Wednesday Open Thread

The movers will be here at 8:30 to start packing me up and I'm still not sure where I'm going. I think I found a place to rent for the rest of the month, but it's not yet signed and done. Cutting it close is an understatement, since I have to move out on Thursday.

Here's a new open thread, all topics welcome. And please stop the insults to other commenters. I don't have time to babysit the threads. Even long time readers may find themselves in timeout if they keep doing it.

< Moving Week Two and Open Thread
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Geez, Jeralyn, what a nightmare. (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 11:27:13 PM EST
    If  I could, I would bring you a nice hot dinner and a good bottle of wine. Or maybe a gin martini, or two.

    Some cheer we can deliver... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 05:42:58 AM EST
    I was at that concert in 1968 (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Peter G on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:17:05 AM EST
    the Tribute to Woody Guthrie, in Carnegie Hall (New York), soon after Woody died. This was Bob Dylan's first public performance (with the Band) after his self-imposed recovery/exile in Woodstock after his motorcycle accident. They were just stunningly good in every way. Blew the roof off the old place.

    Since this is an Open Thread, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:27:28 AM EST
    would you please give me your opinion on this argument by Barney Franks from a legal or Constitutional perspective:

    Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) on Tuesday insisted that a state-by-state approach was the only way to legalize same sex marriage.

    "There was a fundamental confusion here,' he said on MSNBC. "There has never been a practical law saying that what marriage is. Marriage has been left to the states."
    "The point is there is no federal law to be passed," he explained. "Look at the situation with race. When there were states that would not allow interracial marriage, even after the Civil Rights Act has passed in '64 and '65, there was no federal law saying interracial marriage had to be allowed. It was done by the Supreme Court. The constitutional framework has always been states decide who gets married."

    "It has always been up to the states," Frank added. "The only federal rule on the subject was the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Democrats are trying to overthrow."



    Without a link, it's impossible to understand (none / 0) (#18)
    by Peter G on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:07:58 AM EST
    the context. Was this something Rep. Frank said recently (i.e., "Tuesday" as in yesterday) or two years ago, or what? But certainly he is correct. In our federal system, domestic relations (including regulation of marriage) is generally within the sphere of state not federal control. Subject, of course, to the Fourteenth Amendment (as is all state legislation and government action); that is, whatever laws the states enact must not deny due process or equal protection of the laws to any person (or class of persons) within that state. And similarly where the federal government extends benefits according to marital status (Social Security, federal tax law, etc.) it generally accepts the label put on a relationship by the state but at the same time must abide by 14th Amendment-like equal-liberty limitations under the Fifth Amendment due process clause. Was Franks responding to someone suggesting otherwise?

    Franks said it in 2012 (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:25:01 AM EST
    But yes, it's the same principle as how states can determine the legal age at which one can marry (most states, it's 18 without parental consent, but Nebraska has decided the age is 19 and Mississippi has decided that the age is 21).

    Lucky Duck... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:36:45 AM EST
    I'd kill for a ride in Doc Brown's Delorean to have been there too Pete, I have no doubt they did!  Pretty quality recording in that link.

    But I've got old Bob as a notch in my concert belt, as well as several Midnight Rambles at Levon's farm before he passed.  And even reclusive Garth Hudson a few times.  Sadly I'll never get the chance to see Danko & Manuel.


    Been through something similar (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by scribe on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 08:38:06 AM EST
    a few years back.  I sold my home without a new place lined up, nor a job, nor anything other than having put my stuff in storage.  I left my suits at the cleaners, figuring I would come back in a week or two with money to get them out.
    And I threw the last of my stuff - a couple changes of clothes and some odds and ends - and the dog in the car and pointed it out of town, crashing with friends for the weekend it took for the checks from the closing to clear.  And then picking a town from a short-ish list, and living in a motel for a couple weeks until I found a new place.
    Technically, I was homeless.
    But it all worked out OK.

