NFL Sunday Open Thread

This week's Amato and Armando Show:

Our picks (Disagreement in BOLD (A) for Armando (J) for Amato): San Francisco 49ers -6 over Washington Redskins, New England Patriots +2 over Denver Broncos, (A) Arizona Cardinals -3, (J) Indianapolis Colts +3, (A) St. Louis Rams -1, (J) Chicago Bears +1, Pittsburgh Steelers +1 over Cleveland Browns, Carolina Panthers -4 over Miami Dolphins, (A) Kansas City Chiefs -4, (J) San Diego Chargers +4, (A) Minnesota Vikings +4, (J) Green Bay Packers -4, Detroit Lions -9 over Tampa Bay Buccaneers, (A) New York Jets +4, (J) Baltimore Ravens -4, (A) Oakland Raiders + 1 1/2, (J) Tennessee Titans -1 1/2, (A) Dallas Cowboys +3, (J) New York Giants -3.

Open Thread.

< International Accord Reached on Iran's Nuclear Program | Monday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 197 (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Dadler on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 11:13:24 AM EST
    Speaking of heathens, we saw ... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 03:29:41 PM EST
    ... "Kill Your Darlings" last night, a stylishly noir-ish and fascinating period film and character study which centers around some controversial but profoundly influential events that occurred during the late poet Allen Ginsberg's freshman year at Columbia in 1944. Given your literary bent, I think you'll like it, too.

    It has a brilliant performance by Daniel Radcliffe as Ginsberg (light-years from his "Harry Potter" persona), and a truly haunting one by Dane DeHaan as Lucien Carr, Ginsberg's schoolmate and first love. Carr is a beautifully photogenic young man and a hopeless flirt, whose tumultuous relationship with an overly smitten older man (Michael C. Hall of "Dexter," in an affecting turn) proves the incendiary catalyst for the events that follow. While Radcliffe is the name on the marquee above the title, this is really DeHaan's movie.

    It was a time when being openly gay was seen by many not as just a shocking act of social contrarianism, but one of moral subversion which could land someone in a mental institution, prison or six feet under. I recommend "Kill Your Darlings" highly but also cautiously, because its frank depictions of the so-called "homosexual lifestyle," circa the 1940s, may be off-putting to some people.

    (I offer that because the film contained a few scenes that made me uncomfortable, an embarrassing admission for someone who likes to think himself open-minded about such matters. That said, I didn't find those scenes to be in any way gratuitous, and they are integral to the overall storyline. But if onscreen depictions of gay sexuality bother you, you are hereby forewarned.)



    The only writing mentor I've had... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Dadler on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 05:50:33 PM EST
    ...my old chum and former professor, Carey Harrison, teaches at Brooklyn College, and when he started there he shared an office with none other than Allen Ginsberg.

    I'll check out the film, definitely, and as for being uncomfortable, bah, I majored in Theatre in school, had a career in Hollywood for awhile, have been around actors and the stage my whole life as my parents were actors when I was born, IOW, I'm pretty comfortable with gay folks and their sex lives, and there is nothing besides senseless violence that causes me the slightest bit of discomfort really. Jaysus, the bathrooms in the basement of our rehearsal spaces was a notorious spot for liaisons, and I was propositioned more than once as I wandered the underground halls going over my lines.

    I've seen the best minds of my generation...


    I agree with you. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 12:53:13 AM EST
    I was actually sort of surprised that I felt compelled to turn my head at one moment in particular, because I don't consider myself a prude.

    Roman Catholic guilt is a gift that keeps on giving, I suppose, and old habits die hard. Anyway, it's obviously my problem, and no one else's.



    Maybe the turning away also has to do (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 04:36:04 AM EST
    with respecting other's privacy and moments of intimacy..

    Every moment in life doesn't have to be someone else's potential spectator sport free for the price of a ticket..


    Thank you, jondee. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:09:21 PM EST
    I like your answer much better than mine. As I've long quipped, whatever two consenting adults choose to do behind closed doors is really none of my business -- and I'd like to keep it that way.

    ..where goest thou, America (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 05:06:41 AM EST
    in thy shiny black car in the night..

    Mostly to hell (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dadler on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 08:28:24 AM EST
    And the shiny black car is a handbasket station wagon.

    It doesn't? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Dadler on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 08:27:02 AM EST
    Damn, I was hoping to make some extra income in these tight times. This country is going socialist fer sure!

    Peripherally related, I loved Patti Smith's (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:10:10 PM EST
    story in 'Just Kids' about meeting Ginsberg while she was a young poet perusing selections at the Automat. Just added to the glamour of my childhood dreams of NYC, where the Automat seemed like the  height of sophisticated modern life, unattainable in Illinois.

