Sunday Night Open Thread

Watching TV tonight: Shameless, the Good Wife and the finale of Downton Abbey.

There are new details in the Pistorius murder case.

Adam Lanza is back in the news, PBS's Frontline will run a show on Tuesday, Raising Adam Lanza.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Obama's Expected Immigration Reform Bill | Is the president empowered to target persons in the United States? No >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This makes too much sense. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:05:33 AM EST
    doubt that it will happen at least here as the U.S. hasn't found a corporate loophole that it doesn't embrace.

    ❖ "UK Chancellor George Osborne and his French and German counterparts are to call for global tax rules to clamp down on corporate tax avoidance." link

    New twist on corporate compensation? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:20:11 AM EST
    Doubt Lew's priorities will be anything other than to protect Wall St. and the banksters.

    At last we know how the grease is funneled to that revolving door between Wall Street and Washington. One only gets a $940,000 bonus from Wall Street's Citigroup if you can land a "full time high level position with the United States Government or a regulatory body." It can't be just a part-time job, mind you; and you can't be rank and file. Citigroup's dangling carrot will only pay $940,000 if the company can add a "high level" government mover and shaker to their gold-plated Rolodex.

    This was the bombshell dropped by Senator Orrin Hatch yesterday in Jack Lew's confirmation hearing for one of the highest offices in the land - Secretary of the U.S. Treasury who will also head the body that makes critical decisions impacting Citigroup - the Financial Stability Oversight Council. (Lew held an executive position with Citigroup at the time of its collapse.)

    ".... Third, your employment agreement included a clause stating that `your guaranteed incentive and retention award' would not be paid upon exit from Citigroup but there was an exception that you would receive that compensation `as a result of your acceptance of a full time high level position with the United States Government or a regulatory body.' Now is this exception consistent with President Obama's efforts to `close the revolving door' that carries special interest influence in and out of the government?" link

    GAO - $22 Trillion in economic damages... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    That's what these paragons of depraved indifference cost us.

    This... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 01:19:37 PM EST
    Link doesn't seem to work (none / 0) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 01:06:37 PM EST
    How can (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:33:03 AM EST
    anyone take our protestations of human rights abuses in other countries seriously when President Obama refuses to investigate Bush administration officials who bear responsibility for authorizing the transfer of "suspects" to "black sites" where they were tortured.

    And he nominates John Brennan to head the CIA.
    Does he think the world community is unaware of Mr. Brennan's history and dark predilections?

    Add to that this from the NYTimes;

    Mr. Obama has adopted the Bush administration's claim of a right to carry out targeted killings of suspected terrorists, including Americans, off the battlefield without judicial review or meaningful Congressional oversight.

    As the NYTimes concludes:

    "... pressure for the United States and its partners to acknowledge and make amends for gross violations of international legal and human rights standards is unlikely to subside."

    From all appearances, this pressure will have to come from outside since no one at home seems to care.

    It took 46 years (none / 0) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 10:47:53 AM EST
    before the investigations into FDR authorizing internment with the signing of Executive Order 9066 in 1942 were completed.

    A (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 11:37:01 AM EST
    shameful precedent.

    It appears to me, however, that more was known about what was being done at that time. It was on our soil, after all.
    Hard to keep a secret about it. I certainly knew about it. My parents knew about it.

    Having said that, are you implying that it is OK with you to forestall investigations of what we are doing to people until 2059?
    Are you interested, or would you just as soon forget about it?
    Or do you feel you know what they are doing, and it is OK with you.


    No (none / 0) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:51:37 PM EST
    not saying it's okay, but also know that decisions happen fast, and the backtrack takes many years.

    And this comes from someone whose great great grandfather (who was born in the US) went to federal prison under the Espionage and Sedition Acts, essentially for speaking German while living in Covington, Kentucky.


    are you really comparing (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by sj on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 11:49:58 AM EST
    internment, a true abomination but a targeted and public policy, with corruption at all levels of those who "lead our country"?  We should be patient until the 47th year while the .1% become the .0001%?

    [I didn't look up those numbers.  It's the idea that's the point.]


    Define "no one" (none / 0) (#18)
    by sj on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 11:41:09 AM EST
    You're slipping into flawed logic territory :)

    You're (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:46:18 PM EST

    I was slipping.

    I know that many people care.

    I think that when I wrote that I was referring to what I perceive as the lack of interest on the part of elected politicians. I haven't detected a passion to get to the bottom of what went on, and is going on.