    And it will work out for you, TL.

    In 1994 (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:01:39 AM EST
    I left Boston to take my first film industry job in LA.  Having done the interviews and sealed the deal in Dec I came back supervised the movers getting my stuff and departed in a step van with the stuff I did not trust to the movers, i collect, the dog and high hopes.
    That was Jan 15 1994.  I was officially on my way to a place I had already rented as were the movers.  On Jan 17 I found myself snowbound in a motel in Tennessee.  If that date sounds vaguely familiar it's because it's the date of the Northridge earth quake.  I was stuck.  There was nothing in tv but wall to wall coverage of the destruction.  They of course made it look like LA was in flames.  Phones were out.  I could not call anyone to find out if I still had a place to live or work and it stayed that way until I arrived.  But I could not go back.  

    It worked out.  I agree with the above,  it will work out.  Breathe.  Maybe day drink.

    Speaking of day drinking, I just finished season 4 of The Wire.
    Is it to early for a vodka?  Damn.


    Off Conversation Question... (none / 0) (#8)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:16:40 AM EST
    ...about Hollywood, specifically special effects.

    How are all these shows replicating people floating in the weightlessness of space.  It used to be something you would only see in the movies, but now I see it all time, which leads me to believe it's not very complicated or costly.

    I look closely and it's done so well that it's been seriously bothering me.  The only thing I can come us with is they have built a set in one of those planes that goes up and free falls for a minute or two, but that seems unreasonable.  

    Either way, I am seriously impressed.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:22:33 AM EST
    The "vomit comet" is possible.  But I suspect it's probably just suspension rigs. They have gotten really really good at that.
    I have a friend who specializes in that stuff.  He worked on Gravity.  That was all rigs as far as I know.

    Did you know the vomit comet was first used in Apollo 13, one of my film credits?   Some of the best stuff I was ever able to do.


    I Did Not... (none / 0) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:46:01 AM EST
    ...but I am pleased to know, even if I am 20 years late, that the plane was used for filming.

    If they are using rigs, holly smokes, that is something else.


    Thinking of you, Jeralyn. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:05:32 AM EST
    I hope things move as smoothly and comfortably as possible for you.

    I also hope that you received some financial compensation from the company whose employee set the fire in your new home.

    Best wishes to you.

    I will raise a glass this evening in your honor.
    And thank you for TalkLeft.

    Score one for the Rebellion,,, (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 11:35:37 AM EST
    Evil Empire goes down in bush league wild card...Houston 3 Yankees Zilch.  How sweet it is!  

    Best of luck to ruffian, casey, and all TL Cubs fans tonight in the NL wild card.  

    The Yankees hardly deserved to be ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 12:06:09 PM EST
    ... in the postseason, having blown a huge lead on the Toronto Blue Jays in the AL East. It's altogether fitting and proper that they washed out last night.

    And so very satisfying. (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    [Padres fan; 1998.]

    Like brown rice? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 01:32:22 PM EST
    I do.  I ran across this and I just tried it.  It works.  Really well.  

    Cooking brown rice, or at least cooking it well, is tricky. The goal is to soften the texture of each grain's fibrous bran coating--a process that takes longer than that called for in the cooking of white rice--without causing the rice to become mushy. Unfortunately, the labels on most packaged brown rice recommend an ineffective method that suggests boiling water and rice in a two-to-one ratio, then allowing the mixture to simmer for 40 minutes or more, until all the liquid is absorbed. We followed those directions and ended up throwing away more than a few pots of unsatisfying rice. What we ultimately found is that brown rice looks and tastes the best when it has been boiled and drained like pasta and then steamed in the small amount of moisture that remains in the pot. The boiling cooks the rice, while the subsequent steaming allows the grains to retain their integrity and come out light and fluffy.