    It's enough to bring a tear to your eye... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Edger on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 01:51:15 PM EST
    WASHINGTON--In a landmark report experts say fundamentally reshapes our understanding of the global warming crisis, new data published this week by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that the phenomenon is caused primarily by the actions of 7 billion key individuals.
    "Our research has proved conclusively that, year after year, the acceleration of the rate of global warming and the damage caused by this man-made acceleration can be clearly linked to 7 billion main culprits," explained lead author Dr. John Bartlett, noting that many of these individuals have links to climate change going back nearly a century. "Worse, the significant majority of damage was done within the past two decades, when the consequences of climate change were widely known and yet these specific individuals did nothing to curb or amend their practices."

    Previously from the Onion (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ragebot on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 02:25:15 PM EST
    Groundbreaking new findings announced Monday suggest the record-setting heat wave plaguing much of the United States may be due to radiation emitted from an enormous star located in the center of the solar system.

    Scientists believe the star, which they have named G2V65, may in fact be the same bright yellow orb seen arcing over the sky day after day, and given its extreme heat and proximity to Earth, it is likely not only to have caused the heat wave, but to be responsible for every warm day in human history.



    Yeah, (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 02:42:12 PM EST
    I guess it took 'em two tries to get it right...

    The Coup (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Dadler on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 11:03:50 AM EST
    How liberals get played (2.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Politalkix on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 07:02:36 PM EST

    According to a diary in the Firedoglake, the Haqqani network are the good guys now while our government are the bad guys-killing innocents with drones. The writer states-"The Haqqani network has never been directly implicated in any attacks on the US homeland. The group is not a part of al Qaeda, although its members are believed to have cooperated with al Qaeda in the past. The members are not senior members of al Qaeda, which President Barack Obama has falsely claimed are the people the US government targets in drone strikes."

    Even though my politics belong to the left, I feel less hesitant these days to use the words IDIOTS against those self-identified liberals that have abandoned common sense and facts for extreme ideology and propaganda.

    Haunted by ghosts of history (none / 0) (#1)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 10:48:20 AM EST
    Go Chargers! (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 11:06:19 AM EST
    Although my wife is a Chiefs fan from her youth in KC, so it maybe heated in the family room today.

    Go Pats!!! :) (none / 0) (#63)
    by Amiss on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 01:38:58 PM EST
    Hubby is a native New Englander, so I pull for all
    things New England, even tho I am a Floridian. How bout that fourth quarter? I had gone to bed, so I missed it.
    I am a Tebow fan, who btw just opened a ( I believe ) a PDQ? fast food chicken  place here in Jacksonville. Really saddens me.

    Loya Jirga endorses Afghan security deal (none / 0) (#4)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 01:32:50 PM EST

    "The Loya Jirga, consisting of 50 committees made up of about 2,500 elders, tribal leaders and other influential people, announced its endorsement of the security deal on Sunday after four days of deliberation in the Afghan capital, Kabul." More about Loya Jirga

    People in Afghanistan want the US to stay there till 2024. They seem to have a much better opinion about the role that America is playing in their country than liberals judging from afar!

    Hamid Karzai (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 02:50:10 PM EST
    has a view as close ,if not  closer, than the Council of Elders, or loyal jirga. And, Karzai has indicated that he would not sign an agreement with the US even if ratified by the council until next year after elections   Of course, Karzai has a long record of duplicitousness and corruption and may be "negotiating" for a bit more than offered.  

    And, the loyal jirga, too, no doubt sees the benefit of keeping the cash spigot open for another decade or two.  With $43 billion provided in American weaponry and other resources, to date, it is not difficult to understand why the council would like to see unending aid. But, it is more difficult to see what the US will receive by continuing pay for the Afghan army, police and training at a cost of $6 billion each year.

    President Obama is to be applauded for reducing the troops from 100,000 in 2000 to about half that today.  However, the residual of about 12,000 (the exact number has not been revealed), is both an unwelcome surprise and a recipe for counter-productiveness:

    For example, the US Special Forces has the right, according to the plan, to raid private Afghan homes. The agreement also provides immunity to US soldiers from Afghan prosecution--gasoline waiting for a match. (the sticking point for Iraq and its lack of resolution the cause for our be asked to leave).  

    Our reluctant adios may have more to do with keeping bases in the region than continuing the hapless and hopeless task of training Afghan security forces, it is both  near- and far-sighted  common sense to quit while we are behind.


    I am just glad that liberals now make up (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 03:15:15 PM EST
    67% of the population of the U.S.

    Q: On another subject, all in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war in Afghanistan has been worth fighting, or not?

    Yes, worth fighting 28%

    No, not worth fighting 67%

    Source July 2013  

    The military has been invaded by those dastardly liberals as well:

    Skepticism about the 12-year-old war in Afghanistan spiked this year among many U.S. troops, according to the latest annual Military Times Poll.