    Tangentially, I really find it upsetting that Bush and Cheney among others are being let off the hook. I find it disturbing that Brennan would have been selected by Obama to head the CIA.

    Bush said publicly, many times, that "we don't torture". It would seem that he was able to say that, with that disgusting smirk of his, in that while "we" don't, we knowingly turn those "suspects" over to people who do.


    Being reported (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:42:49 PM EST
    that Mindy McCready killed herself tonight.

    Died (none / 0) (#2)
    by NYShooter on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 09:33:26 PM EST
    of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound in her Arkansas home.

    Please don't think I'm being flip (none / 0) (#4)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 10:26:20 PM EST
    but those of us on the west coast haven't seen the Downton finale yet...no spoilers, please!

    And it is very sad about McReady. It seemed in recent weeks that her world was crumbling around her.

    I deleted that comment (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:09:41 AM EST
    for people who haven't seen it yet.

    Well, now the west coast has seen Downton (none / 0) (#6)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:41:28 AM EST
    Abbey. Who knew that producing a Crawley grandchild was such a dangerous business. Here's hoping Edith gets the message and chooses to not have children.

    That shouldn't have made me laugh (none / 0) (#7)
    by shoephone on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 01:32:26 AM EST
    but it did. Will they name the baby Matthew Jr? God, Lady Mary is really going to be insufferable now... Edith will have to tell her to put a sock in it. I immediately felt saddest for cousin Isobel. Maybe little Sybie and Matty Jr. will be extra close like brother and sister growing up...

    I know, it's such bad news for Isobel. (none / 0) (#8)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 02:39:17 AM EST
    And after she derailed Dr.Clarkson's marriage proposal.

    I do hope Tom Branson plays a big part in baby boy Crawley's upbringing. Because god save that baby if Lord Grantham is his male role model.

    Season 4 is filming right now. I am truly torn about how long I want Downton Abbey to go on. Part of me would like to see how they handle the upheaval of the Great Depression, the rise of Hitler and WW II. Also, if the Dowager is still around when Edward abdicates for Wallis Simpson, well, I would love to see the Dowager's reaction to that.

    On the other hand, if the producers are going to kill off the character every time an actor leaves the series I don't think I can stick around for that much family tragedy.


    Do you think if we took up a collection, (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:47:52 AM EST
    we could buy Lady Grantham a couple different facial expressions?  Honestly, I can't stand that head-tilted-down/eyes-looking-up/half-smile she wears for everything.

    And I get that just because someone lives in a grand manor and carries a title doesn't mean he or she leads a charmed life, but I do think occasionally, the Grantham/Crawley contingent could have a few happy family moments.  I mean, here they all were worried about Mary after Sibyl's untimely death, and it's her husband who has an unfortunate encounter with fate.  It's like, okay, we'll let you get engaged, but we'll have you abandoned at the altar; we'll let you get married and have a baby, but you're going to die in the process; we'll let you get married and have a baby, but we're going to kill off your husband; you can fall in love, again, but you won't be able to marry because he's married to someone else.

    Sheesh.  Oh, well...it's not like it's real life or anything, so I guess I can cope, lol.  

    My favorite part is really the dog - she reminds me of our yellow lab when she was younger; I just like how she trots in and out of scenes and sits loyally at Lord Grantham's side.


    Well, at least (none / 0) (#27)
    by Zorba on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 01:49:38 PM EST
    if they kill off the character when an actor leaves the series, they don't have to worry about hiring anyone else to take over the role.
    Not that I like the idea of killing off characters when the actor leaves.  I really think that people who like and watch a program can accept a different actor in the role.

    Why are actors leaving a popular show? (none / 0) (#28)
    by nycstray on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 02:31:56 PM EST
    Standard three-year contracts (none / 0) (#29)
    by shoephone on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 02:39:26 PM EST
    I've read that it's standard for actors in British television series to sign three-year contracts. And Jessica Brown-Findlay and Dan Stevens both said at the end of last season they wanted to move on to new projects after Season Three. Dan Stevens is moving to California, and...he's editing a literary journal...maybe Dadler will submit one of his stories there...

    ah, thanks or the info :) (none / 0) (#31)
    by nycstray on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 02:43:07 PM EST
    And here's more from Julian Fellowes (none / 0) (#36)
    by shoephone on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 03:57:48 PM EST
    When Matthew bought (none / 0) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:47:29 PM EST
    that Humbler Roadster for motoring about in an early episode of Season III, I figured it would be involved in a tragedy in the last episode.   Just following the old playwriting script development of if there is a rifle over the fireplace mantel in the first act, it will surely be used in a murder in the second.

