blog from the blogger who drew a lot of attention to this case.

    I've read all of that, plus other articles, that's (none / 0) (#107)
    by Angel on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:34:59 PM EST
    how I became interested in the case.  Still, I would love to read Jeralyn's take on this just for the sake of knowing what she thinks.  I think those hicks drugged the girl and raped her multiple times, and I believe there is an obvious conspiracy of silence and protection going on, and more.  

    I'd be very curious to ... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:56:37 PM EST
    ... hear more as well, although Jeralyn's perspective is typically that of the defense.  May have to wait for much more until after the trial, though - particularly since it's a juvenile case.  It's going to come down to whether the defense can make a case that it was consensual.  Based on what's been discussed so far, it looks like they have a serious hill to climb.

    Here is a roundup of articles on Stuebenville (none / 0) (#145)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:52:03 AM EST
    that I found at Atlantic Online.  It's quite a bit of information. They are news articles, so not from a defense attorney's perspective.

    Fiscal Cliff Negotiation Survey (1.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Politalkix on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 08:44:06 PM EST

    Republicans take a particularly sour view of the outcome: just 16% approve of the final legislation, and by a 74% to 11% margin they think Obama got more of what he wanted. Only 40% of Republicans approve of how their party's leaders handled the negotiations; by comparison, fully 81% of Democrats approve of how Obama handled the negotiations.

    It would be difficult to estimate that 81% of Democrats approved of how the President handled negotiations based on reactions in TL but it is what it is. The survey is also corroborated by my own experiences when I step out of TL into the real world in my work and personal life.

    Here's the problem I have with polls (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:50:54 AM EST
    like this: there is no factor for what the person polled actually knows about the subject at hand, or whether what someone thinks he or she knows bears any relationship to the facts.

    "Fiscal cliff" is, for most people, a catchy - scary - label they've been hearing about for months, and especially so in the last couple of weeks.  Night after night, I've watched the coverage, and every morning, I've read the newspaper, and in neither place have I found a detailed explanation for what's behind the term, an explanation about how we got to that point, or an explanation of what it meant.  I didn't read or hear about any possible solutions other than those being pushed by politicians with their own agendas.  Once or twice, I did see or read someone saying that the apocalypse would not be upon us if we "went over" the cliff, because Congress could just as easily undo what was kicking in and make them retroactive to January 1.

    In my opinion, that factor is perhaps why the consensus here is different from these general public poll results: by and large, the people who comment here are not accepting as a given what they are being told via the media, but are going below the surface to educate themselves on the actual issues.  The more people know, I believe, the less likely they are to fall in line with the conventional partisan wisdom of Democrats thinking Obama's doing well, Republicans thinking he sucks.

    Now, maybe the people in your non-TL life are just as informed as the majority of commenters here - I hope so - but in my experience of talking with non-TL people - including my own husband - when I started asking people to explain  what they understood the "fiscal cliff" to be all about, what it meant and so on, it became pretty clear that all most people could spit back were the talking points they'd been hearing (although I could tell whether they had been listening/watching/reading conservative outlets v. more progressive ones).  When I'd follow up with some version of "well, hey, I read that...and did you know that..." most people would just go kind of deer-in-the-headlights, sputter a bit and re-set at whatever talking point they'd left off with.

    I guess I'm just not that convinced or confident that polls like the one you cited have as much meaning as you want them to have - and they certainly don't lead me to question the opinions I've formed or the conclusions I've reached.  It doesn't bother me to truly be outside whatever some poll defines the mainstream as, but I can't say that I appreciate polls being used to marginalize my opinions, when the polls themselves are so flawed.

    I don't have any problem with you or anyone thinking Obama handled this well - all of our views depend on how we look at an issue, what we wanted out of any deal, what we believe is next on the horizon, and how we think all of it is going to affect us and the economy in general - so those opinions are going to vary.

    There are two things that really frost my cupcakes: one is that regardless of what we want or need, and regardless of whether we support or reject whatever it is that's being decided in the WH and the halls of Congress, it's going to be what it's going to be, and neither you nor I matter in the long run - well, until someone wants our votes.  And, two, that polls like this get used by politicians to continue to advance positions and agendas that, if people really knew as much as they should, they would soundly reject.