    When asked whether the U.S. is likely to succeed in Afghanistan, about 53 percent say that is either "not very likely" or "not at all likely," a sharp rise from the 39 percent who responded that way in the two previous polls. link

    It could become a retention issue (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 05:42:56 PM EST
    If they say 12,000 at this point they also believe that they will have 36,000 as contractors.  I'm not so certain we can convince 36,000 military contractors to sign on for such a dangerous haul.  I have always supported the Afghanistan mission but it is a dangerous mission and deployment.  The Bosnia 6 month rotation became a retention issue.

    From my Miltary Times link above (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 06:19:47 PM EST
    Other troops who have deployed recently to Afghanistan say the so-called insider attacks that have killed dozens of U.S. service members have affected their views of the war and undermined their trust in the Afghan troops they were assigned to train and mentor.

    "We didn't trust them at all. It was kind of an inside joke -- but not so much a joke as a reality -- that the unit we trained with was infiltrated [with insurgents]," said an Army staff sergeant who deployed there in 2011.

    At this point, I'm not sure what we are accomplishing other than trading lives and dollars so that corrupt officials can add more millions to their bank accounts.


    I understand on a ground level the (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 07:28:16 PM EST
    Stability we hope to provide.  It is on a long term though in an unstable region.  Bosnia tours were causing many to leave service, that prompted a $50,000 bonus to become available to us back then too.

    Everyone has been on the deployment bus, and everyone is tired.  Some traditions that I thought were silly prior to 9/11 are quickly returning.  Simple goofy things that a garrisoned army does to create an environment of community.  We have lost a certain sense of that in the past 10 years.  I think it is just human nature too, human beings all have a hard time risking attachment to others during high stress high risk times.

    I don't think you can do an in between place with us though, it becomes too painful.  We either have to be mostly at peace, or in war zones.  Bosnia tours caused extreme stress for the few having to do them because they did them very much alone from the rest of the troops and families.  They were very alone.  I remember many spouses and families feeling singled out for  extra suffering and a sort of victimization when their soldier had to do Bosnia.  Afghanistan tours are going to end up with the same stigmatization and stress challenging thresholds.  Just warnin the Pentagon and the White House, not that they care what I think or predict.


    Sadly, our loved ones work for a company... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Dadler on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:03:07 AM EST
    ...who expects them to do one thing: die with smiles on their faces. They work for a company that sends them into harm's way precisely TO be mentally traumatized and damaged, then brings them home and denies that traumatic damage, because they HAVE to deny it or the jig would be up in a very expensive and "transformative" way, and they're not gonna let that happen.

    Walking widgets is what they want our loved ones to be ultimately. That's no place to volunteer if you want to remain a mentally and emotionally and physically healthy person for the balance of your life.

    Peace to the family and friends.


    IMO (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 03:51:30 PM EST
    it is not a bad idea to maintain a small residual force of 12K and military bases in a very strategic part of the world if people in Afghanistan support it.

    To me it is more about keeping watch on Pakistan (very unstable country with nukes), Iran and China. It is also about preventing a repeat of the history that unfolded in Afghanistan after we withdrew in 1989, culminating in events that unfolded in America on Sept 11, 2001.



    If that's the case, then we'd ... (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:02:16 PM EST
    Politicalkix: "[It] is not a bad idea to maintain a small residual force of 12K and military bases in a very strategic part of the world if people in Afghanistan support it. To me it is more about keeping watch on Pakistan (very unstable country with nukes), Iran and China."

    ... really be much better off securing a major naval base in Aden or Muscat on the Arabian Peninsula and deploying our troops there, than in maintaining an active presence in a landlocked country that's hundreds of miles inland, and surrounded on three sides by potential adversaries, and bordered on the fourth side by inherently unstable regimes in the "Multistan" region of the former U.S.S.R.

    Suffice to say that from a purely strategic standpoint, Afghanistan is a place which could very quickly be both isolated and besieged, should circumstances in the region turn distinctly unfavorable to us. And then what do we do, with 12,000 troops cut off in the Hindu Kush, unable to either be resupplied or retreat tactically to a place where they can be evacuated?

    It seems to me that we learned that costly lesson twice before. The first time, some seven decades ago, cost us fully one-quarter of our standing U.S. Army at the time. It was called the Bataan Death March.

    The second time, in late November 1950, 25,000 men of the 1st U.S. Marine Division had to cut their way through 150,000 Chinese troops who had surrounded and attacked them at the Chosin Reservoir in North Korea, and then fall back 60 miles under fire in snowy sub-zero weather to the port city of Hungnam, from which they were successfully re-embarked and evacuated by the U.S. Navy.