    Decided out of curiosity (none / 0) (#15)
    by brodie on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 10:47:13 AM EST
    to check out a few minutes of NatGeo's hyped docudrama version of Bill O'Reilly's waste of trees book Killing Lincoln, narrated by one Tom Hanks.

    Looked like a very overdone and pedestrian piece of American Heritage-style history reenactment which went over the same tired terrain about Booth with the same two - dimensional stereotypes about him.

    Also what's with former good guy Hanks lending his name to this mediocre piece of pseudo-history writing by RWer O'Reilly?

    I hear from a review online that O'R's book Killing Kennedy is far worse, more an attempt by the author to assassinate Kennedy's character as the main purpose, the actual assassination in Dallas being a secondary concern, with all the usual rehash and uncritical acceptance of the official lone nut story.  

    Oddly, when he was starting out as a tv reporter in Dallas years ago, then briefly during his later Inside Edition stint, O'R actually did some good investigative work from a skeptical perspective, as he got briefed privately for a while by noted conspiracy researcher Gaeton Fonzi.  But, like Geraldo, all that free thinking must be left behind as they climb the media ladder.  No one, to my knowledge, who makes it to the top in the mainstream media ever advocates even for a strongly skeptical attitude on this issue, or at least clearly for a conspiracy pov.  Not even the normally outspoken liberals at Msnbc.

    You can be a free thinker (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by SuzieTampa on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 01:46:40 PM EST
    and still reject a conspiracy pov. I was born in Dallas, and one of my Sunday school teachers was Ruth Hyde Paine. I was about 5 when Oswald shot JFK. Many years later, I met her again in the Tampa Bay area and interviewed her. She said something profound that has stuck with me: Believing in conspiracies can be consoling because they make logical sense of horrible acts. It can be much harder to accept that one crazy person can change history.

    Anyway, I don't expect to change your mind about who shot Kennedy, but at least I'd like to make the point that mainstream journalists have been free to investigate. Investigations of any kind  happen less these days because of corporate cutbacks.  


    I can see that (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by sj on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 02:40:43 PM EST
    Believing in conspiracies can be consoling because they make logical sense of horrible acts. It can be much harder to accept that one crazy person can change history.
    I can also see this
    Believing in a lone actor can be consoling because it makes logical sense of horrible acts.  It can be much harder to accept that there are hidden agendas, purposes and forces affecting the course of history.
    Personally, it seems to me that accepting the lone actor appearing from nowhere is the complacent thought.  Celebrity stalkers notwithstanding.

    But YMMV.


    Who is complacent (none / 0) (#42)
    by SuzieTampa on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:09:41 PM EST
    SJ, I can see your point of view, but I'm well-read on Kennedy's assassination, as were some of the investigative journalists at the Dallas Times Herald, where I once worked.

    I love women's history and social history in general. I have no problem accepting conspiracies, hidden agendas, etc., when I can find research that backs them up.


    As for the point of view (none / 0) (#45)
    by sj on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 10:10:24 PM EST
    on a given situation, I say let the evidence speak for itself.  Speaking specifically of Kennedy's assassination, there is no way you or I or anyone at the Dallas Times Herald as seen all the evidence.

    Not a very rigorous or (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by brodie on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 02:55:35 PM EST
    credible free thinker, at the least.  As with your buying the amateur armchair patronizing pop psychology, or propaganda, from one Ruth Hyde Paine, someone long suspected of CIA ties either in the formal or informal/friendly asset sense.  Ditto for others in the Paine family, interestingly, including her sister, whom she visited in VA just a couple of months before Dallas, who was a confirmed CIA employee.

    And, no, I also don't buy the assertion that MSM reporters have been free to investigate the case -- at least judging both by some insider accounts that have come out over the years and by the fact that so few major media outlets have bothered to truly devote resources -- including back when they all had them -- to investigate in an honest way in the past 50 years.  For the most part early on they just took the govt's word and that was the extent of the reporting.  In later years they just parroted the official line, in part to explain perhaps why they did no independent reporting themselves.

