Monday Morning Open Thread

March Madness!

Women's Madness! coming soon!

My bracket later this week.

Open Thread.

< A New Era for TalkLeft | Colorado's New Gun Control Laws Effective July 1 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Been thinkin' (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:16:52 AM EST
    about the exchange between Cruz and Feinstein re: the attempts to restrict the purchase of some assault weapons.

    Cruz, who is very eerily channelling Joe McCarthy, asked Feinstein if she would endorse what he suggested would be similar restrictions of the first amendment.

    i was thinking about the oft cited example of allowed restriction of freedom of speech... the yelling of "fire" in a crowded theatre.
    The idea, of course, is that there is no fire, but some freak yells it anyway and people are trampled in the frenzied attempts of the public to escape to safety.

    But what, hypothetically, is no one was injured? What if there was an orderly evacuation -- everyone being considerate of each other?

    In short - if there was no harm done, except for the inconvenience and the displeasure caused by the disruption of the public's enjoyment of the cinema, what would the charge be against the yeller?

    Should we judge the speech by its consequences, and not try to anticipate words that could result in injury to others?

    Oooff. I don't want to overthink this... to take it to absurdity.. but I am also interested in the absolute protection of the right to speak.

    I am on Bradley Manning's side, for example.
    What harm did his disclosures cause - except to the rabid egos of the military-political establishment?

    Then - there is the consideration of what happened with Bush and Cheney - yelling "WMD MUSHROOM CLOUD" at us at a time when we were already traumatized.

    In that instance a war resulted. Several wars. From which we have yet to extricate ourselves. Billions down the drain. Precious lives lost. Our moral integrity and our civil rights -- down the drain.

    There should be punishment for that.
    And yet, the perpetrators have been exempted from prosecution or even condemnation for their actions.
    "Too big to fail" taken to dizzying heights.

    Using the 2A to Defend... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:32:35 PM EST
    ...any restriction is rather dumb.  We already restrict more arms, aka armaments, than we allow, adding another group isn't going to violate anything more then we already do.

    The line seems to be if the military uses them in combat, civilians don't need them.  Not 100%, but pretty close.  Why aren't they using the same argument to 50 cal machine guns or nuclear weapons, which are armaments ?  We realize some armaments are too dangerous for the public to possess.  That argument has been settled long ago.  And while few admit it, this has nothing to do with 2A, they just get a lot of pleasure from firing assault riffles, which I totally get.  But that's not reason enough to not ban them.

    Most Amendments have restrictions, Certainly the Bill of Right have restrictions, remember free speech zones, warrant-less wire tapes, secret courts, all internet traffic being monitored, and GITMO.

    To me if you care about the Constitution you care about it as a whole, not just once sentence.  Otherwise they are using it for the cause.  So when I hear about gun owners supporting a Sheriff, who is literally sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution, stating he will not arrest violators of gun control laws, it's pretty hard for me to believe they give two cents about the Constitution.  I am sure they exist, but they are not the majority.  Ditto for GITMO prisoners and all the other BS the government does in the name of National Security that violates the Constitution, or rather it used to.


    Cruz poorly delivered a valid point (none / 0) (#40)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:49:02 PM EST
    Namely that a law should not be written with a pie in the sky, although admiral goal, without thinking about...

    A) Is it constitutional or very close to not being so
    B) Will it actually do any good
    C) What are the other possible outcomes of the law that will be harmful and problematic

    C for me is the most important when common sense tells us the answer to B is probably no.

    To many times Washington and politicians in general feel the need to do something even though that something will probably do nothing to fix the problem and in fact cause other problems we can do without.

    All laws and bills have unintended consequences.   Sometimes they are worth it because the problem is simply too important to ignore but often they are not.  

    I maintain that we should ask our lawmakers to spend more time passing better laws and bills instead of just throwing stuff together to make them and us feel better.

    In addition I think progressives and liberals should think a second before they throw out refrences to McCarthy.   Very few things rise to that level and as in many other cases using terms like McCarthy, Nazi's, Hitler, Communism, Stalin etc... belittles the horribleness of the actual event when it's so easily thrown around during comparisons.

    As a whole we have a very ignorant populace when it comes to history and when people hear these terms used so often in comparison to other events or actions I honestly feel it slowly degrades the meaning of these events when looking back at history.   How bad could it have been if similar things are happening all the time?


    I hear (none / 0) (#60)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:24:35 PM EST
    you, but I do think in this instance, a reference to McCarthy is apt.
    Cruz was even still commie-hunting in academia.

    But it's more than that.

    It's the look in his eye.
    The tone of voice.
    And his patronizing manner.


    What Are the Unintended Consequences... (none / 0) (#63)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:28:38 PM EST
    ...of banning assault riffles and large clips ?

    For the record I agree with you, but not your logic.  For me it's the idiots who have allowed the US market to be so saturated with guns that no law is going to have an impact.

    IOW, there are so few people who don't have access to guns, that no matter what the reason, if you decide to kill someone, the only reason you wouldn't use a gun would be for reasons other than your ability to acquire on.

    And to me, it's a GD shame that a person like myself who lives in a good neighborhood, would be a fool for not having one in Houston.  I hate having something in my house that can take life so easily.  But because the idiot brigade demanded so many guns, here we are.  And while the odds are slim of someone breaking in when I am at home, the odds of them having a gun are really good.

    Make no mistake, the pro-gun group has ensured nearly all criminals who want a gun, will have one.  So yes, I agree, banning the needle in the haystack ain't gonna do a damn thing but infuriate the gun fetishists.  

    This argument is about 5 decades to late.


    I'm actually in favor of banning a lot of guns (none / 0) (#80)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:55:05 PM EST
    but we must deal with the reality of the 2nd amendment.

    If we really think it has outlived its usefulness then we need to amend it or clarify it through a constitutional process.   That will be a long hard slog but we'd be better to get started now instead of all these silly laws that aren't enforce and won't fix the problem.

    Never mind the fact that this law has zero chance of passing.

    Background checks is another matter.   That law can pass and might actually help.


    Even Scalia in his majority opinion (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 03:01:30 PM EST
    in Heller vs US stated that the ruling did not prevent regulations of firearms. I don't think even the courts think the 2nd. is as broad as you think it is.

    Whoops (none / 0) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 03:10:14 PM EST
    that Supreme Court case was D.C. vs Heller

    Justice Scalia accepted that the Second Amendment, like the First, is not absolute. He noted, for example, that concealed carry prohibitions had been upheld, although he stopped short of stating that all such prohibitions would be sustained under Heller's reinvigorated Second Amendment. Ditto for the constitutionality of licensing requirements, which Mr. Heller had not challenged. Scalia went even further in stating that the Court did not "cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." He added that he could also find "support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." link

    Sen. Cruz made the big mistake of (none / 0) (#92)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 03:47:35 PM EST
    ... thinking he could lecture a woman who was an eyewitness to one of the great tragedies of 20th century American political history, the twin assassinations of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harney Milk by former Supervisor Dan White on November 28, 1978.

    As Sen. Dianne Feinstein later recounted in a 2008 interview on the 30th anniversary of the Moscone-Milk killings, she was then serving as President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. She was the only person to see Dan White enter to Supervisors' office area at City Hall, and he rebuffed her when she called out and asked to speak with him.

    Feinstein then heard the gunshots from next door, which was close enough that she could smell the cordite from the gunpowder, and she saw White then race out of the office wing. She quickly discovered Harvey Milk's body, lying face down in White's former office. When she instinctively grabbed Milk's wrist to feel for a pulse, her fingers instead entered a bullet hole, and as she said in the interview, she knew at that moment that he was quite obviously dead.

    As Board President and now her city's acting mayor, it was Dianne Feinstein's responsibility to subsequently announce to a shocked city and clearly stunned San Francisco press corps -- which had raced to City Hall on the heals of the police after hearing frantic chatter over SFPD radio in response to panicked calls from staff -- that both Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Milk had been shot and killed, and that former Supervisor White was the primary suspect in their murders.

    (I'd also offer that the visceral impact of the raw video footage from that sad and terrible day has not been tempered by the passage of over three decades' time.)