    1 cup short, medium, or long-grain brown rice
    Kosher salt, to taste
    Rinse rice in a strainer under cold running water for 30 seconds. Bring 12 cups water to a boil in a large pot with a tight-fitting lid over high heat. Add the rice, stir it once, and boil, uncovered, for 30 minutes. Pour the rice into a strainer over the sink.
    Let the rice drain for 10 seconds, then return it to the pot, off the heat. Cover the pot and set it aside to allow the rice to steam for 10 minutes. Uncover the rice, fluff with a fork, and season with salt.

    This is how most Indians cook rice, (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by vml68 on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 01:35:47 PM EST
    specially Basmati rice. Comes out perfect every time.

    Trump referred to himself (none / 0) (#4)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:00:29 AM EST
    as being "militaristic".

    In fact, he said something to the effect that he is more militaristic than anybody.

    He said he would strengthen the military so that no one would dare mess with us - or words to that effect.

    Even though he phrases this sentiment somewhat more inelegantly than others on the campaign trail, I don't think that his vision is at odds with theirs.

    What I don't think that these people have taken in is the experience - the trauma - of September 11, and the bombing in Boston at the marathon.

    The lesson I think that might have come across to these politicians is that a few schmucks with a box cutter - or a pressure cooker - can immobilize a country. Nukes - Armies...planes, nuclear subs and the rest are no defense - and as we have seen are of no retaliatory use either.

    These guys running the show don't seem to have taken this in.

    There is no such thing as a war on terror.
    It cannot exist. Terror is a term we apply to the work of an individual - or a small group of individuals.

    Our version of destruction - massive bombing campaigns - are not considered to be acts of terror - although I'm fairly confident that the people in and near the vicinity of the target are terrorized from head to toe.

    Unless what is meant by a "war on terror" is a serious attempt to sit down with people with grievances - no matter how unsavory they may be - and try to defuse them.

    But that is not what I get from our leaders or would-be leaders when they talk of a war on terror.

    In my jaded opinion, building up the military is more and more money down the drain - and lives - young lives - wasted and squandered by politicians stuck in the military-industrial-legislative complex mentality of the 1950s.

    I Thought Somehting Similiar... (none / 0) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:31:53 AM EST
    ...when I read the comment, "Is not spending more than every other country, combined, on the military not enough Donald ?"

    This notion that they are doing all this stuff because they aren't scared of us is absurd, we can destroy the entire planet how many times over, and Trump thinks multiply that number will stop terrorism.

    To me terrorism is the obvious choice when your 'army' is outnumbered, outgunned, and out-everything, not because you want to to strap bombs on your brothers and sisters, but because it is very last option you have.  But now it's transformed into this thing where people have lost all sense of humanity, and they are doing it for the shear pleasure of it, there is no longer an end goal with terrorism, they could care less if lighting people on fire or lopping off heads with have any effect on anything.

    We have been seriously fighting terrorism for more than a decade, it's time to realize that our intervention is having the exact opposite effect, which is to eliminate it.  And there is Trump admitting Iraq was a mistake, but hot damn if he doesn't want to double down, that is insane, at least according to Einstein.


    All of them (none / 0) (#57)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 02:06:50 PM EST
    want to double down.

    All of them.

    Not just Trump.
    He gets the noise.
    But the others slither along unnoticed, and sometimes even applauded.

    Sanders may be the exception - but I haven't read his position of this subject as yet.


    They've taken everything in (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:45:14 AM EST
    They are saying what their lizard brained base wants to hear. It isn't any more complicated than that.

    Maybe... (none / 0) (#59)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 02:14:30 PM EST
    but I think that they are lizard-brains.

    I truly think that we are better than they are.
    They talk down to us because that is their conception of who we are.

    And they put us in danger because they are confident that we will do as they say and protect them. They have nothing to lose. They are insulated from the consequences of their aggressive self-serving behavior.

    They are the lizards. The snakes in the grass;

    We are good people who are not being given much of a chance by these elitist freaks.

    In my overwrought opinion...