    LIFE magazine once announced years ago they were planning on reopening the case -- but after a few months that investigation was shot down internally, for no good reason.  THe much ballyhooed 1967 report by CBS was shoddy and heavily skewed to favor the govt report (see Mark Lane's book A Citizen's Dissent) -- an embarrassing chapter in the career of Walter Cronkite.  

    That same year NBC ran a documentary on the case (pro-Lone Nut, natch) which was so shoddy and false that the FCC forced the network to grant target subject Jim Garrison free network time to rebut, which he brilliantly took advantage of.  I think that's still the only time the Fairness Doctrine was ever invoked because a media outlet was so egregiously biased against a subject person in their reporting.

    Very little in recent years by way of honest and thorough investigating on the case, even as the major networks can easily afford it.


    I'll have to remember (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by SuzieTampa on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:26:24 PM EST
    not to take anything seriously that you write in the future. I tried to be civil. Ruth has a master's in psychology. She's a Quaker who has worked for years for progressive causes. How nice it is for you that she's a public figure and thus, you and others can smear her any way that you want. And all the Quakers, Unitarians, liberals and leftists who have known her over the years -- we've all been fooled. But you know the truth!  

    ... at once. As I've said earlier, they can call me when they've finally settled upon a single credible motive for the conspirators to have sought JFK's removal by assassination. In my opinion, the case for conspiracy crumbles from a lack of a single clear motive.

    For example, and speaking for myself only, I've never bought the "JFK was going to get us out of Vietnam, and the CIA and Pentagon opposed him" theory as to why JFK was killed, because in all honesty, the evidence actually points to the exact opposite; the president was escalating U.S. involvement there, and not scaling it back. The Kennedy administration had ordered my father and elements of the 2nd U.S. Marine Recon battalion to South Vietnam in early June 1963.

    I mean, why in the world would JFK have ever signed off on the military overthrow of South Vietnamese President Diem in early Nov. 1963, if he was about to order a subsequent withdrawal of all American military forces and advisors from the country? Forget the dubious ethics of plotting a coup; from a purely practical standpoint, precipitating the overthrow followed by an order for withdrawal doesn't make any logical sense at all, just on its face.

    Further, my father served as the senior MACV advisor to the 4th Vietnamese Marine Brigade, which assaulted the presidential palace in the Nov. '63 coup, and my family has in our personal possession a copy of his direct orders from Gen. Wallace Green to that effect, directing him to accompany the brigade into the city to the palace, and then withdraw personally to the nearby American embassy to avoid appearance of U.S. involvement. (My mother burned the original in Feb. 1964, after my father was killed.)

    Now, Gen. Greene was the USMC Commandant at the time, and a member of JCS. I very seriously doubt that he would have acted without expressed prior authorization from the White House. He and Gen. Bruce Myers (who headed up Force Recon) were not loose cannons and crackpots.

    So, as far as I'm concerned, the notion that JFK was some wise sage who would've avoided conflict in Vietnam holds no water. All the conspiracists have to support otherwise is their own unsubstantiated speculation.



    Well Donald I guess (none / 0) (#47)
    by brodie on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 07:37:59 AM EST
    you still haven't found the time to look into one or two of the books I recommended last time we had this discussion.  You seem to be breathtakingly uninformed about how JFK was upsetting some powerful forces in the national security chain with his non-hawkish and even anti-Cold War mentality policies and decision making wrt VN, Laos, Cuba and the Soviet Union.

    No invasion by US military during the BoP.  His constant refusal to send in combat units to VN throughout his presidency despite repeated attempts by the JCS to goad him into doing so.  Refusal to send US military units to Laos.  Refusal by JFK to bomb and invade Cuba during the Missile Crisis as the JCS and CIA and most ExComm advisers wanted.  The peaceful way he ended that crisis by the no-invasion pledge to Cuba and pulling out the missiles from Turkey -- LeMay and even VP Johnson, among other hawks, later muttered they feared the US lost in that exchange.

    Then finally in his last year the attempt at a new understanding with Castro and at detente with the Soviets, which appeared to be reciprocated by Khrushchev, including, amazingly, Kennedy's overture to the Soviets to cooperate on a joint mission to the Moon (NK agreeing to it just 10 days or so before Dallas).  This following the landmark test ban treaty with that country, which was opposed by the Joint Chiefs.