    I'd lay better than even odds that Sen. Feinstein has more personal experience with the direct  consequences of gun violence than Sen. Cruz. Further, Cruz should have known about his colleague's personal background and history before ever opening his mouth in such an arrogant manner.

    Because quite frankly, their rather remarkable exchange during that Senate Judiciary hearing highlights the stark difference between painstaking and reality-based policy development on one hand, and on the other, the Republicans' ever-increasing penchant for indulging their own fact-free and divisive ideological fantasies. Cruz proved himself simultaneously patronizing, ignorant and stupid, and Feinstein very firmly put him in his place.



    Donald, I was (none / 0) (#104)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 05:35:28 PM EST
    living in San Francisco at that time.  Harvey Milk was our Supervisor, and we met and knew Harvey.
    And while I appreciate DiFi's reaction to Cruz, who is a total scum-bag and idiot, I am not exactly willing to elevate DiFi to sainthood.  I have a whole lot of other problems with her.

    She's not one of my favorites, either, .... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 07:42:08 PM EST
    ... being an archtypical San Francisco patrician from Pacific Heights, which often precludes her ability to see things from the perspectives of people who are not of her social class ranking.

    But that said, I think DiFi deserves no small amount of credit for leading your former city through an incredibly turbulent and emotionally diffcult period, first with the suicide deaths of hundreds of city residents and the related assassination of popular Congressman Leo Ryan in early November, 1978, followed only weeks later by the shocking murders of Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Milk.

    We should also remember that back then, DiFi had only recently been widowed following the death of her first husband from cancer, and had further announced publicly that she would not seek re-election to her seat on the Board of Supervisors only mere days before Moscone and Milk were killed. So, she also had to set aside her own personal pain and anguish in order to step up to the plate as the city's new mayor in those awful days.



    What if the argument was (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:06:50 PM EST
    i was thinking about the oft cited example of allowed restriction of freedom of speech... the yelling of "fire" in a crowded theatre.
    The idea, of course, is that there is no fire, but some freak yells it anyway and people are trampled in the frenzied attempts of the public to escape to safety.

    But what, hypothetically, is no one was injured? What if there was an orderly evacuation -- everyone being considerate of each other?

    In short - if there was no harm done, except for the inconvenience and the displeasure caused by the disruption of the public's enjoyment of the cinema, what would the charge be against the yeller?

    Let's make the hypothetical about guns.

    What if someone takes a gun into a 7-11 and waves it at the cashier, demanding money from the register.  The cashier knows the gunman, and knows the gunman won't shoot him, so he is calm and tells the other customers in the store that it will be all right, and then he starts to open the register.  Police sirens get closer, and the gunman gets scared and runs out without taking the money.

    In short, no harm done.  No one was hurt and the store didn't lose any money.

    Should the gunman be charged?


    I think so. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:20:32 PM EST
    Attempted robbery in this instance.
    The cops scared him off.

    Now, if he had walked in, showed the gun to his acquaintance, and then put it away... or just walked out... I dunno.

    But - to return to Bush and Cheney.

    They screamed bloody murder in a packed, crowded theatre.
    They frightened the hell out of everyone. They sent us to war. They killed hundreds of thousands. They bankrupted the country.

    We're talking major consequences.

    And one of those sobs is fking painting pictures, and the others are making tv appearances with doting interviewers.

    I could scream.


    "...Knows the gunman won't shot him..." (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:26:43 PM EST
    No one in their right mind would ever assume that someone waving around a loaded gun won't shoot. Regardless of whether he knows him or not.

    As always, hypotheticals are fun.


    Yes they are (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:29:44 PM EST
    You know many people who would act orderly when someone shouts fire in a crowded theater?

    Yep - hypotheticals ARE fun.


    Even more than the music news (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by sj on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:27:05 AM EST
    Matt Taibbi makes me happy that I resubscribed to Rolling Stone recently after a hiatus of several years.  Via Avedon Carol who has so much linky goodness today that I had to pull my eyeballs away under duress.

    Not that it's all good news.  Just good information.

    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#118)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 06:47:34 PM EST
    Taibbi is priceless, and my wife will enjoy passing this around her bank tomorrow. They just had regulators crawling all over the place, doing their usually microscope job on the little players they never do on the big ones. Good news is they found nothing, zip, zero, that was even marginally questionable.

    Glad to hear it (none / 0) (#125)
    by sj on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 07:22:40 PM EST
    Good news is they found nothing, zip, zero, that was even marginally questionable.
    But maddening, isn't it, that the TBTF Banks don't even get half that?

    Infuriating (none / 0) (#157)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 09:59:39 AM EST
    Different sets of rules for the legit banks vs. the blackmailers, er, TBTF.

    Drives my wife crazy.


    Guns, guns, guns, to heck with the victims (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:00:40 PM EST
    Particularly in my state of Washington. G*d help you -- because even if you have a protection order against a domestic abuser threatening to kill you, the state sure as heck ain't gonna do a darn thing to help.

    And just last week, the Republicans and their DINO cronies in the WA State legislature beat back a bill on background checks for gun ownership.

    My disgust for these creeps knows no bonds.

    How do you start a run on the banks? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:06:04 PM EST
    NICOSIA, Cyprus (AP) -- A plan to seize up to 10 percent of people's savings in the small Mediterranean island nation of Cyprus sent shockwaves across Europe on Monday as households realized the money they have in the bank may not be safe.

    A weekend agreement between Cyprus and its European partners called for the government to raid bank accounts as part of a €15.8 billion ($20.4 billion) financial bailout, the first time in the eurozone's crisis that the prospect of seizing individuals' savings has been raised.
    In order to get €10 billion ($13 billion) in bailout loans from international creditors, Cyprus agreed to take a percentage of all deposits -- including ordinary citizens' savings. The surprise deal stoked fears that deposits in other countries could be targeted.

    "The damage is done," said Louise Cooper, who heads financial research firm CooperCity. "Europeans now know that their savings could be used to bail out banks."
    The stakes are high for the country of a million people, because a rejection of the package could see the country go bankrupt and possibly out of the common euro currency. Officials also fear a run on Cypriot banks no matter which way the voting goes, though immediate consequences for other eurozone countries are limited. link

    Who in the world (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:42:56 PM EST
    thought that this would be a solution?  It doesn't take a genius-level IQ to figure out that this would cause a bank run.  Not to mention the fact that anybody who is not a total idiot will not be opening new accounts in Cypriot banks.  The Cypriots would be better off stuffing their money in mattresses, as opposed to putting their cash in banks, where some of it will immediately be seized, if this ham- handed, truly stupid requirement goes through.  The fact that there is a lot of Russian money in the Cypriot banks, "part of it thought to be linked to money-laundering," as per the article, is no excuse to grab part of everyone else's accounts.  And I'm not entirely sure that the immediate consequences for other Eurozone countries will be "limited."  

    ζητω η Κύπρος μας.


    I do believe Angela Merkel thinks this is a (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by caseyOR on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 03:19:56 PM EST
    good idea. She is running for reelection and trying to appeal to good German voters who are feeling quite put upon by the rest of the Euro countries.

    I think the whole idea of grabbing people's money out of their accounts is a bad one. Still, the better way to implement this, if the goal was to hit the Russians, would have been to exempt accounts holding less than some arbitrary amount of money. Say 250,000 Euros. That way the regular Cypriot does not lose any money.

    I do expect to see a similar scheme tossed around by the VSP in our own country. At some point in the near future one or more of the big banks will crumble and need another infusion of taxpayers' money. It is inconceivable to me that some elite Treasury staffer will not hit upon the idea assessing a "one-time" tax on all holders of bank accounts. And, while I hope Congress would see the folly in this, I cannot count on the wisdom of Congress.


    Sh*t I coulda told them that... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:38:28 PM EST
    as households realized the money they have in the bank may not be safe.

    In fact, I thought it goes without saying.


    Sometimes (none / 0) (#36)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:43:50 PM EST
    I think that all I have to show for whatever I have in the bank is either a piece of paper, or something online.

    Supposing someone erases all the contents of an online account...

    How do you prove what you had?

    What's left? Putting it under the mattress?