    Sorry for the dissertation.  Just seeing where Obama's nominating Jack Lew for Treasury - wow, guess things will really be changing there, huh?  Or maybe not.



    Man, am I glad you're here! (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:31:43 AM EST
    I bet I'm kinda like you when I'm writing, Anne. You get started typing with a general thought, idea, or answer in your head and when you finish typing and hit, "Preview," you look at it and say, "Wow, and I really, really tried to make it short this time." Then, you take a minute, or two, look at your post, and ponder, "hmm, could I shorten it a little? Let's see, can't cut that, and if I leave out all those adjectives? Nope, the paragraph wouldn't have the 'oomph' I'm shooting for. You know what? Screw it! It's going in just the way it is, and if they don't like it, well........  

    Point is, you say stuff so much better than me, and you, obviously, type so much better (and faster) than me.

    But, the real, real point is, with you around you save me so much work and effort, since all I have to do is type,

    "me too,"



    "See Ya"



    An unfair, (4.20 / 5) (#148)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:34:29 AM EST
    and blanketed criticism.  No consideration given to arguments pro or con, or qualifications  either by any TL commenters or any others.   Just trolling.

    I'm already grumpy about (none / 0) (#5)
    by brodie on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:19:23 PM EST
    this one, given who is playing, and probably will remain grumpy regardless of who wins.

    I'll feel even lousier if it turns out the game is called by one Brent "You are looking live!" Musberger, a has-been hack announcer even back in the 70s when he tried to call NBA games, back when the contracting network (CBS) occasionally roused themselves to broadcast a game.

    Another SEC team (you know how I feel about the SEC) vs a spoiled school with its own tv network contract which apparently has a disturbing history of protecting evil off-field conduct by its players.

    Might be the only time in recent memory -- outside of one championship game involving Carville's and Randy Newman's  LSU -- when I've rooted for the SEC.

    Would have much preferred the improved Ducks playing Bama tonite.  Probably a better, more competitive game.

    I know he means well (none / 0) (#6)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:23:18 PM EST
    but Brent has always sounded like he'd be much more in his element hosting Family Feud or Lets Make a Deal.

    You don't think the Ducks are spoiled and into... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:10:51 PM EST
    Cover-ups?  Oregon football is practically owned by Phil Knight of Nike fame.  The team has had their share of cover-ups from arrests to possible recruiting violations.  Re: Phil Knight (known as Uncle Phil)...He is rumored now to be behind the reason Chip Kelly is staying, even though the school is under NCAA investigations with likely sanctions to follow.  The rumor is also that the sanctions will be light as the NCAA does not want to tick off Uncle Phil...

    Uncle Phil has influenced things at the University for years, even outside football.  Back in 2000, students were protesting child labor practices at Nike factories in Asia.  The university president at the time backed the students until Nike threatened to withold funds for the football stadium renovation.  Needless to say, the university changed their tune.

    There are SO many examples of Uncle Phil's financial influence at Oregon, especially for football, but essentially all athletics.  We have 2 sons that went to (or are still attending) Oregon.  One son was a tutor in the recently built John E Jaqua Student Center for Athletes, funded by Uncle Phil.  In the upper floor women's bathrooms, when you walk out of the stall, you see a giant etch of none other than "Uncle Phil"....  creepy.  anyway, I can go on and on about Uncle Phil's monetary influence on Oregon athletics...  the whole thing makes me ill.

    If ever in Eugene, please visit the campus to get a first-hand look at what money can buy, even in a small-ish Oregon town where it rains much of the year.  

    I live in Portland and am not a Duck fan (sour grapes perhaps as I am a beaver fan).


    Apologies... You did not refer to cover-ups... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:12:22 PM EST
    but you did refer to a spoiled team............  Anyway, hope my Oregon post hits home with some re: the state of Duck football.

    Well, no, I did mean to (none / 0) (#22)
    by brodie on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:00:04 PM EST
    suggest cover-ups also.

    But as for OR, I guess it depends on the type of arrests, and how handled by the school.  Reports on the latest scandals at ND involve widespread and highly-placed cover-ups of major alleged crimes of a sexual assault nature by protected football players, which according to some reports (recent WaPo report and links thereto at NCR) have been going on for years.