    And while that fighting retreat stands as one of the iconic moments in U.S. Marine Corps history and lore, and the epitome of the term "Pyrrhic Victory" for the advancing Chinese (who lost nearly 30,000 dead for their efforts), nobody wants to ever chance a repeat performance.

    The one big commonality between the Battles of Bataan and Chosin Reservoir was the egomaniacal Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who was the overall commander in both instances. Those Marines had no business being deployed by MacArthur so far north in such an untenable strategic position, and it was due solely to their own perseverance and leadership on the ground that the Chinese were unable to bag the whole lot of them.

    The "Battling Bastards of Bataan (No Ma, No Pa, and No Uncle Sam)" weren't so lucky.



    Dan (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 08:08:52 AM EST
    I think you have a typo in your comment.

    According to this chart, there were 34,400 American troops in Afghanistan when Obama was inaugurated in Jan., 2009. American Forces did not reach 100,000 until mid 2010. If 50,000 plus troops are in Afghanistan now, that number still remains higher than what it was when Obama took office.  


    Thank you. (none / 0) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 09:59:39 AM EST
    Not so much a typo, as a mistake.  I think my number includes the surge to end all surges, pushed by General McChrystal.  An increase in troops by President Obama while he studied the matter, which seemed then and now to be backward.

    Or else... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by unitron on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 02:58:01 PM EST
    ...it's their opinion of all the money we're pumping into their economy.

    Meanwhile, President Karzai is stalling and some believe it has as much to do with him trying to retain power (and keep grabbing as many U.S. dollars as possible) even after his term in office is over.


    Billions in U.S. aid money unaccounted for (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 03:28:22 PM EST
    U.S. dollars going out of the country and shipped out of Afghanistan into the private accounts of corrupt officials.

    "After reviewing Afghan custom records, the Wall Street Journal reported that during a three-year period more than $3.1 billion in U.S. dollars left Afghanistan through the airport destined for Middle Eastern countries like Dubai and Abu Dhabi. More than $3 billion has been shipped from a country the CIA Fact Book claims only collected $1 billion in taxes annually.

    You can't just make a statement (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by sj on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 11:27:29 AM EST
    ...than liberals judging from afar!
    You have to find a way to insult someone. Even nameless, faceless someones. It appears that you have a great need to feel that you are better than some one else.

    Pretty Sure... (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 12:29:47 PM EST
    ...those 'liberals' are looking out for their own country's best interests, much like the elders in Afghanistan.

    What is your point, we should extend a war by a decade because elders in Afghanistan think it's a good idea ?

    The good news, at least according to your reasoning, is the US is politically made up of 69% 'liberals' because that is the percentage of folks who want out of Afghanistan.

    If the elders had any sort of clue, we probably would not have had to go there to begin with.  Using people who have basically failed to get their country into the 18th century, in the 2013, are people that should only be held up as proof on what not do to.

    But good to know you think elders in a Muslim run Tribal Republic is where the US should be looking to in regards to foreign policy.


    Shorter P-Kix.... (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    Suck it soldiers and anti-occupation hippies, the tribal elders have spoken!  Who's your daddy?

    Actually, shorter P-kix (none / 0) (#47)
    by Politalkix on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:58:02 PM EST
    All I heard from liberals was that people in Afghanistan wanted Americans outta there ASAP because all we did was occupy their country and kill innocents with drones. These fibbers got busted. It is clear that people in Afghanistan want our troops to stay.

    Is it, now? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 07:40:01 PM EST
    All I heard from liberals was that people in Afghanistan wanted Americans outta there ASAP because all we did was occupy their country and kill innocents with drones. These fibbers got busted. It is clear that people in Afghanistan want our troops to stay.

    And you get all that from an article which says that the Loya Jirga took 4 days to endorse a security deal, and another article which acknowledges the decision is very unpopular and meant to give Karzai cover for such an unpopular move?



    Given the money involved (none / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 08:44:58 PM EST
    and the precariousness of many, it would not surprise me that many in Afghanistan want some U.S. troops to stay.

    "Many" (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 08:52:21 PM EST
    "Many" probably do.  "Many" probably don't.  That's the funny thing about what "many" want.

    OTOH - the claim made by Politalkix was that liberals were lying when they said that people in Afghanistan wanted Americans to leave.  He also claimed that these articles made it clear that the Afghan people want us to stay.

    The articles establish neither claim.


    Even Code Pink (none / 0) (#51)
    by Politalkix on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:21:56 PM EST
    was forced to rethink its position a few years ago when they actually saw the situation in the ground.

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 06:30:53 AM EST
    So Code Pink and a "Single Girl's Afghanistan Travel Log" are representative of what the people of Afghanistan want?



    The travel log describes the single girl's (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 07:25:02 AM EST
    visit to the city of Kabul.