    Swiss bank accounts? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:46:29 PM EST
    Are they still safe?
    We have a friend who believes in keeping at least some of his money in gold.  Right now, gold is high, but it certainly has fluctuated in the past.

    Swiss banks... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:15:17 PM EST
    are as "safe" as another bank, but no longer "safe to be kept secret" like they used to be famous for.

    Yes, well, (none / 0) (#37)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:44:36 PM EST
    I'm absolutely sure that there will be a run on mattresses in Cyprus.  They'll need some place other than banks to keep their money.       ;-)

    Rich Man's Troubles... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:14:06 PM EST
    Most poor and working folk can fit it all in the front pocket of their jeans...sad but true.

    How many people would kill to have "where do I put my money?" atop their list of problems?


    Otto Rank talked about (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:21:32 PM EST
    the obsession some have with their estates and savings as a pursuit of artificial immortality, having it's root in the fear of death..

    Like the Egyptian nobility stowing their innards away in canopic jars..


    Baa waa waa (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:56:57 PM EST
    Apparently this is old news going back almost a year ago but Michelle Bachmann apparently applied for Swiss citizenship. You know, one of those AWFUL SOCIALIST European countries.

    I have to say that right now the Tea Party produces fantastic comedy. I don't have time to watch Stewart of Colbert but my friends that do say they are having a great time with them. One story they sent me had a Tea Party leader talking about how some moron that was arrested for riding a manatee was all a conspiracy under Agenda 21.

    Deficit reduction is an excuse to move (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:00:15 PM EST
    more money out of the pockets of the poor and the middle class into the hands of corporations and the very rich.

    It bears repeating, since so many politicians want you to forget it: Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit. It can't, by law. It's completely self-funded through the payroll tax (which is what makes the choice of the payroll tax for a tax 'holiday' so insidious).

    What's more, the dollars involved are trivial when it comes to the budget debate. Politicians say they're looking for $4 trillion in cuts over ten years. Even if benefits did contribute to the deficit the chained CPI would only save $122 billion, a mere 2.8% of the target. link

    Fiscal cliff deal includes $205 Billion in corporate welfare

    What wasn't mentioned is what these leaders wanted, which is what's known as "tax extenders", or roughly $205B of tax breaks for corporations. With such a banal name, and boring and difficult to read line items in the bill, few political operatives have bothered to pay attention to this part of the bill.

    $122 billion in SS benefits cuts to the sick and the elderly to help offset $205 billion in corporate welfare.

    What will opening the door and making cuts to Social Security a bipartisan objective achieve?

    ...adopting chained CPI for Social Security by itself is a terrible deal. Even if all of the savings from it get plowed back into reducing the long-term income gap, it doesn't do enough by itself to eliminate that. It reduces the trust fund gap by about 1/3. Which means that fiscal scolds would still be clamoring for a deal to "fix" Social Security, and the fact that the solutions were entirely on the benefit side this time around won't matter. This is just an invitation to more cuts down the road. link

    Well, we already know the rich - both (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:31:18 PM EST
    individual and corporate - don't want to take money from themselves, so what's left?  Taking it from people who are pretty much defenseless.

    This is why there must have been a ban on even whispering the idea of raising the income cap on SS - because that takes money out of the pockets of those at the higher end of the income scale.

    At this point, hell is too nice a location for these people to be consigned to...


    Some facts to consider (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 12:19:33 PM EST
    While Paul Ryan's budget proposal is completely horrible, it leaves Medicare untouched for the next decade and excludes any reforms to Social Security.

    If the Republican House passes Ryan's current budget, the Republicans can truthfully campaign on the fact that Obama and many of Dems, including Dem leadership, are on record as wanting to cut both Medicare and Social Security.



    In a similar scenario (none / 0) (#70)
    by NYShooter on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:15:56 PM EST
    Some very smart people are saying that what's happening in Cyprus could be the linchpin break that starts the whole "civil unrest" avalanche rolling down the hill. The reverse Robin Hood Scam the Rich have been pulling on societies worldwide has been tolerated so far because its been cloaked in duplicitous mumbo-jumbo. But, in Cyprus, they finally ripped their masks off, and just reached in and grabbed their money.

    We'll see if this turns out to be a replay of "the shot heard `round the world."

    (actually, the money grab hasn't happened yet. They've declared a bank holiday, and we won't know what happens until their Parliament votes on it in a couple of days.)


    "Civil unrest" to stop the money grab (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:39:31 PM EST
    would be a good thing. The cynic in me thinks that there are too many people here in the "homeland" who think that their political party would never allow something like that to happen to them.

    In case anyone is missing my point, I am being very bipartisan in this opinion. Republican voters think that Republican politicians or government would protect them and their interests regardless of all proof that they are assisting in the "money grab." Democratic voters think that Democratic politicians or government would protect them and their interests regardless of all proof that they are assisting in the "money grab."


    I sometimes think (none / 0) (#97)
    by sj on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 04:16:50 PM EST
    true civil unrest is closer to the surface than anyone wants to admit.  Los Indignados and the Arab Spring might have something to say about that.  When I read MO Blue's comment -- even before I went to read more -- my first reaction was: "Are the robber barons trying to foment an uprising or are they just that arrogant?"

    And in arts news, (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:55:39 PM EST
    apparently the S/L has run re stealers of art from the Gardner in Boston.


    Hoping for (5.00 / 8) (#101)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 05:18:00 PM EST
    Ol Miss to do well. Florida and Michigan State also.

    Hey Jeff, great to see you (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 05:24:41 PM EST
    How is everything going for you, medically and otherwise? Are you still in the U.S.? How's your son?

    well lookie there (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 05:25:16 PM EST
    welcome back :)

    Thanks CG, Shoe, (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 06:00:14 PM EST
    Posted a diary today. Back to the oncologist in 2 weeks. Want to thank everyone for the messages, specially Cap'n Casey! Looking at radiation and chemo, or maybe chemo and radiation, probably. Possibly more lymh node removal. Time to bear down, write some liberal motivational pieces here, and post pictures of Grumpy Kitty to my facebook account :)

    Oh, (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 06:14:34 PM EST
    I'm SO glad you posted. I have been thinking about emailing you to check up on you. I hope everything goes well with the treatment. I know chemo is not a piece of cake from having friends to through it.

    Fortunately, I seem to be "cured" but the doctor has FINALLY decided to get my meds right after suffering for most of the last year with all kinds of side effects. I was starting to wonder if I ever was going to feel good again.


    I'm keeping a positive attitude. (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 06:16:25 PM EST
    Xanax helps :)

    Yes it does (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 06:45:16 PM EST
    As well as Pinot Noir

    Good luck to both of you.

    Watched the 30/30 on NCState and Jim Valvano today.  Very good piece on ball and JV's fight against cancer.   Gave me a little extra motivation to keep up the good fight.  If you get a chance check it out if you haven't seen it.


    I will. (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 06:47:00 PM EST
    I'll aslo check out the Pinot Noir. Ithink it would go well with a 12 in ch submarine sandwich with lots of vinegar and olive oil :)

    Good to hear (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 07:13:41 PM EST
    Keep the faith and I'll be thinking of you.  

    Sending positive thoughts and best wishes to you. (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:48:36 PM EST
    Oh, I'm so happy to see your comment (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by sj on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 07:20:44 PM EST
    I've been thinking about you and sending you the best thoughts I can.

    Jeff, nice to see you. Glad you (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by caseyOR on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 07:33:25 PM EST
    dropped by. How goes it?

    Oh, Jeff - it does my heart good to see (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:32:06 PM EST
    you here!  I think about you often, always with a little request to the gods that they take good care of you and give you strength to handle whatever's going on.

    As you can see, there is no shortage of people here who feel the same way!

    Welcome back, Jeff - you've been missed.


    So glad to see you! (none / 0) (#141)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 07:08:18 AM EST
    Welcome back!

    Pope Francis Inaugural Mass (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 07:42:29 AM EST
    Boy - don't let the children hear this message

    Pope Francis' homily at the Mass began by focusing on Joseph and his role as protector - of Mary, Jesus and the Church.

    Francis, 76, expanded the image, referring to Francis of Assisi and saying that the role of protector was not just a Christian one.