    NCAA violations -- pretty much par for the major college course.  Most of the "clean" schools are the one which haven't been adequately investigated yet, or have managed to cover their tracks more effectively.

    Phil Knight's involvement doesn't nearly come close on the immoral scale to the truly disgusting actions by ND school administrators and related in allegedly covering up for F1 type activities by Irish footballers.


    i can diss Knight's influence (none / 0) (#30)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:01:30 PM EST
    with the U of O as well as anyone. Heck, I complain all the time about Phil's oversized influence on the whole state. None of that, though, is as disturbing to me as the accusations against Notre Dame concerning sexual assaults by athletes.

    Yes, Oregon has had its bad eggs. Cliff Harris, speed demon and weed smoker, was kicked off the team. Jeremiah Masoli, convicted burglar and probation violator, was kicked off the team. Oregon does not always act as quickly and decisively as I would like with miscreant football players, but the school does not appear to sweep it all under the rug.

    If Oregon, like Notre Dame, has a policy of protecting football players from questioning by the police, and a policy of ignoring and denying sexual assaults by athletes, I haven't heard about it. If you know something please tell us.

    As to the NCAA and possible sanctions, yes, Chip Kelly did something stupid, and I expect Oregon to get hit with some sanctions. Oregon's violations seem fairly minor in the scheme of violations. Kelly is alleged to have paid someone in Texas to steer Texas high school players to Oregon. I believe the amount in question is $25,000. Definitely a violation, and inexcusable, and deserving of sanctions. Not, however, the same as covering up for sexual assaults.


    Know nothing about ND... But if..... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Cashmere on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:02:53 AM EST
    what you say is true re: ND's policy of protecting players from police questioning, then I agree that is abysmal.

    However, re: Oregon and Phil Knight's influence?  All I can say is what a sad state of affairs we are willing to accept in terms of college sports.  Knight's influence may not be as bad as what ND allows, but it is also no good.  

    Do we just accept bad behavior because other behavior is worse?  Guess so......


    I did not say we should accept bad (none / 0) (#99)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:26:27 PM EST
    behavior. I did express my dislike of Knight's oversized influence on both Ducks athletics and the state of Oregon.

    Yes, I do believe there are degrees of bad behavior. Abetting sexual assault by athletes is, IMO, much worse than recruiting violations. That does not mean that I think recruiting violations should be overlooked.

    U of O should, and will, face the NCAA to answer for the recruiting trouble. I would be surprised if no sanctions are handed down. I hope those sanctions will be proportional to the infraction. As an example, should the NCAA ever investigate the allegations about ND and find them to be true, I would expect the Irish to get something close to the death penalty, if not the death penalty itself.

    The Ducks, and I am completely guessing here, will probably lose some scholarships, maybe get a year's ban from post-season play.That is to me a proportional response. I would be surprised if anything stronger came of this, but again, I am only guessing.

    While Knight's influence with the Ducks is very well-known, Oregon is not the only school with outsized booster support. We know more about Oregon, and for that I blame the crazy quilt of uniforms that Nike keeps designing for the Ducks. :-)

    I am on record as opposing the huge mounds of money that get spent on men's college football and basketball. I find it so very wrong that the highest paid state employee is the football coach. In a world that I ruled the NFL and the NBA would fund their on farm system, much like MLB does now, and college sports would occupy a much smaller footprint in terms of money and influence at colleges. Head coaches would never make more than a tenured professor makes.

    Sadly, I do not rule the world.


    Sadly, you do not...I agree with you, Especially (none / 0) (#106)
    by Cashmere on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:30:24 PM EST
    as my husband is a tenured college professor.  I am continually appalled be the salary Chip Kelly gets, which will eventualy make him the highest benefit of PERS (his pension)... currently that claim to fame goes to Mike Bellotti who, last I checked, the state had to pay him 2 million dollars to get him to leave as the Duck's head coach so that Kelly could take over at the helm, yet Bellotti still collects a half million a year from the state for his pension (while working as an analyst for ESPN).  

    Please do not think I am against PERS as I am certainy not, especially with a professor husband who will also get PERS within the next 5 years, but not to the extent that Bellotti and Kelly or other coaches will collect.  In fact, individuals like Bellotti are a big reason PERS has such a bad name as the Oregonian continually publishes stores re: the excess of PERS when many are just fighting to keep the modest pension they were promised 30 years ago, while working for a modest salary.