    Kabul is just one small segment of Afghanistan. To the best of my knowledge, Kabul has not been the target of the numerous drone strikes carried out by the U.S. in Afghanistan. The reconstruction of Kabul is not representative of what the rest of the country is like.

    Also here is a link to an interesting chart with time line of the troop levels in Afghanistan.


    Also worth a read (none / 0) (#53)
    by Politalkix on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 10:12:27 PM EST
    I am quite sure (none / 0) (#66)
    by Politalkix on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 08:40:09 PM EST
    that women in rural are looking forward to NATO forces  leaving with news like this link



    Let's look at the information (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:20:43 PM EST
    contained in your link.

    American and NATO forces were in Afghanistan and were unable to prevent

    a young woman being stoned to death in an insurgent-controlled village a few dozen miles from Kabul

    Women in rural areas were never fully protected by the U.S. presence since they did not control those areas. If 30,000 - 100,000 troops could and did not offer protection, what are 10,000 troops going to accomplish?

    American and NATO forces are still in Afghanistan and that did not prevent the Afghan parliament eliminating women from the councils or changing their criminal code. This is happening in parliament not just in rural areas.

    It is the latest in a string of encroachments on hard-won rights for women, after parliament quietly cut the number of seats set aside for women on provincial councils, and drew up a criminal code whose provisions will make it almost impossible to convict anyone for domestic violence

    American and NATO forces are still in Afghanistan and negotiations are underway for the U.S. to remain for at least another decade and yet their presence did not prevent this draft to permit stoning.

    Twelve years after the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan's government is considering bringing back a gruesome spectacle that became synonymous with Islamist cruelty: the use of public stoning as a punishment for sex outside marriage.

    The sentence for married adulterers, along with flogging for unmarried offenders, appears in a draft revision of the country's penal code being drawn up by the ministry of justice.

    Vacuous Reasoning (1.00 / 5) (#74)
    by Politalkix on Thu Nov 28, 2013 at 09:57:26 AM EST
    MO Blue wrote "American and NATO forces were in Afghanistan and were unable to prevent a young woman being stoned to death in an insurgent-controlled village a few dozen miles from Kabul
    Women in rural areas were never fully protected by the U.S. presence since they did not control those areas. If 30,000 - 100,000 troops could and did not offer protection, what are 10,000 troops going to accomplish?"

    If I used the same kind of vacuous reasoning that MO Blue routinely uses in her posts I could also do the following when we discussed Medicare.

    (1) Post a news link where a Medicare recipient died from an illness and emphasize that despite having Medicare, the patient could not be saved.

    (2) Post some links about cases of Medicare frauds.

    (3) Then make an argument that since Medicare coverage could not save every patient from death and because of existence of Medicare, some people were committing frauds, we have to get rid of Medicare.

    See how this works.

    But I know better than MO Blue. I will therefore not indulge in her kind of illogical reasoning. Medicare has saved lives and made lives of many people better just as the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan have made the lives of locals better and offered protections to women (and also some men) that they never had and will not have if NATO troops withdraw.


    Really? (4.20 / 5) (#75)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 07:43:38 AM EST
    The guy who cites Code Pink and a "Single Girl's Afghanistan Travel Log" (written by an American filmmaker) as proof that the Afghan people want American forces to stay in Afghanistan is complaining about "illogical" and "vacuous" reasoning?

    You can't make this stuff up ...


    Yep (4.43 / 7) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 08:05:11 AM EST
    and the same person complains that the discourse in this blog has hit abysmal levels, whines that people say mean things about him, in typical victimhood fashion claims people are bullying him, all the while admonishing others to be the change they want to see.

    But of course, just like his role model, he views himself above somehow above it all.


    Antics of the professional left (none / 0) (#77)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 09:56:43 AM EST
    They did not spare Pope Francis either.link This is what they do. They just dish dirt. They are as dirty as the extreme right wing.

    He's the pope (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 10:14:36 AM EST
    not a sacred bull from the Temple of Shiva..

    What he did or didn't' do under the regime should be as open to examination as the activities of any other citizen.


    Objective examination is one thing (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 10:45:19 AM EST
    Politically motivated opposition is another.


    Painting the would to be Pope as a political arch enemy and then trying to derail his chances for the Papacy....Sheesh...

    Pope Francis has always cared about the poor. Ordinary Argentinians recognize that, this is the reason they became overjoyed when he was elected as the Pope. Academics who have studied Argentina's dirty war never found any evidence that the Pope was complicit in the military junta's crimes. However, that never stopped the professional left from dishing dirt on the Pope.


    I like what the Pope has to say about the how (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 12:07:15 PM EST
    government policies affect the poor and his advocacy for the poor.

    Politicians, left, right and center, have flexible agendas based on what suits their political well being at any given time. The same could be said of some of the clergy at various levels.