    He said: "It means protecting all creation, the beauty of the created world... It means respecting each of God's creatures and respecting the environment in which we live.

    "It means protecting people, showing loving concern for each and every person, especially children, the elderly, those in need, who are often the last we think about."

    Francis called on "all those who have positions of responsibility in economic, political and social life" to be protectors of creation.

    "To protect creation, to protect every man and every woman, to look upon them with tenderness and love, is to open up a horizon of hope," Francis said.

    Without care for the environment and fellow humans, "the way is opened to destruction and hearts are hardened", he said.

    "Let us not allow omens of destruction and death to accompany the advance of this world."

    He scored points with me . . . (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:51:13 AM EST
    Well... (none / 0) (#170)
    by sj on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 12:07:14 PM EST
    ... so far so good :)

    As a soon to be Catholic (none / 0) (#180)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 06:05:06 PM EST
    I can tell you from my days sitting in both catholic school and in the pews of my Church this has always been the core message of the Church.

    The mistake our leadership has made recently is focusing too much on cultural issues and obviously the coverup of the sex abuse scandals.

    The teachings of the Church have been consistent.   The actions of the leadership not so much.

    Here's hoping this Pope refocuses the Church to its true purpose which is to help our fellow man and teach forgiveness, understanding and hope.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by sj on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 07:17:16 PM EST
    as a born and raised Catholic I can tell you that the teachings may be consistent but they didn't amount to instruction.  We were told not only what to think but also how to think about it.  And by far most of what we were taught had to do with Hell and not forgiveness, understanding and hope.

    I expect I'll attend Mass again for one reason or another in my allotted life span but it will be for events and not for spiritual upliftment.  Frankly when I needed a little uplifting what I got was -- unsurprisingly -- an admonition to repent and abase myself or risk the Fires of Hell.  

    I decided finally that I would have to find my own way to God.  

    Having said all that, I have two other things to say.

    First, it's very interesting looking at the church through your eyes.  Maybe every religious person should convert to a different religion in adulthood.  It seems to bring a freshness of perspective that is only a good thing.

    Second, while I don't attend Mass, my spirit is often uplifted by spending time in an empty RC church.  An older empty RC church.  I have a theory about that.  Catholic churches used to always be open to the faithful and I believe that a place absorbs the energies of those with whom it is in contact.  All those years of prayers and communion at all hours of the day or night, whether in solitude or in community, have made them truly Holy Ground in reality and not by declaration and blessing of a priest.


    Absolutely true truth sj... (none / 0) (#182)
    by fishcamp on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 09:11:25 PM EST
    my exact feelings.

    I attended a funeral last week, (none / 0) (#183)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:13:21 AM EST
    for the son of a friend. Full RC mass. For me the priest's sermon was spot on, "what do we do now?" What can I say, his words gave me some consolation for why a 16 y/o had spent the final 7 years of his life fighting neuroblastoma. It has been decades since my last RC mass, but I still had all the words down pat. The priest's words helped. I miss it.

    To lose a child (none / 0) (#184)
    by sj on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:03:25 AM EST
    is something I find unimaginable. I'm so sorry to hear this.  Peace to him, to his family and to his friends.

    Does this mean you'll be going back?


    that leads.

    I wish you peace (none / 0) (#190)
    by sj on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:13:35 PM EST
    Thanks for sharing (none / 0) (#186)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:33:18 PM EST
    Truly moving post.

    Priests and the lay leadership of a church (none / 0) (#185)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:30:51 PM EST
    make a huge difference.

    I am blessed to attend a church with a very progressive priest and lay council that truly live by our motto "All are welcome."

    I can go across town and attend another Catholic Church and not feel as welcome as I do in mine.

    In fact our Church was ratted out by other guests to the Bishop for violating some insignificant rules that have nothing to do with the message or purpose of the service.

    We quickly figured out a way to try and keep getting around them.

    The nice thing about the Catholic Church is it is large and if you find a community and priest you don't like you should go in search of another one.

    If your ever in SW Indiana drop me a line and I'll be glad to bring you along.

    All are welcome.


    Great (1.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 11:28:11 AM EST
    Thanks for (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 11:37:55 AM EST
    the 2 1/2 year old photo.



    Not to mention that ... (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:39:12 PM EST
    ... this was taken at the Tuscon Police Dept. firing range.  Giffords was invited there because she helped secure federal funds for the police department to purchase guns and tasers like the one in the photo.  So now the wingers are trying desperately to create the appearance of hypocrisy where there is none.



    Is it not hypocritical... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:48:17 PM EST
    to say these weapons are ok for the police to possess (at taxpayer expense no less), but not citizens?

    If we ever wanna see some disarmament in this country, the cops are gonna have to give up some toys too.  


    Sure (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:57:14 PM EST
    When the criminals go first.

    Nope (none / 0) (#51)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    We (as a society) have decided it should be legal for the police/military to have weapons that civilians do not.  I know you aren't happy about that, but ...

    Military yes... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:24:57 PM EST
    But police?  When did we decide that?  

    Up until the authorities decided the police should be armed like a military, police and common folk were armed similarly...no?  


    No, they weren't (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:28:33 PM EST
    We've had gun control laws in this county for a long time.  In fact, at times, in many places, you could not own a gun unless you were a white Protestant male with land (no blacks, no women, no Catholics, no Jews need apply).

    And in many towns in the Old West, all guns had to be left and registered at the sheriff's office upon arrival, and could be picked up when you left (John Wayne movies aside).


    We've had gun control... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:43:44 PM EST
    for a long time, but a militarized police force is fairly new.

    Yes, you had to check your gun in Dodge City when walking about town, but at home you could possess the same weapons the sheriff possessed.  Now we want the police to have AR15's, but Joe Blow to be forbidden...this is very new, and gives creedence to the pro-gun argument that they need these weapons to protect their liberty from  government tyranny, real or imagined.


    And then there is the famous incident in L.A. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:51:57 PM EST
    in which the bank robbers had superior weapons to those of law enforcement trying to apprehend the suspects.

    And here we are with... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 03:04:02 PM EST
    "Police and Thieves in the street. (oh yeah)"

    Fighting the nation with their guns and ammunition.

    From Genesis.  To Revelation.  The Next Generation...hear me."

    So I say again, if we want to get serious about disarmament...


    Imagined, not real (none / 0) (#93)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 03:53:14 PM EST
    Keeping assault weapons out of the hands of civilians while allowing the police to have them is not confirmation that they need these weapons to protect themselves from government tyranny.  He//, the government already has far more powerful weapons than AR15s.  Moreover, these same NRA-types claim that their AR15s are only cosmetically different than other semi-automatic rifles, of which their are no proposals to restrict or ban.

    Don't know exactly when (none / 0) (#88)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 03:14:56 PM EST
    But I think it was just the opposite.  For a long time, police carried only handguns - most still do.  The first American submachine gun (the Thompson submachine gun, or "Tommy gun") was developed as a weapon of war back in 1919.  After the war he tried marketing it to law enforcement with no success.  Then the gangsters got a hold of them, and demand from law enforcement took off:

    ".... market his gun to law enforcement and security interests, but found very few buyer in the early 1920s.  Ironically, the adoption of the Tommy gun by a few outlaws after 1925 probably did more for sales among law enforcement than did all of Thompson's marketing efforts.  Once the Tommy gun gained notoriety as the "chicago typewriter", a "gat" or a "chopper" in the Chicago Beer Wars of the 1920s, arming police and security forces with Thompsons became a matter of public policy...

    ... The popularity of the Thompson among criminals and the gangster elements did finally stimulate some legitimate law enforcement sales."


    BTW - Interesting sidenote (none / 0) (#90)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 03:36:22 PM EST
    FBI agents weren't even authorized to carry guns (although many did) until after several agents were killed in the Kansas City Massacre in 1933.

    Interesting stuff... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 03:55:47 PM EST
    it's been an arms race ever since, and we know who suffers.

    I just don't see how we can disarm one side without the other...maybe it is a question of who will go broke first a la the USSR and the Cold War, the police or the thieves?  

    Unless we legalize drugs, I see law enforcement going broke first.