    Trump Calls GWB a Disaster (none / 0) (#7)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:08:50 AM EST
    When Baier asked Trump if he stood by a statement he made 2007 and 2008 saying he would impeach Bush for getting into the Iraq War, Trump replied, "I think he was a disaster and I think it was one of the worst decisions ever made. (He) has totally destabilized the Middle East. If you had Saddam Hussein, you wouldn't have the problems you have right now."

    Fox News Link

    I don't really care what Trumps thinks about anything, but this interview was on Fox News, and it's pretty damn funny that he is basically told his 'base' they are completely wrong about GWB & Iraq.

    And don't skip the comments, it will remind you of just how good we have it around here.

    Imagine how the press would react (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 09:52:35 AM EST
    if HRC did what Joe Biden did.

    They would lose their minds.

    you know what though? (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:24:47 AM EST
    She's gonna win anyway most likely, and he almost certainly won't.

    There's some fantastic karmic justice in all that.


    Did you see? (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:30:55 AM EST
    HRC sent a note and copies of her book "Hard Choices" to all the Republican candidates who participated in the debates who continually pose, "If you want to stump a Democrat, ask them to name Hillary Clinton's accomplishments.". She also joked that there are so many of them, they could start a book club.

    Responses: (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 01:18:30 PM EST
    Trump: Thanks, but no thanks, my library is already filled with books, both of them--the Bible and Trump on Trump; Fiorina, I saw the video; Jeb! What about me, like saving the life of Terry Schiavo? Just more free stuff from a Democrat; Carson: I will read it next time,if I can find my glasses; Rubio, Can you send another copy, I spilled Poland Spring all over it; Cruz Thanks, I will add it to the US Constitution for my next book-burning party; Santorum: the title sounds gay; Kasich: can't tell a cover by its book; Huckabee: Thanks, I'll read it while doing Clerk Davis' jail time and use it to slam Cruz if he gets in my way; Christie: not as good as mine, "A Bridge to Nowhere near the WH."; and Jindal: I'll give my review if I can get a TV crew out here. Lindsey: I do declare--war.  Gilmore: Hey, Hillary, you forgot me. Don't I count?

    Thank-you for the laugh. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by vml68 on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 01:33:12 PM EST

    I concur... (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 01:48:28 PM EST
    KeysDan has been killin' it with clown car commentary for weeks...you are the key to us maintaining our sanity throughout the extended silly season KD, eat your Wheaties homey!

    Thanks, (none / 0) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 02:09:29 PM EST
    Like shooting fish in a barrel. Self-preservation should be a reason for Republicans to consider gun control.  

    Not That it Matters, But... (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:37:11 AM EST
    ...Biden Team Calls Report on 2016 Leak 'Categorically False'

    "The bottom line on the POLITICO story is that it is categorically false and the characterization is offensive," said a spokesperson for Biden.


    The vice president's office is neither confirming nor denying that a conversation took place between New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and the vice president, but sources say the paper is flatly wrong to suggest that Biden intended the leak to be a trial balloon for his candidacy.

    Biden to me, is the classic press building someone up only to tear them down.  They never liked him, except for the jokes, until they thought he would be a thorn in HRC's side.


    I've said all along that the (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 11:28:55 AM EST
    Joe-mance was all about sticking it to Hillary, so as far as I'm concerned, Biden has done this to himself; I mean, Jesus, what did he think Maureen Dowd was going to turn it into?

    I'm just completely over whatever little game is afoot here - whether it's Joe and his ego needing some cuddle time with the media, or trying to be relevant to anything that is happening in the world right now, I think it's going to end up putting a less-than-graceful coda to the Biden opus.

    If there's a bright side, it seems to be bringing the fight out in Hillary, and I think she operates better and more effectively when she does that.


    Since I can't rate this comment 10 (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:40:04 AM EST
    I will just say I rate I a 10.