    We may never know the whole truth of what happen in Argentina or exactly what the Pope did or didn't do. Yet, the allegations against Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) predate Cristina Fernández de Kirchner presidency. One of the allegations, per reports, came from Father Orlando Yorio who was one of two Jesuit priests who were seized and tortured by military authorities in May 1976.

    Yorio and Jalics were eventually freed, dumped off in a field after five months, half-naked and drugged.

    Yorio later blamed Bergoglio for the imprisonment. In a 1999 interview with a respected Argentine journalist, he was quoted as saying, "I have no reason to believe [Bergoglio] did anything to free us, in fact just the opposite," suggesting his superior had lifted his protection on the men as a punishment for their political views.

    Yorio died in 2000.

    Jalics, the other priest, had been silent about Bergoglio until Friday, when he issued a statement saying he had spoken with Bergoglio years later and the two Jesuits embraced "solemnly."

    "I cannot make a statement about the role of Father Bergoglio in these events," he said. "I am reconciled to the events and consider the matter to be closed." link

    Regardless, he is Pope now and I hope he is successful in his advocacy for the poor.


    Of course! (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 01:15:04 PM EST
    The professional left also existed before the rise of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and her husband in Argentinian politics. I never said that she was the matriarch of this kind of political species.

    It is entirely possible that a young Jesuit priest could feel that his calling was only to care for the poor and find the politics of both the right and the left in Argentina, extremely abhorrent.


    Round Three! (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 01:35:27 PM EST
    "The Professional Left."

    Do you you get paid every time you post that phrase?


    That is possible (none / 0) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 01:40:22 PM EST
    Yet, his statements were specific to Bergoglio and not a condemnation of the left and the right. So it is also possible that he was telling the truth in his statement to the journalist.

    Shortly after my article was published, I was contacted by both Father Yorio and an intermediary for the Archbishop. Father Yorio was upset. He denied Bergoglio had warned him and Jalics that they were in danger.
    `I do not have any reason to think he did anything for our release, but much to the contrary,' he said.

    Bergoglio had expelled him from his theology post at a Jesuit school, he said, and spread rumours `that I was a Communist, a subversive guerrilla who was after women - rumours that immediately came to the attention of the social sectors that ran the power and repression machinery'.

    In an era when the junta was trying to `cleanse' the nation of liberation theology, this was tantamount to a death sentence.

    Once again the whole truth may never be known and it is the politicians on the right and the conservatives in the church who are currently attacking his agenda as Pope.


    All academics.. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 12:25:45 PM EST
    or just "academics"?

    Labeling one public figure's criticism of another public figure as "politically motivated", as if that were all anyone ever needed know about the situation, goes on every day of the week in the political clown show in this country. It's deflect and distract 101.

    When there are political implications it goes without saying that everyone's "politically motivated". That doesn't negate the fact that they can also be motivated by other values besides pure, cynical, self-interest; which the wielding of the term "professional left" implies..

    Argentina's a traumatized nation that's still trying to sort out all the heroes and villains -- and it's a very complicated, painful undertaking..  


    Ha! "The Professional Left" (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 01:34:06 PM EST
    Round Two!

    "The Professional Left" (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 01:32:44 PM EST
    LOL. Are you on the payroll?

    Then they have much in common with you (4.20 / 5) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 10:08:37 AM EST
    because while you lack the skill to debate an issue in any honest manner, you are a pro at adopting the worse tactics of the extreme right.

    I see you also have difficulty practicing what you preach and feel that your admonishment "to be the change you want to see" only applies to others while you continue your ongoing practice of lowering the discourse on this blog to abysmal levels.


    The opinion of someone living there (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:31:47 PM EST
    Malalai Joya: ....In rural areas, the situation for women is like hell. During Taliban times, we did not have a Parliament. Today we have one, but it's a mafia Parliament. The majority of seats belong to warlords, drug lords, misogynists, even Taliban. Twenty-eight percent of Parliament is women, but most of these women are pro-warlord, pro-occupation and have a symbolic role.The catastrophic situation of women was a very good excuse for the US and NATO to justify their criminal war in Afghanistan. They misuse the miseries of Afghan women for their propaganda machine. Of Bibi Aisha, a woman who had her nose and ears cut off by her husband, Time magazine asked, "What happens if we leave Afghanistan?" It would have been better if they changed this to: "What happens to women while we are in Afghanistan?"

    Self-immolation in Afghanistan is skyrocketing. We've seen rape cases, acid attacks, burning girls' schools, cutting the nose and ears off women, beating women with lashes in public, executing them in public, accusing them of adultery without even bringing them to the symbolic courts that we have.

    DM: What changes do you anticipate following the US and NATO withdrawal?

    MJ: These twelve years, we've lived in civil war. In the Taliban time, we had one enemy: the Taliban. Now we have three: the Taliban, warlords and the occupation forces. When they leave, the situation will be even bloodier--not because of the withdrawal of the troops, but because more terrorists will be brought into power.