    No one's saying ... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 04:05:27 PM EST
    ... we can disarm one side and not the other.  Given the number of guns in this country, criminals will never be disarmed, and police will need weapons to catch criminals and defend themselves.  But allowing civilians access to assault weapons simply because the NRA-types believe they need them to defend themselves against a tyrannical government (which has already has much more powerful weapons) is just nuts.

    The truth (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 04:58:13 PM EST
    is the NRA really could care less about "defending yourself against the government". The NRA is about telling the "rubes" that but their real goal is money. Assault weapon ban means certain companies might lose money. So what if a whole classroom of children is mowed down? The NRA sees these as "collateral damage" on their way tot the bank. They are truly a disgusting organization.

    No doubt GA (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 08:15:33 AM EST
    the NRA is not a riflepersons association...it is a lobby for gun manufacturers and nothing more.  Dollars dollars dollars.

    Oddly enough, as we've seen time and time (none / 0) (#113)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 06:21:56 PM EST
    again over the past decade or so in the mid-east, citizens with weapons prove to create considerable damage in defense against aggressive governments.

    Why is that "odd"? (none / 0) (#129)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 07:46:14 PM EST
    Did someone say they couldn't "create considerable damage"?  The issue being discussed is whether civilians should legally be able to own the same type of weapons as the police (or, in your example, the military).

    BTW - Following your logic, why shouldn't civilians have fully automatic assault rifles, like the weapons used in the Middle East?  RPGs?  Mortars?  Grenades?  Rockets? ...

    Ohhhhh ...


    Good. Your comment I responded to (none / 0) (#136)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:18:49 PM EST
    seemed to be trying to say that it would be "nuts" to think arms would be of use to civilians trying to defend themselves against a government's "much more powerful weapons". I'm glad you agree they would be of use.

    "Of use" - heh (none / 0) (#138)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 06:33:23 AM EST
    Sure they would be "of use".  Not nearly as effective as the fully automatic AK-47s, machine guns, grenages, RPGs, mortars, etc. that the "people in the Middle East" you cite as your example, not to mention the fact that the US military is far larger and has far more sophisticated weapons than those governments.  The "nuts" part is the NRA-types who suggest they need assault weapons (AR-15s) in order to defend against our government here.

    BTW - I notice you didn't answer the question.  Wonder why ...


    Lucky for us... (none / 0) (#148)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 08:21:19 AM EST
    the rebel army led by George Washington had similar arms as the British...we couldn't match the British musket for musket, cannon for cannon, ship for ship...but we won.

    The Vietnamese couldn't match our tons upon tons upon tons of bombs raining from above, but they didn't lose.


    Weapons have advanced (none / 0) (#153)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 09:09:11 AM EST
    ... past the point of muskets, Kdog.  The weapons available today are far more powerful than the parity of musket-for-musket or sabre-for-sabre.  What's your point?  Are you really suggesting people should be able to own the same weapons as the government?  Or should they be limited to the weapons held by the North Vietnamese (machine guns, grenades, artillery, tanks, missiles, etc.)?

    My point is... (none / 0) (#155)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 09:35:04 AM EST
    I don't find it outlandish that other people want to own machine guns in the name of defense...even though it ain't my bag.  Not a fan of "don't tread on me, tread on them" is all. If owning an AR15 makes you happy, and you aren't shooting people, more power to you.

    The people with guns I am worried about are the ones with the badges...you're worried about civilians.  Agree to disagree as to who the real threats to life and liberty are.

    My utopian dream is a government and citizenry that wants to disarm by choice, not by threat of violence/arrest.  An evolution of conciousness (pipe dream I know, but so is disarming the nation via legislation).

    In a nutshell, I'm a firm believer that guns aren't really the problem...human beings and what is plaguing their hearts and minds are the problem...and I don't know much that can be done about it except spreading the love.


    That's the problem (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 10:17:44 AM EST
    If owning an AR15 makes you happy, and you aren't shooting people, more power to you.

    You could say that about any weapon, but the risk becomes greater along with the power of the weapon, and prohibiting someone from owning a particular weapon after they've used it to kill is too late.  "If owning a maching gun makes you happy ...",  "If owning a Stinger antiaircraft missile makes you happy ."

    I know you hate law enforcement and to you they're the real enemy.  You look at law enforcement as the "real threat", despite the fact that the number of gun killings (and unjustified shootings) by civilians dwarfs the number by cops.  I also know that trying to convince you that law enforcement is not the devil would be like trying to convince Chris Christie to trade his porkroll-egg-and cheese sandwiches for a salad.  But until we reach your utopian dream, I'd much rather deal with what we can do in the real world.


    It's not my vice they're after... (none / 0) (#162)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 10:33:07 AM EST
    this time, so no skin off my back this time Yman...knock yourselves out.  I just hope the legislative wizards don't make things worse, as they're so prone to do when tackling the crisis du'jour.

    And as we know, the "real world" is a country already so drowning in these weapons and magazines and ammo there is already enough to kill every man, woman, and child in the country out on the street.


    Some disagree with that decision believing it too conservative, some disagree believing it too liberal, some agree thinking it's just right. You, obviously, belong to the second of the three groups.

    The "nuts" part is that anti-2A types who suggest assault weapons (AR 15s) would be of no use in defense against our government here.


    Good thing no one ... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 09:03:30 AM EST
    .. is "suggesting" that.

    BTW - You keep making vague references that "the courts have decided what the 2A means", without answering the question or even stating anything further.  Of course, the courts haven't decided the whether assault weapons are covered by the 2A (and many other 2A issues), and you can't answer the question because either: 1) you don't know the very few principles defined by the case law thus far and thus vaguely claim it's "decided", and/or 2) you don't like where the logical extension leads.

    You don't think that's obvious?



    Actually, that is what you suggested (none / 0) (#154)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 09:29:46 AM EST
    in the first comment of yours that I responded to. I'm satisfied with how it was resolved.

    Actually, it isn't (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 10:21:25 AM EST

    You mean when I resolved it by explaining the comment didn't mean what you were claiming, then exposed the flaws in your analogy and your inability to defend your argument?


    Me, too ...


    I want a tank (none / 0) (#139)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 06:47:39 AM EST
    With a nuclear submarine thrown in.  Hey - if the government can have them, why can't I?

    Using the premise of "If the government (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 07:53:56 AM EST
    can have them, why can't I.", I would prefer a Coast Guard Defender Boat moored in the gulf or Key West.

    Not sure how good it would be in defeating government forces but it would be a great toy to have while providing me with the justification of "defending myself" if I cause any damage to others with its use. ;o)  


    Good boats MO... (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by fishcamp on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 04:19:34 PM EST
    we see those daily down here and they are bada$$ looking.  There are several sizes of these hard bottom inflatable boats with three or four 300 HP outboards on them.  They also have a few very large ones with big aluminum cabins to carry the Cuban and Haitian folks floating around out there.  You can keep yours at my dock  :-)

    Do you think if I whine a W H O L E (none / 0) (#179)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 05:36:51 PM EST
    lot about being denied my 2nd. Amendment rights because I don't have one, this guy will give me one free?  ;o)

    Childhood friend of mine ... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 07:41:26 AM EST
    ... insists that the 2A refers to "arms" (to include modern "arms") and therefore applies to all weapons, with the exception of WMDs (flame throwers, RPGs, mortars, grenades, Stinger missiles, tanks, F-18s, etc.).  Says the 2A was designed to protect us from tyrannical govt., therefore it protects their right to have the same weapons as the govt., but (for some reason) excludes WMDs.

    Joe and Jane 6-pack with explosives and machine guns living next door.



    They don't like those words (none / 0) (#163)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 10:56:49 AM EST
    "well regulated" though..aparently the "anti-2nd" writers of the 2nd didn't actually mean to include those.

    I love this "anti-2nd" horsesh*t being continually slung around -- it so reminds me of Support the Troops and other disengenuous assaults on the complex reality..


    Go for it!... (none / 0) (#149)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 08:22:12 AM EST
    Sh*t I'd feel better with you at the controls of a nuclear sub, rather than the US Navy;)

    Great.. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:43:40 PM EST
    that's about the level of taste and sensitivity you'd expect from a site founded by a coked-out, Nixonian dirty trickster..