    This is exactly right.  Biden has been a press joke forever until he could be used as a club to beat Hillary.


    Yes (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:45:05 AM EST
    that's the press. Bernie is the same. Both he and Biden are more or less treated like "useful idiots" in the press game "I Hate Hillary". But should either of them beat her they would get the same treatment. For Biden it would be all about plagiarism and his record in the senate. And then Bernie would be the wild eyed socialist from the people's republic of Vermont. Anybody with half a brain can see all this coming.

    So, a conversation did take place (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 11:15:05 AM EST
    With Maureen Dowd, a known Hillary hater. And the Biden people are suggesting they didn't know what the outcome would be?

    I think the VP's office is lying here, but I don't care if they are - it's how the game is played.  No biggie. They do something, it leaks and does not get quite the reception they intended, they go on offense and deny.  Simple.

    I think the press loves Biden - but they don't want him to be president.  But I agree that it's a way to stick it to the Clinton's while maintaining neutrality - 'Hey, we're just reporting the news here!" Kinda thing.

    But I think the thesis of the article is true - had Hillary done this, whether true or not, the long knives would be out.


    Yes (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:39:26 AM EST
    they would lose their minds for sure.

    Kdog Made a Comment... (none / 0) (#17)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:04:07 AM EST
    ...last week about the NFL and the Pink program.  He mentioned that no money goes to research, but only to awareness.

    In the end, after everybody has taken their cut, only 8.01% of money spent on pink NFL merchandise is actually going towards cancer research.

    Well at least some is going into research, but how about the awareness.

    If you're thinking that this is simply a case of signals getting mixed up between the NFL and its financial offices, there's some bad news: VICE Sports also looked into this a year later and found out the exact same thing. It also learned that the NFL is giving money to outdated an technology.

    In Regards to the NFL's A Crucial Catch campaign's "Annual Screening Saves Lives" it is highly misinformative.

    "Screening doesn't save lives and screening mammography ... is different from diagnostic mammography," Jagger says. "The NFL has no business providing medical advice to women that is outdated, unproven, and misguided."

    Jagger quotes well-regarded and independently conducted research that shows screening mammography has no overall impact on survival rates of women with the disease. The most substantive mammography research, a study that followed 100,000 women for 25 years, concluded that annual screening does not result in a reduction in breast cancer specific mortality for women over 40 in any way that goes beyond physical examination. These screenings are the mainstay and only measurable aspect of the NFL's A Crucial Catch campaign, which Jaggar says is spreading an outdated message about early detection.


    I would have to say that kdog was correct and that after looking into it, the program may be doing more harm that good.

    But it does sell... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:24:10 AM EST
    pink jerseys to the ladies...that's what counts;)

    Once upon a time... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:21:51 AM EST
    Lindsey Graham (Clown Car, Trunk) opposed federal aid for victims of Hurricane Sandy.  

    Today, his state is suffering catastrophic floods...why that's a horse of a different color!

    What a Weasel (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:28:23 AM EST
    "I'm all for helping the people in New Jersey. I don't really remember me voting that way," Graham said.

    Pressed further, he said: "Anyway, I don't really recall that, but I'd be glad to look and tell you why I did vote no, if I did."

    Now he needs time to remember(spin) why some hurricane victims should get aid and others should not.

    Hypocrisy and karma. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 10:32:43 AM EST
    And if a Democrat there can't kick his ass.... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Dadler on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 01:52:32 PM EST
    ...on that series of quotes and votes alone, then opposition politics are truly, absolutely dead in this nation. Bury him now.

    ... in the federal budget -- that is, if they were going to allocate funds for relief of Sandy's victims, then there should be corresponding reductions in federal spending elsewhere, just not in defense and homeland security.

    So Graham and congressional Republicans were effectively holding New Jersey residents hostage in the furtherance of their own political agenda, when Gov. Chris Christie cried foul because putting the screws to his constituents over cheap politics was his job.