    As for withdrawing from VN, see NSAM 263 (order to withdraw 1,000 military advisers by the end of 1963 w/goal of ending our military assistance by 1965) as well as the testimony of most of the principals in his immediate national security chain who later stated Kennedy was getting out.  So did Maj Leader Mike Mansfield and leading antiwar Dem senator Wayne Morse who spoke with Kennedy in the Oval about VN just days before his TX trip.  Top aides Ken O'Donnell and Dave Powers wrote of Kennedy's withdrawal intentions some 40 yrs ago, the first to do so.

    There's your motive -- any one of these major decisions, or most of them or all of them combined.  This was a radical departure from the Cold War mindset of the times, and groups like the CIA and high-ranking Pentagon types -- both virtually governments within the govt -- were accustomed to getting their warmongering way.

    By contrast, as I pointed out last time, the WC could find no clear motive as to the accused LHO.  Nothing.  Nada.  Something you should have known about had you actually read the Warren Report as you loudly claimed to have done.

    Re the coup against Diem, actually that was initially signed off on in late Aug, after Kennedy, on weekend vacation, was told erroneously by an assistant something at State that both McNamara and Rusk had agreed to it (they had not). Kennedy was trying to get a more honest govt in power there -- also honest and frank enough to tell the US to get out.  But he reversed himself on the coup with a later cable -- never revoked -- which said nothing was to be done until the US Amb to VN (Lodge) heard directly from Kennedy.

    This order was ignored by Lodge and the CIA operating over there and Diem was toppled.  I have never read in any historical account of some later order from Kennedy overriding his last order stopping the coup plotting.

    Yes, plenty of motives for powerful NS elements to want to act to take out Kennedy, especially with true cold warrior Lyndon Johnson waiting in the wings.  With LBJ the Pentagon and CIA could have their SE Asia war plus all the rest -- no more secret talks with Castro, no more detente with the Russkies, no cozying up to third world anti-colonialist  lefty types like the president of Indonesia.  Once Johnson got in, the dark forces had a virtual blank check.


    Another thing: it's just silly (none / 0) (#48)
    by brodie on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 08:08:28 AM EST
    to expect hundreds of researchers to somehow get together and agree on a single motive for the conspiracy.  How would that work -- majority rules or is a unanimous vote required?  Or would 60% of the votes on a motive be required?  Who would qualify as a researcher eligible to vote at this confab?

    Do the Lincoln assassination researchers get together to agree on things like motive or the actual extent of that conspiracy and who was the ultimate mastermind?  Are the theories of the several schools there delegitimized just because there is currently a split as to the nature of the conspiracy?

    You seem to be craving certainty and finality.  Neither is likely to be found re the events of Dallas, at least in our lifetimes.  It's too controversial, too important an event, too risky to be totally investigated at this time.  A few powerful governmental groups would prefer not to investigate -- their very existence would be in jeopardy if the full story were revealed and they would greatly prefer to keep the power they now wield.

    History is supposed to be an argument without end.  Those with the best evidence and arguments eventually win out, most times, except in cases where, for the moment, powerful political forces are able to insist upon their version at least as to an official line being promoted in the establishment organs of communication, as with the assassination in Dallas.


    Since we're talking about JFK, here is a (none / 0) (#56)
    by caseyOR on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 03:32:24 PM EST
    video that, although it was made in 2011, I have never seen. It is a recitation of Jack Kennedy's Inaugural Address. Several people, some known and some not, recite different portions of the speech. Watching this film made me sad and teary-eyed and angry.

    Sad and teary-eyed because of the lost opportunities and the emotion of hearing such hopefulness about our country. Angry because our nation has not even come close to realizing the promises and hopes voiced in that speech. We have veered so far off the course charted for our country in that speech.

    The three assassinations in the 1960s robbed our country of its last best chance to become the nation that our founders described in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

    h/t Susie Madrak


    It was such a beautiful afternoon, (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by NYShooter on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 07:59:04 PM EST
    Sun shining so brightly, Autumn breeze blowing a sea of multi colored, psychedelic leaves across the quadrangle of my upstate NY University. My mood was in overdrive; I just found out that my athletic scholarship, which covered my tuition, had been extended to also cover room and board. And, to make the day even more perfect, The Beatles had just announced they'd be "invading" America in a couple of months. The biggest problem on my mind, how was I gonna fit all my stuff for my Thanksgiving trip home into the tiny compartment of my brand new, Daytona blue Corvette convertible?