    To sink lower than Breitbart, you'd have excavate a sewer. Work not for the faint-of-heart.


    umh, (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by NYShooter on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:56:05 PM EST
    Breitbart is "sunk" about as far as one can be,


    haven't you heard?


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    he's passed on to that great, celestial reptile house in the sky, to make nice with the likes Gordon Liddy, Roy Cohn, and Tailgunner Joe..

    Why (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    anyone with any sanity would listen to anything that comes out of Breitbart is beyond me. But I have decided that apparently "fleecing the rubes" is good business so therefore they are going to keep doing it as long as their are "rubes" willing to be "fleeced"

    Re-posting (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:20:31 AM EST
    Because I put this on the Thursday open thread before the Monday one opened up.

    Some interesting insights revealed in newly-released LBJ tapes, like:

    He wanted to fly to Chicago in 1968, show up at the convention, and announce his candidacy for president, for example.

    The 1968 convention, held in Chicago, was a complete shambles.

    Tens of thousands of anti-war protesters clashed with Mayor Richard Daley's police, determined to force the party to reject Johnson's Vietnam war strategy.

    As they taunted the police with cries of "The whole world is watching!" one man in particular was watching very closely.

    Lyndon Baines Johnson was at his ranch in Texas, having announced five months earlier that he wouldn't seek a second term.

    The president was appalled at the violence and although many of his staff sided with the students, and told the president the police were responsible for "disgusting abuse of police power," Johnson picked up the phone, ordered the dictabelt machine to start recording and congratulated Mayor Daley for his handling of the protest.

    The president feared the convention delegates were about to reject his war policy and his chosen successor, Hubert Humphrey.

    So he placed a series of calls to his staff at the convention to outline an astonishing plan. He planned to leave Texas and fly into Chicago.

    He would then enter the convention and announce he was putting his name forward as a candidate for a second term.

    It would have transformed the 1968 election. His advisers were sworn to secrecy and even Lady Bird did not know what her husband was considering.

    Also on the tapes:

    By the time of the election in November 1968, LBJ had evidence Nixon had sabotaged the Vietnam war peace talks - or, as he put it, that Nixon was guilty of treason and had "blood on his hands".

    Jeez Louise... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:59:37 AM EST
    Talk about "blood on his hands".

    The "gulf of Tonkin" incident was the blue print for the phony "weapons of mass destruction" ploy that was used to get us into yet another war.

    Bush will join LBJ in the fiery furnace.
    And there is of course plenty of room for Nixon and Cheney.
    And Rummy.

    How in the world, we're such a good nation, did we wind up with such cretins?


    But was the Gulf of Tonkin... (none / 0) (#21)
    by unitron on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:58:19 AM EST
    ...LBJ scamming us, or the military/CIA scamming LBJ?

    I (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:38:30 PM EST
    cannot believe that LBJ wasn't in on it.

    It was obvious to many right away that that "event" never happened. There were people questioning it - who were either silenced or marginalized - just as happened with the WMD fiasco.

    So - how could LBJ not have known that the "attack" was a bunch of bs?


    According to the people who were closest (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:53:00 PM EST
    to him, LBJ believed unreservedly in the Domino Theory..

    This was a holy war.

    And as the American Right still shows us to this day, in a Holy War, or even in a Culture War, considerations of honesty and common decency must take a back seat to the grim, necessary, business at hand..

    And let God sort 'em out..


    Maybe (none / 0) (#105)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 05:37:44 PM EST
    God will do the sorting...

    but I think for those guys God might just hand the gig over to Lucifer.


    That is (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:56:19 PM EST
    my take on it, as well, lentinel.  

    If they were scamming him -- (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:39:24 PM EST
    which is unlikely -- it was the sort of scam that just happened to fit neatly into Johnson's political plans.

    He even joked a few days later about how "those dumb sailors were probably just shooting at flying fish out there."(rough quote)

    The whole incident shore did work out mighty good fer Lyndon's political pose that year, plus the rally-round-the president effect.


    Well (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:52:07 AM EST
    one thing Lyndon never was, was boring.

    Hmm ... Rachel Maddow (none / 0) (#132)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:03:45 PM EST
    leading her show tonight with this BBC story.

    We'll see if she does it right.


    NIT! (none / 0) (#3)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:54:03 AM EST

    Poologic... (none / 0) (#10)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:25:45 AM EST
    has Florida winning the Big Dance.  



    I would guess (none / 0) (#12)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:43:19 AM EST
    Poologic expects Florida to win all their games in a blowout.

    They have played 6 games decided by single digits all season...they have lost them all.


    Florida is the only... (none / 0) (#13)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:47:53 AM EST
    non #1 seed in their Final Four.  Just for grins and giggles, I'm going to use that bracket in a couple of pools.  

    Gators (none / 0) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:24:26 AM EST
    Average margin of victory in 26 wins - 24 points
    Average margin of defeat in 7 losses - 4.7 points

    You may want to take them all the way in one bracket and knock them out in the round of 32 in another.


    Rosario should be crunch time guy (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:57:21 AM EST
    They definately need one (none / 0) (#47)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:58:34 PM EST
    UF's biggest problem is they don't have such a guy and it's real hard to find one at the end of the year.

    Last year my team, Vanderbilt, had the same problem.    We had the greatest collection of talent and depth that we've ever had.    Three NBA players and three seniors with lots of talent and experience.

    What we never developed is a closer.    College basketball has, especially in the NCAA tournament, developed into an NBA style game.

    The first 38 minutes is a team game.   The last 2 minutes is our best player vs. your best player.   The game slows down, every possession is critical and the team that has a player that can go get a basket no matter what is happening is usually the team that wins the game.

    Vandy last year never had that guy.    We had a great shooter, a great center and a great swing forward but none of them stepped up during the year to become the teams closer. That's why we lost to an average Wisconsin team in the NCAA's.    They had a point guard who was that guy and they beat us.

    In fact UF has lacked that guy the last couple of years and it's cost them in two straight collapses in the tournament that should have seen them go to the final four.

    I could be wrong but they don't have that guy this year either.    They want it to be Murphy and they gave him the ball ( I think for this specific purpose) at the end of the game yesterday to see if he could do it.   He did not.

    Maybe this will be exactly what they needed and Murphy will use this as a way to gain experience and realize that if they want to win it all he's the guy that will have to step up and do it.

    We shall see.  They did get a great draw and if they play well I easily see them getting to the final four.    They just better spend the first 38 minutes getting a 10 point lead.


    Anybody (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:54:25 AM EST
    else see the tape of the tea partier expounding how African Americans were better off as slaves?

    More and more the GOP seems to be doubling down on stupid but this is what happens when you have been coddling segregationists for decades.

    I haven't seen it (none / 0) (#7)
    by sj on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:21:19 AM EST
    do you have a link?

    sj...... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by NYShooter on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:08:48 PM EST
    this one's from daily beast:


    but, there's a million more. Just type CPAC into Google, and you'll have your pick.


    It was at (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:53:48 PM EST
    Think Progress I think.

    CPAC darling (none / 0) (#52)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:06:19 PM EST
    Rand Paul quietly submitted "The Life at Conception Act" in the Senate again Friday, which if it were to ever pass would override Roe v Wade and outlaw all abortions. That gives you an idea of what CPAC attendees want from their frontrunners as they head towards 2016.

    That (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:48:55 PM EST
    just confirms my belief that the GOP is going to lose again in 2016. I have been pretty certain that a tea party candidate will be nominated.

    All of those (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 05:39:58 PM EST
    Libertarians who think that Rand is the "answer" and some kind of libertarian messiah need to take another, closer look at him.
    A true libertarian would not in any way believe that a woman does not have a right to her own body.

    In all (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 06:33:37 PM EST
    honesty I think they just want someone "different" I mean the other day they were promoting an Allen West ticket. Rank is new and not been around a long time so that's why they have attached themselves to him IMO. He's only a civil libertarian as far as I can see and not a libertarian in many other ways.

    This is where the GOP gets stuck. They call for "less government" only for certain people. And that stupid amendment he keeps putting forth would put doctors in jail. A doctor carrying a tray of embryos across the lab and tripped and fell would be considered a mass murder. If someone miscarries in a car accident, you could be tried for vehicular homicide. Sometimes I wonder if these people even think about what they propose. Then there's always yourself who could be tried for murder for miscarrying.