    I predict the Ducks will not be penalized much... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Cashmere on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:51:08 PM EST
    Uncle Phil is too important to the NCAA and he threatens with his power often.  Just my prediction.  Perhaps it will all be ruled out.

    Also, above, you referenced the sex abuse cases re: ND.  You also mentioned that Oregon has had their fair share of arrests, but do not think you referenced LaMichael James's arrest for assault against his former girlfriend.  Granted, he eventuay plead guity for a lesser charge, but Chip Kelly only suspended him for one game....  Meanwhile, others that were arrested and were not quite as critical to the team, were kicked off the team.  

    I love college football, but when money gets the higher hand, it sucks.  Franky, the Oregon program is dirty.... like all others that have been tainted with power and money such as Uncle Phil offers.


    Did everyone see the news at Orange (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:30:34 PM EST
    That blogger Badabing passed away?  Thinking about her all day yesterday and some today, she always had a bit to say.  

    This game is so ugly. (none / 0) (#29)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:43:06 PM EST
    I knew I should have tuned in to the Bachelor!

    If you're into guilty pleasures then you should (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Angel on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:22:23 PM EST

    Swell game... (none / 0) (#36)
    by desertswine on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:55:11 PM EST
    I actually turned over to the more exciting Antiques Roadshow.

    I was working on the Big Island today, .., (none / 0) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:59:03 AM EST
    ... meeting with several clients. I was watching the pre-game show this afternoon at Hilo Airport, then boarded my return flight home just prior to kickoff, and by the time we arrived and disembarked in Honolulu and I got to my car, it was already 28-0. And I was like, "Geez! Why bother?"

    With that performance... (none / 0) (#38)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:07:45 PM EST
    I'm more convinced than ever that Notre Dame is a perfect fit for the BigTen.

    Sigh (none / 0) (#39)
    by lilburro on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:27:13 PM EST
    talked to my mom through the 4th quarter.  She's a Notre Dame fan for a few years now, since discovering Regis Philbin was a die-hard (no I'm not kidding, she could care less about football before and has thrown herself into it to the point that it is appointment television throughout the season, weird but cute).  At least they scored again.  She was subdued and a little sad - she doesn't get riled up like some fans about personnel choices, coaching, etc. you know, the rage that fuels this and many other Eagles fans for example.  Just a fan with her first taste of heartbreak!  Oh well.  At least they made it to the big game.

    And perhaps (none / 0) (#40)
    by lilburro on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:27:59 PM EST
    this kind of humiliation could be avoided with a BCS playoff.

    Much to the dismay of many (none / 0) (#41)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:34:23 PM EST
    The SEC wins again. That's seven straight titles. They've won ten of fifteen BCS Titles. The only times the SEC didn't win they weren't invited to the game. And the Conference won more bowl games this year(6) than the next best which tied with 4.

    I expected Notre Dame to keep it close. I underestimated my favorite conference. Notre Dame was never in the game.

    Minor correction....9 of 15 (none / 0) (#42)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:43:14 PM EST
    More proof that some gun nuts are just (none / 0) (#47)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:17:20 AM EST
    plain nuts.
    Alex Jones had a psychotic breakdown on Piers Morgan's show. Watch all fourteen minutes, if you dare.

    To be honest, I'm torn (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 08:49:27 AM EST
    I'm not sure if the best thing to do with the whackjob, conspiracy theorists is to refuse to give them a platform, or just let everyone see how b@t$hit crazy they really are.  For those who don't know Alex Jones, he's a rightwing radio host who believes (among other things):

    The Oklahoma City Bombing was "carried out by intelligence agencies" with "Bill Clinton's involvement."

    Juice boxes are part of a government effort to "encourage homosexuality with chemicals so that people don't have children."

    The U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks.

    The government has set up FEMA concentration camps in America.

    The BP oil spill "could have been manufactured."

    He also has theories about weather control, mass sterilization, the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, the EPA using drones to spy on midwestern ranchers.

    And, of course, he's a birther .... which (in the scheme of things) seems relatively mild.


    That's true cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs stuff. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:32:46 PM EST
    I really don't think anyone here could be that batschitt crazy, even in parody!