    Then.......the earth stopped. My walk, my heart, my ears......freeze framed, stopped. I heard the words. I didn't feel a thing. Like an out-of-body experience, I heard the words again. I must have heard them ten more times before the meaning started to be comprehensible: "The President's Been Shot!" The very first thought that immediately followed was, "Please, God, don't let me hear the "D" word........."Shot, The President`s been shot." "Kennedy's been shot."  The more times I heard, "Shot," the more optimistic I got. As long as they were saying, "shot," they weren't saying, "Dead."

    "Dead" came, mercifully, quite a bit later. It was as if Jack was holding on as long as he could so that we would have time to let it sink in, and prepare ourselves for what we knew would follow. If "shot" and "died" hit us together, all at once, I honestly don't know if we would've been able to handle it.

    18, college, sports car.......politics was the furthest thing from my mind. All I knew was that Jack Kennedy made me so god damned proud to be an American, it just burst out of my chest like a grenade. And, when that son of a bitch killed him, he left a hole in me, and countless millions of people just like me, too.  

    Damn! What I wouldn't do to feel like that about a President again.


    Why? (none / 0) (#49)
    by sj on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 09:14:22 AM EST
    In my opinion, the case for conspiracy crumbles from a lack of a single clear motive.
    I think that's a ludicrous metric when discussing something as major as the assassination of a President.  

    Alliances are formed for reasons that benefit the parties involved.  The "motive" of each participant for such an alliance does not have to be the same for it to be effective.

    That's not a difficult concept.  

    I don't purport to know what happened.  But I'm not going to rule out conspiracy any more than I'll rule out the lone gunman. How can I when all of the evidence has not been made public?

    Still, as you say, that it is your opinion.  And like everyone else, you're entitled to your opinion.  Even if I find your basis and your reasoning ludicrous.  


    Agree with most of your (none / 0) (#50)
    by brodie on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 10:06:02 AM EST
    points (except the point of not knowing what happened until all the evidence is in -- reasonable people can already conclude based on what we have already even if incomplete, and the full record is probably never going to be available).

    And again it bears noting that while the poster insists that the conspiracy proponents come up with a simple and clear motive, he seems not to appreciate or acknowledge that no simple or clear motive was found by the WC as to his lone nut LHO (almost certainly b/c Oswald was not in fact the assassin and held no great animus against the president, in fact the best evidence suggests he personally liked JFK and his family).

    Very curious he should keep coming back to this motive angle given the utter lack of it with the official story.


    Oy, I assumed that if Tom Hanks (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 03:18:10 PM EST
    was the narrator, then Spielberg must have been behind it, since he is the Lincoln director.  Tom Hanks and Speilberg are generally joined at the hip, no?

    So, I was duped into an O'Reilly show????

    I recorded it, but have to confess that I got bored (saving grace, that) by the show and stopped watching....

    I will watch the new recorded episode of the Zombie show.  


    Hanks is also co-producing (none / 0) (#41)
    by brodie on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 06:26:28 PM EST
    a movie for airing later this year called Parkland, supposedly based on the doorstop lone nut screed by Bugliosi.  Apparently though this is a very scaled back version of what was originally intended.

    Sad to see Hanks associate himself with such nonsense.  But he strikes me as a guy who embraces being a major player in the establishment, and to have that role requires toeing the line on avoiding advocacy for so-called wild conspiracy theories.


    Christianists: Their own best parody. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 03:37:51 PM EST
    "No more Mr. Nice Jesus."

    There seems to be some movement afoot in the mainstream media to push the meme that SNL somehow crossed some sort of line into blasphemy this weekend with its Quentin Tarantino preview / parody, "DJesus Uncrossed"?

    "Critics are calling it a less violent Passion of the Christ."

    (As you'll note from the link, Hulu has apparently pulled the skit from its videofiles in response to the Christianist complaints. Fortunately, it's up on YouTube, albeit poorer quality.)

    Quite frankly, I found the piece to be both inspired and hilarious. And I've noticed that most of the people who say they're offended don't ever seem to mind how much they offend others with their own self-serving and sanctimonious religious bigotry.

    Update: Hulu's back up. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 03:47:32 PM EST
    "He's risen from the dead -- and he's preaching anything but forgiveness."

    It is funny. i don't particularly (none / 0) (#40)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 05:41:00 PM EST
    care fro Tarantino's movies, but I did like this parody.