    Does this really help anyone? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:15:48 PM EST
    Do you have to believe that the majority of tea partiers and conservatives are racist in order to believe what you believe?

    I'm not racist.   How can that be so if I'm a libertarian or conservative.

    So if I'm not racist am I the only one?   How many of us are.   55%, 65%, 15%?

    I saddens me when both sides resort to this kind of name calling.

    There are racist republicans, tea partiers, democrats, communist and every kind of person you can think of.

    It does nobody any good to throw the racist label around because the debate stops and nothing good happens afterwards.

    In fact we are all racist in some way because we're all human.   The only non racist person to ever walk the earth was Jesus Christ himself.    And if you don't believe in him then there was no one.


    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:42:35 PM EST
    I just think this is an example of your chickens coming home to roost so to speak. Many times I have thought what if the these people didn't find a home in the GOP? What if the GOP had not welcomed them? Don't you think we would be a lot better off as a country? I certainly do.

    Did I say you were a racist? No, I did not and I don't believe you are because I have seen you say nothing around here that led me to that conclusion.

    I just happen to think that the more sunlight that is shined on this kind of stuff within the GOP perhaps the GOP will deal with the problem. And we'd all be better off for that.

    They guy speaking was from Fredrick Douglass Republicans and I say Yay! that's there even a group like that. Good for them. He was trying to educate them and it appears that they refuse to be educated about some of this stuff unfortunately.

    Who knows how many racists there are in the GOP? I don't know but I do know that their base is the south and we seem to have more racists per capita than other parts of the country


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#84)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 03:04:41 PM EST
    I just think personally some on the left use the accusation of racism to marginalize a movement that does have some good things to say.

    What ? (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 03:13:55 PM EST
    Now which party would you drift to if you issues with race, ?  And while the R's love to call Obama a Nazi, what party do you think actual Nazis call their home, ditto for the KKK or any other racist organization ?  That is not an odd coincidence.

    Your party harbors haters, and while you and many others aren't, you can't deny that number of racists and the level of racism is far greater in the republican party.

    From the number of politicians to the people voting for them, it's clear that R's are not friendly to minorities.  Sorry to point out the obvious, but trying to convince people the Tea Party doesn't harbor a ton of racists in post that has a video of some members being racist probably isn't the best time.

    If you don't want your party to be considered unfriendly to minorities, then tell them to quit devising legislation that always manages to unfairly effect minorities.  The voter ID is a great example.  Nearly every other democratic county has ID laws and they managed to write them without marginalizing minorities.  But not the R's in America.  Even now, they act like no one is paying attention when Jebb Bush writes a book taking a stand to the right of the republican party over immigration.  Or when they had a hissy fit over Obama's decision to allow adults who were bought here as children to have a path to citizenship.  It's offensive to hear someone say a person whose life is here, who had no choice in coming here, should be sent back to a country they don't know because of something their parents did 20 years ago.   How do you think Hispanics view that kinf of non-sense, which I might add only comes form the right.

    Hispanics in general are religious people, so it's natural for them to pick the most religious party, but the legislation you guys support is so ridiculous, the are leaving.  it's the number one republican flaw, always supporting republicans even when a state decides to make anyone with brown skin prove they are a citizen.  Far too many republican were very vocal about their love of a clearly racist law.  My point is the tightness of the republican party fails when they all get on board with laws/policy that the rest of the nation views as racially insensitive.

    If they keep their anti-women's rights BS up, they are going to lose them with the Hispanics.  No matter what anyone thinks, black people have been so mistreated by your party, there isn't a chance in hell of ever getting their votes.  It's why they don't even bother trying IMO.

    Did you know year Mississippi ratified the US Constitutional Amendment abolishing slavery ? 2013

    "In 1865, Mississippi was among the states that rejected the 13th amendment. But in 1995 lawmakers voted to change that. Problem was the state never sent official word to the U.S. archivist, so the ratification was never recorded."

    I wonder how many democrat politicians are in a state that took 130+ years to acknowledge black folks couldn't be property ?  Old habits die hard, and red most states have a long history of racism.  So instead of accusing others of calling racists, racists, maybe you should look around and wonder why the F you keep pulling that R lever in November if you are truly concerned about equality.


    Slado, please.......... (none / 0) (#68)
    by NYShooter on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:57:05 PM EST
    You're just rambling nonsense now. Nobody called anybody a "racist," and, certainly nobody called you a racist. But, if someone was a racist, what should we call him/her.........a banana?

    Political parties are like quilts, they're made up of different people with different interests......."constituencies." And, like it, or not, "racists" comprise a large constituency, and it is irrefutable that one political party, the Republicans, has decided that they want to be the home for this group. I'm sorry that makes you "sad," but, that's just an empirical fact, and that's what these folks are discussing here.


    Sure.. (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:19:02 PM EST
    theres just as many folks residing in blue states as red states who believe slavery wasn't such a bad thing..

    Just lookit all them Demcrats in the 1860s..



    Tea party is not racist (none / 0) (#122)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 07:12:27 PM EST
    New republic

    There are plenty of reasons for the left to dislike the Tea Party because it stands against big government, taxes and all the rst but racism is not why it came into existence.

    The betrayal of GW and the republican congress to fiscal responsibility,  the economic collapse and then the passing of Obamacare are why it was started.

    Racism had nothing to do with it.


    Not (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 07:50:15 PM EST
    according to David Frum

    The tea party rallied against cuts in Medicare which I would hardly say was against "big government". In reality they seem to just be a knee jerk operation and here in the south the majority of them ARE racists. I mean they were sending out statements before the election saying things like black people are going to out to skin white babies. Yes, I know this because I know tea partiers.

    The tea partiers think George W. Bush is/was wonderful. They think it was okay for him to do what he did. There were NO rallies against anything he did. Read the polls on the tea party. They had an inordinately high approval rating for George W. Bush.


    woah (none / 0) (#140)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 06:52:30 AM EST
    there was no tea party when bush was president.  And who the f*ck is David Frum to decide what is what?  He's an ass and that statement is one of the dumber I have read in a while characterizing the opposition.
    If the tea party is just racist then how the hell do black tea party members manage to take part?
    You know there are racists in the democratic party and I am not talking about people who don't like Obama.  I am talking about the guilty white liberals who think that black people are so one dimensional and identical that there is only one possible reason to dislike one and that is because of the color of their skin.
    There is no doubt that there are people in all parties who oppose Obama at least partly because they are racist.  But when some one labels all opposition as racist in some sort of knee jerk response they take the easy character smear and use it because they are lazy and because they couldn't care less about fixing the real problems we have in this country.

    I did (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 07:32:03 AM EST
    not say the entire operation was racist, just here in the south. Here in the south the tea party is mostly composed of elderly segregationists. As for the rest of the country, who knows?

    Yeah Slado, You Forgot... (none / 0) (#156)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 09:50:20 AM EST
    • That is funded by Koch Brothers and Co.  Who, with the help of the Tea Party, have funded and pushed pro-segregation agenda in the deep south.

    • That their hocus pocus group runs around in outfits that represent a time when slavery was OK and act like those were the glory days of our Nation.

    • Some of the actual people who participated in the Boston Tea Party, disguised themselves as American Indians.

    • That the number of black folks is the same number number of black friends every racist on the planet has, one.  But under scrutiny, one becomes none.

    • And last, but no least, there is a video proving that several people are without a doubt, racist.

    Let's be fair... (none / 0) (#159)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 10:14:18 AM EST
    for sure there is a racist element within the tea party, just as there is a decent element within the tea party who just have some grievances they want addressed.  

    There is a lunatic element to most every movement...Occupy even has some loons.  Sh*t I'm half a loon, don't hold it against movements I support;)

    Yeah the freakazoid Kock Bros. funded the thing big time, but the right says the same sh*t about left-leaning movements funded by George Soros in an attempt to delegitimize them.  The moneyman doesn't speak for everybody in the movement.