    Seeing that was both painful and ugly. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:47:26 AM EST
    Good. What an insufferable and histrionic little phuque he was in front of a national television audience!

    It's more than about time that these firearm nutballs were finally confronted on these shows and told off in no uncertain terms. The only real shame is that it first took an Englishman to finally say publicly what so many others across the country are probably thinking privately to themselves.



    It took an Englishman (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:30:36 AM EST
    because they're aren't any American talk show hosts with that kind of platform who are willing to say the obvious. And even though Morgan tried and tried to get a word in edgewise, and never lost his cool even once, it was brilliant the way he let that wacko hang himself like that. A fourteen minute psychotic episode for the whole world to see. I don't think I have ever witnessed anything like that on TV. It was stunning.

    Why Alex Jones hasn't been involuntarily committed to a hospital yet, I don't know. He's dangerous.  


    Piers Morgan's actually quite good at ... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:50:35 PM EST
    ... giving someone just enough rope with which to hang himself. He did much the same last year in an interview with a very combative Robert Blake, letting him erupt and spew on camera, and Blake came off like a bitter old man with a very short fuse on his temper. I bet he probably now wishes -- if only for publicity's sake -- that he had better kept his cool that night, because he certainly wasn't going to attract any job offers with that unseemly display.

    That's Alex Jones.... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 08:27:54 AM EST
    are you not entertained? ;)

    I can't help but get a kick out of him...of course he's nuts, some may say crazy like a fox, yet I'm glad he's out there doing his thing.  My kinda blowhard...I love how he once referred to a Texas State Trooper as a "well dressed mercenary".

    Hard to argue with his point about the state ever arming itself with high powered advanced weaponry and assorted tyranny technology.  If we wanna get serious about disarmament, what better place to start?


    I think Melo might have been armed... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:44:26 PM EST
    ...when he tried to wait by the Celtics bus for KG last night.

    Getting chippy out there.


    Gotta hand it to KG... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:57:47 PM EST
    His strategy worked, Melo had an awful shooting night.  And that guard the Celts got, Bradley, his full court defense was disruptively smothering...we could barely bring the ball over halfcourt at times.

    For Melo to go chasing the bus, KG's trash talk must have gone into wife or mother territory.  To be a fly on Spike Lee's seat!


    Old School Caucasian Time (none / 0) (#109)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:42:05 PM EST
    another Bird (none / 0) (#112)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:53:06 PM EST
    Apparently it was wife. (none / 0) (#122)
    by indy in sc on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:25:46 PM EST
    Word on the street is there was a Honey Nut Cheerios reference involved.  Completely uncool to say about someone's wife--but just a little bit funny too--sorry.  

    Interesting fan bio of Julie (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:13:12 AM EST

    BTW, "Away from Her"
    Is an excellent indie film


    Don't Look Now (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:55:07 PM EST
    directed by Nicholas Roeg..

    A quite creepy, macabre, psychological thriller. A very underrated film, imo.


    McCabe and Mrs Miller.. (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:57:35 PM EST
    maybe the piece de resistance..

    Jon Stewart nails Republicans ... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:16:17 PM EST
    ... on their hypocrisy in delaying the vote and "no" votes for Hurricane Sandy disaster relief.

    And by the way, you can't just change the rules of the game in the middle of a disaster.  The deal is, if your part of the country gets shellacked by a catastrophe, we all kick in a couple of shekels.  You want to change that deal?  Vote on it when people can't build sandcastles in their living room.

    Speaking (none / 0) (#130)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 09:08:05 PM EST
    of Elvis Presley, Chris Matthews said that he thought that it would be, "impossible to overestimate his importance to our country's history." He added, "And I mean it".

    I think Matthews is certifiable.

    But it could be "impossible to ... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:26:49 PM EST
    ... overestimate [Elvis Presley's] importance to our country's history," if you don't consider him particularly important in the first place.

    If we're talking about the history of American pop culture, I'd agree that Presley was important -- but to American history as a whole? Uh, no. He perhaps merits a footnote as "'Elvis the Pelvis,' serial corrupter of our nation's youth" in discussions about American society in the 1950s, at best. That's it.

    Chip Matthews may not be certifiable, but his tetherball's come loose from its chain and is bouncing toward the schoolyard fence.