    Gulbuddin Hekmatyar has thrown acid on women's faces and committed other acts of violence against women. Now Hamid Karzai invites him to work with this puppet regime. The US and NATO presence is making the struggle for justice and peace much harder because they empower these reactionary terrorists, who are great obstacles for true democratic-minded elements in my country. link

    Wow (3.67 / 3) (#73)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 28, 2013 at 08:54:16 AM EST
    From "the Afghan people" to "women in rural Afghanistan" in just a couple of posts.

    Still no actual evidence to support your claims?


    I can't speak for the liberals... (5.00 / 7) (#59)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 07:45:38 AM EST
    you hear from...I want us outta there cuz we have no business being there spilling blood and spending a fortune daily when we got our own problems.  I don't think we have the right to occupy foreign countries, nor is it a good idea even if we have their "consent".  Our soldiers are supposed to defend the Constitution and our borders, not do the will of Afghan elders and that crook Karzai, or the will of the domestic military industrial complex.

    If Romney was president, would you be cheerleading for the occupation?  Or is this just political sport to you?


    You are climbing up the wrong tree (none / 0) (#65)
    by Politalkix on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 06:41:33 PM EST
    I do not see it as an "occupation", I have said that numerous times. After 9/11, I supported the US action in Afghanistan (even when GWB was the President) but was very opposed to the war in Iraq (even before it started). So I do not know why you are asking me this question "if Romney was President...". Yes, if Romney was President, I would still support it because my support is based on issues as I see it. I have supported military actions of Republican Presidents (GHWB in Persian Gulf War 1 and GWB in Afghanistan) in the past.  

    I Agree (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 10:16:13 AM EST
    Seems like I remember one of the main talking points for the left in regards to Iraq was that everyone supported the Afghanistan invasion, but not Iraq.

    But things change, what is the mission and how is leaving a miniscule force going to accomplish that if we can't do it with a normal force, or event he elevated force we had in for a bit ?

    But all that is a sidetrack from your original post which basically stated that there is something wrong with liberals for not siding with Afghan elders.  Never mind that 69% of US citizens want out, never mind that Afghanistan is more or less the same place it was over a decade ago before the invasion, never mind the costs in dollars and lives, and never the fact that we never even came close to having any sort of control in the tribal areas, the  areas that contain terrorists.

    No one IMO has made a good argument for staying in beyond "it's for our safety", which at this point is pretty much their go to line for anything the government does.

    So if you have good reason to stay, I am all ears, but if it's that general governmental safety bit, you aren't going to sway me.


    Good answer... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 09:17:38 AM EST
    I disagree of course, but as long as it's an issue based position and not just cheerleading for a politician/political brand with no regards to the issue, I can respect that.  

    Interesting that you support military actions (none / 0) (#87)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 01:37:49 PM EST
    and yet refer to yourself as "a pacifist."

    Wondering how many (none / 0) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 10:19:23 PM EST
    switched off the Pats/Broncos at halftime

    Scores (none / 0) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 11:24:32 PM EST
    1st half:
    Broncos 24 Pats 0

    2nd half:
    Pats 34 Broncos 7


    BTD - is Muschamp going to get canned this year? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Buckeye on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:04:42 AM EST

    He should (none / 0) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:30:17 AM EST
    but the word out of Gainesville is still no.

    Can't believe the defensive minded head coach lays the blame on the offense after the game. If he was honest he'd have said his team stinks from the head down and take the blame himself.

    He shirked responsibility and with it my respect.

    The Muschamp Gators play a try not to lose style from the opening kick. It's painful to watch for a lifelong Gator.


    Hey CG... (none / 0) (#36)
    by fishcamp on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 10:00:07 AM EST
    they're paving more and more of the bicycle path down here in the middle keys.  Next time I go to KW I'll check out the recent paving down there for you.  I could always travel along side in my boat to portage you around the rough spots.  Happy turkey day my friend.

    Thank You (none / 0) (#58)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 07:43:20 AM EST
    and Happy Thanksgiving to you too Fish. Still looking at maybe the Ragnar Relay (Miami to Key West) or more likely the Keys 100 Relay (Key Largo to Key West) someday.

    As one of the few that enjoys running in the dark, that smooth paved path would be a welcome sight for old eyes (and feet) and allow me to take a few night shifts while the others nap.


    The law of averages being what it is, ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 11:15:45 AM EST
    ... the Gators were long overdue due for a losing season. They were 11-2 last season. I'm not a Gator fan, obviously, so I don't have a dog in the hunt, but and I don't see the point of firing the coach because of one mediocre year (the Gators WERE 11-2 last season), and / or the fact that he's not a clone of the previous coach.