    And given the prevalence on the Christian Right of what is termed muscular Christianity, none of that sappy care-for-the-poor-turn-the-other-cheek nonsense, I don't understand what the complainers are complaining about.


    Come On... (none / 0) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 12:27:27 PM EST
    ...about 30 seconds into the skit, I busted up laughing just thinking how the Christian Taliban was going to explode.  I have been disappointed.

    They are just doing what they always do, inflating their delicate egos for the flock.  No else cares.  

    Not buying your 'movement' bit, any article that has to resort to quotes from an online comments section is probably full of cr@ppola.


    Almost decked a guy at the gas station (none / 0) (#37)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 04:47:51 PM EST
    So this morning we were on our way down the mountain from four days in Lake Tahoe. We stopped in Placerville to get gas and air up the tires. While filling up, a pickup truck stops on the other side of the pump. Big dog in the bed, Great Dane or something equally huge. I am admiring the dog when my eyes go wide and shocked at the site of his owner -- about to fill up the truck, removing the nozzle from the pump...WITH A PHUCKING LIT CIGARETTE DANGLING FROM HIS IDIOT LIPS!!! I froze for a second, smelling gas fumes all around me like you do at a, um, GAS STATION!!  I yelled at the guy to get rid of the cig: "Jesus Christ, man, I have my kid in the car, get that thing outta here!!" Something like that.  Honestly, if he didn't have that dog, and if my son weren't there to see it, I would have grabbed the smoke out of his mouth and all but put it out on his face!  WTF is wrong with people???  And the "best" part? As we're fleeing the hell out of the lot, "forget the air I'll do it down the road," I tell my wife, I notice the guy's t-shirt says: "Even Firemen Need Friends."  No, they don't buddy, they need brains, which you are seriously lacking. I haven't felt the urge to pummel someone literally like that in awhile. Don't like it either.

    OMG! (none / 0) (#38)
    by Zorba on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 05:15:33 PM EST
    Appalling.  But as I often think, "People are stupid."
    At least, too many of them are.  I often wonder how the human race has survived so long.    :-(

    I have never fled a gas station... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 05:30:35 PM EST
    ...like that before. Don't want to again.

    Oy. Save us.


    No kidding (none / 0) (#44)
    by Zorba on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:27:48 PM EST
    It must have been totally scary, Dadler.

    Not to Point Out the Obvious (none / 0) (#52)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 01:03:31 PM EST
    I was a mechanic in college for a station that sold gas, and grew up on a farm with access to 200 gallons or gasoline and diesel fuel.  I feel that as far as hands on experience, I am pretty damn experienced.  From filling up soda gas with gas, igniting them, then blasting them with shotguns to make a giant fireballs to purposely freaking people out by tossing lit cigs in a container of gas at the station.

    A cigarette burns at 450 degrees and pure gasoline ignites at 500 in a lab, but in the real world it's closer to 700 because lower grades and chemical additives.  Igniting gas from cig would be like trying to freeze water at 40 degree or getting AIDS from touching someone with it, the physics/science just doesn't back up your fear.  

    The only danger is a spark from lighting a cig, or if the cig is tossed somewhere and ignites a flame because gasoline's real asset is it's flammability, not it's autoignition temperature.


    I've seen people smoking at gas stations (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dadler on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 01:19:06 PM EST
    They are morons also, but they have been on the periphery of the station, nowhere near the pumps, much less removing the nozzle from the pump, with many drips and drabs of gas on the ground and about to be gushing from the pump. At that moment, sniffing gas and seeing a lit cherry close to a gas pump than I ever have, what else would a sentient person do? You can stand there, more power to you, not me.

    Dadler, pardon me for hijacking, but... (none / 0) (#55)
    by shoephone on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 03:13:03 PM EST
    Are you a George Saunders fan? I would think so. Wondering if you have read or intend to read "Tenth of December" (which I just finished)?

    haven't read it (none / 0) (#59)
    by Dadler on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 09:05:02 PM EST
    thanks for the recommend. ;-)

    Ya, googling around says cigs won't light (none / 0) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 05:19:20 PM EST
    the gas or the vapors. However, the cig lighter sure would.

    Watch this video at about the 1 moron, er, minute, mark.


    Crazy story in the NY Times (none / 0) (#54)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 02:34:10 PM EST
    re: China and hacking

    if true, amazing the attempt(?) to undermine our competitive ability and put us at risk.

    motivation behind comments at the State of the Union re: network security.