    A new story (none / 0) (#33)
    by FlJoe on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 11:47:36 AM EST
    in the "good Gal with a gun chronicles"  
    47-year-old woman was watching from the store's parking lot on Tuesday as a loss prevention officer appeared to be trying to stop a shoplifter. When the suspects tried to flee in a dark SUV, the woman pulled out her concealed 9mm handgun and began shooting.
     and surprisingly
    the woman had a concealed carry permit and was cooperating with law enforcement. Auburn Hills police had not decided if the woman would be charged.
    In my book not charging her would be an endorsement of vigilantism.

    Gallup gallops out of the race (none / 0) (#34)
    by ragebot on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 11:57:14 AM EST

    As the link points out polls have not mirrored reality in some of the last races and now Gallup says it will not be polling before the debates and possibly/probably not for the presidential race.  Given how networks are using polls to determine participation in debates this is an interesting development.

    I've read a few things lately (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 12:01:23 PM EST
    About how frustrated pollsters are with what they are doing, how it's being used and that they think for several reasons it's becoming increasingly unreliable.

    It is interesting


    Or perhaps (none / 0) (#37)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 12:03:29 PM EST
    Gallup looked at their polling numbers from the 2012 presidential election and came to the realization that they are really bad at what they do.

    Nit just Gallup (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 12:22:56 PM EST
    Ironically (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by FlJoe on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 12:35:29 PM EST
    I am in the polling industry, I have 25 people on the phones as I type this, I will agree we have problems, especially with the cell phone issues, demographics has always been a bear.

    At htis point, I would say it's more (none / 0) (#41)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 12:31:54 PM EST
    than polls that are failing us...the influence of a manipulative and dishonest media may have something to do with it.

    I do love the sense of panic and hair-about-to-spontaneously-combust breathlessness that's accompanying this news.

    Oh, no - whatever shall we do?  Surely we aren't going to have to think for ourselves again, are we?

    The horror!


    Especially from Nate Silver (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 12:35:46 PM EST
    I must say.

    But this is a thing.  I just did a quick search for an example or two but I've been reading about this for a while.   I actually didn't find the one I was looking for and I can't remember where I saw it.


    To be fair (none / 0) (#55)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 01:59:30 PM EST
    Nate Silver went out of his wheelhouse and attempted to predict UK elections. He failed miserably.

    But some polls and most aggregators (including Silver) nailed the 2012 Presidential election, although nearly all still had a Republican bias.

    For US News & World report to say Romney was blindsided and the polls were wrong is a little like living up to the quote from Matthew Henry:

    None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See.


    reading the comments (none / 0) (#40)
    by CST on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 12:25:13 PM EST
    In these thing is such a disconnect from reality.  Everyone saying "it's because they don't want to show Democrats losing" when the article clearly states that they overpredicted votes for Republicans in 2012 to such an extent that they wanted to re-examine their methodology.

    The intentional ignorance hurts sometimes.  It's right there.  Right above the place you left a comment...

    And I know, these things are cancer, just needed to vent.


    Had to end sometime (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 12:02:31 PM EST
    Please let this not be true. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by vml68 on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 01:29:20 PM EST
    I bought a few fruit trees this summer and I would really like to be around for a couple more years by which time they should start fruiting.

    Plus, there is so much of the world I haven't seen yet. I need more time, dammit!


    I watched last nights (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 01:34:10 PM EST
    Bastard Executioner earlier than I normally would have.

    Just in case.


    I Bet This Time... (none / 0) (#44)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 12:51:35 PM EST
    ...they didn't give all their S away.

    But if it's gonna happen, I hope it comes before 3, as I got a meeting that I would love to miss and I'd rather not have my boss' face be the last one I see.


    Finally... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 07, 2015 at 02:05:32 PM EST
    there is an outfit brave enough to defend the health & safety of the poor, downtrodden, oppressed white male. Thank you Bobbies...lol.