    If you watched last season's 11-2 (none / 0) (#45)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:22:17 PM EST
    you would know it was a mirage built on strange luck of the bounce victories.

    You are right it's been a long time though. Last losing season in Gainesville was in 1979. It should be noted however that the Wofford Terriers took down Georgia Southern this season, and the Gators, while a close at the end, never competed in the game against Georgia Southern and were manhandled on both sides of the ball.


    A UF team with a coach in yr 3 (none / 0) (#46)
    by Buckeye on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:37:57 PM EST
    should NEVER lose to a FCS team at home.  Period.  I think he is in some trouble.

    "Never competed in the game"? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:30:17 PM EST
    The Gators were up 10-7 at the half! Okay, they lost, and yes, they're have having an overdue down year.

    But during Coach Muschamp's first two years, they went 8-5 and 11-2. Given the program's history, I'd offer that this year's 4-7 team (at present) is probably an aberration. What are you going to say, should the Gators somehow manage to upset Florida State on Saturday -- "fire him anyway," despite a 24-14 overall record in three seasons?

    I remember hearing the same grumbling and whining from Gator fans about Urban Meyer in 2007 when his defending national champions fell off to 8-5 -- and then, you all collectively shrugged your shoulders in amazement, wondering why he eventually walked away from the job, as did Steve Spurrier in 2001.

    If the Gators' sub-.500 performance is repeated next season, then I'd agree that you probably have a case. But not at this time. Besides, you send Muschamp packing, with whom are you going to replace him? Just because UF alumni believe their team entitled to be the best and deserve the best, it doesn't necessarily follow that you're going to get the best. I hear that Lane Kiffin is available.

    Florida's currently on its fifth head coach in 13 years. If the UF administration continues to allow itself to be led by an alumni and fan base which chews up and spits out otherwise good coaches, the rest of the decent ones out there will inevitably start to look twice at the Gators' situation when Gainesville comes a-courting.

    Those candidates who do respond to the entreaties will think very long and hard about taking an offer they otherwise might not have refused from another institution. They will probably first insist upon additional conditions and stipulations in their contract to ensure that they're not simply left high and dry, should they somehow fail to placate the bloodlust of the Gator masses and get tossed off the merry-go-round.

    Overly high expectations can often lead to intemperate and irrational decision making, which could prove much more costly over the long term and not easily rectified, than if you had just showed some patience and resisted the temptation to blow up the bus in the first place.



    Not a UF fan (none / 0) (#54)
    by ragebot on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 12:16:11 AM EST
    but my brother and his wife are.  Saturday I am heading to Hogtown in his motorhome to watch my 'noles.  Not even gonna speculate about the score, but I am sure it will be uggggleee.

    One thing my brother and I do agree on, and I have talked to several other gator fans who have the same feeling.  How and why did the gators let Urban get away.  He is one of the better coaches around and doing a good job at OSU.  I am not sure it is the fans as much as the AD that is responsible for playing musical chairs with the gator head coach job.

    As an aside I am really disappointed UF did not do a better job this year and help our SOS.


    UF did not let Urban get away (none / 0) (#57)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 07:39:19 AM EST
    Urban broke down from stress (was hospitalized once), and resigned two different times.

    Coaching is a stressful job (none / 0) (#69)
    by ragebot on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 07:49:11 AM EST
    Especially at a school like UF.  But no more so than at a school like OSU.  If the AD and some Bull Gators in particular had wanted it to happen Urban could well be coaching at UF instead of OSU.

    As posted earlier I am no Gator fan, but I am not happy that both UF and the U seem to be shadows of their former selves while FSU may have produced one of the top ten teams in the history of college football this year.  I have followed FSU football since I enrolled there in 1975 and my assessment is that this team is better than the 1999 team.  It certainly has a better place kicker than the 1999 team.


    A lot of chatter from someone (none / 0) (#61)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 08:18:09 AM EST
    that may have seen 2 Gator games this year. I've watched all 11 from start to finish. Would love to think they could upset FSU. The problem is I'm not high.

    As for your misleading stat on head coaches at Florida, may I say your twist of 5 coaches in 13 years abides by the old maxim of figures lie and liars figure. They are also on their 5th coach in 24 years and one of those was an interim for only one game. 4 in 24 would be a more honest stat.

    A few teams, unlike the Gators, that did defeat Georgia Southern this season: Wofford, Furman, and Samford.

    You might want to consider bringing Muschamp to Hawaii. It looks like they could use a coach.


    I agree (none / 0) (#64)
    by Amiss on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 02:23:58 PM EST
    I had hoped along withmost lifelong gators for Muschamp to be gone. Also first.Time in years have not filled the gator bowl for the Fla-Ga game. Word here is also that Muschamp is staying and a good deal of Gator money is here in Jax. I am shaking my head.