    Funny though that (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:45:30 AM EST
    they went through eight years of unhinged deregulation of the banks and Wall St, and eight years of homicidal, neocon wars that bled the nation, without publicly wanting their "grievances addressed"..

    It looked to me more like they-have-grievances-when-Talk radio-tells-them-they-have-grievances..

    Not that many, many in this cuntry don't have legitimate gievances..


    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#169)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:59:14 AM EST
    there is a "convenient epiphany" element to the tea party too.

    But liberal groups are just as guilty of the "blindness by partisanship" crap.  Where were we when Clinton was binge deregulating Wall St?


    You're Steering Off Course... (none / 0) (#173)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 12:28:33 PM EST
    ...blind partisanship is not the same as following morally repugnant racial agenda.  The agenda is what attracted the racial element, not the other way around.

    There simply isn't an equivalent group on the left to the Tea Party and I am not making excuses for the D's.  Because the meatheads defending drones are probably worse in terms of supporting a repulsive policy.  But they aren't claiming to be their own political party, that is privately funded by people who have racial issues with Muslims.


    Racists have other... (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 12:44:47 PM EST
    political concerns besides their racism...which came first the chicken or the egg? Teapartiers with legit conservative grievances or the racists and Kock Bros. bankroll?  I don't know the answer, but I am confident it is wrong to tar  decent conservative people like our very own Slado just because racists might share a similar concern or two.  Sh*t I found myself in agreement with some of the things Osama Bin Ladin used to say about US foreign policy...that doesn't make me an AQ supporter or apologist or a militant islamo-fascist, it's just two very different people with very different world views finding agreement on a point.

    I guess the closest equivalent from the left side would be Occupy...there were some winners at the rallies I went to man...a minority, but a sometimes vocal one.  Anti-semites and hardcore communists and what not.  And remember the bull Fox News was slinging about Occupy...that they're all dope fiends and rapists and public defecators?  Is that not the same sh*t?


    I Didn't tar Anyone... (none / 0) (#178)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 05:03:18 PM EST
    ...well maybe the Koch Brothers.  But Slado is making the case that racists are all about equality as far as party affiliation, which IMO is complete non-sense.  They like one side almost exclusively and on that side, the Tea party faction seems to be the place most of them find most comfortable.

    Damn, it's not my fault the Tea Party attracts people with race issues, it might have something to do with their money man's segregationist agenda.  And it's the whole lying with dogs, which could not be any different from OWS if actually designed it.

    You making an analogy of equivalence that just isn't true with OWS in regards to race.


    Dog, (none / 0) (#189)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:36:27 PM EST
    Back to President Rubin-Greenspan-Summers..

    The Nation, Mother Jones, Green, and Nader-ite  left-liberals were all over it, and up the administartion's binge-deregulating ace from day one..Libertarians btw, were thunderously, deafeningly silent..

    Though, that particular critique of Dems-cushy-with-Wall St only ever comes close to "mainstream" notice these days in the form of public demonstartions and film documentaries.


    The times they are a changin' (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:03:53 AM EST
    Yeah (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:17:07 AM EST
    only as far as maybe CPAC but Yman posted numbers the other day that showed something like two-thirds of Republicans are against it.

    Already all the candidates with even moderate stances on immigration reform have done a 180 and embraced the hard right stances on that issue. I'm sure that no candidate that supports gay marriage is going to get out of the GOP primary.

    Some of the republicans I know here locally who do support gay marriage have stated that the local party leadership is staunchly against it. So while this is a tiny step forward, I certainly wouldn't say they've changed the stance for the whole party.


    in order to win the Presidency, (none / 0) (#8)
    by NYShooter on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:24:27 AM EST
    the Candidate first has to win the Primaries, and that means placing their brains in mothballs for a few months.

    Oh, I'm not saying (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:35:23 AM EST
    This is a complete change.  But this conference attracts the conservatives of the conservatives, so this is an interesting development.

    And hey - only 62% of Democrats support same-sex marriage, so we all have a lot of work to do.


    I don't know that it's over, but it's (none / 0) (#18)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:27:33 AM EST
    getting harder to support laws and regulations that discriminate against someone on the basis of sexuality when the people one wants to deny rights to turn out to be members of one's own family.

    I do wonder how someone like Rob Portman could justify being opposed to same-sex marriage when it didn't affect him personally, but can now support it because he found out his child is gay.  

    I don't think you can legislate the bigotry and bias out of people, but you can make it difficult for them to be elected to offices where their views could be legislated into effect.


    Back in June 1978, Harvey Milk ... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 04:59:09 PM EST
    ... forsaw the reactions of people like Sen. Portman in modifying or even reversing prior positions on LGBT civil rights, when he urged members of the LGBT community to come out of the closet and identify themselves openly as homosexual to their family and friends:

    "I'm tired of the lies of the Anita Bryants and John Briggses. I'm tired of their myths. I'm tired of their distortions. I'm speaking up about it. Gay brothers and sisters, what are YOU going to do about it? You must come out.

    "Come out -- to your parents. I know that it is hard and will hurt them but think about how they will hurt you in the voting booth! Come out to your relatives. Come out to your friends, if indeed they are your friends. Come out to your neighbors, to your fellow workers, to the people who work where you eat and shop.

    "Come out only to the people you know, and who know you. Not to anyone else. But once and for all, break down the myths, destroy the lies and distortions. For your sake. For their sake. For the sake of the youngsters who are becoming scared by the votes from Dade to Eugene.

    "If Briggs wins, he will not stop. (NOTE: State Sen. John Briggs' Proposition 6 in 1978 would've prohibited the hiring of homosexuals as teachers in public schools in California, had it been approved by voters) They never do. Like all mad people, they are forced to go on, to prove that they are right! There will be not safe gloset for any gay person. So, break out of yours today. Tear the damn thing down, once and for all."

    While I appreciate the change of heart on marriage equality, I don't give Ron Portman any more credit than necessary for recently announcing his evolving position on the subject.

    Bacause the fact of the matter is that the senator acted exactly as Harvey Milk once predicted that he and many others like-minded would, once they actually learned for themselves that someone they loved and respected was homosexual. Because once the term "gay and lesbian" has a human face to it, the concept of homosexuality is no longer so abstract and readily demonized as it once was, when it was simply reduced to an argument about "those people."



    Did you guys here about this story? (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by NYShooter on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 05:53:04 PM EST
    A father overheard his son talking on the phone and the boy was agonizing about telling his dad that he was gay. So, rather than let his son continue suffering, and not wanting to turn this event into a trauma he decided to hand-write his son a letter:

    "Nate, I overheard your phone conversation with Mike last night about your plans to come out to me. The only thing I need you to plan is to bring home OJ and bread after class.
    We are out, like you now.
    I've known you were gay since you were six, I've loved you since you were born.

    - Dad P.S. Your mom and I think you and Mike make a cute couple."

    The story went viral, and later the father was awarded "Best Dad Ever" by gay lifestyle magazine "Attitude"

    Finally, Something to feel good about



    That is so very, very (none / 0) (#120)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 06:51:16 PM EST
    heart-warming.  I am so very glad for this son, and kudos to his dad and mom.
    Thank you for posting this, Shooter.  It makes me feel that not all humans are irredeemably stupid.

    Yup, I'm just an old softy (none / 0) (#137)
    by NYShooter on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:34:11 PM EST
    I read a lot of the comments people wrote in several publications. So many of them said they were crying.....many men, as a matter of fact. What got to me about this was that it was a human story, not necessarily a gay story. And, how could something this short make you feel so good.

    Will BTD place his bracket (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:24:37 AM EST
    @ premium TL?  

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:56:38 AM EST
    Someone is going to pay for my bracket?

    I've been awful for a decade.


    Some here rely on you (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 11:27:40 AM EST
    to be wrong.  

    Ah (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 11:29:42 AM EST
    Reversing my picks. Now that makes sense.

    That, plus the fact (none / 0) (#26)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 11:58:39 AM EST
    that some here like to tease you when you're wrong.   ;-)

    BTD?........Wrong? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by NYShooter on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:39:44 PM EST

    just ask him.


    Coral Gables reveals all. (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:56:01 PM EST
    And BTD let's us know his results.

    That's true. (none / 0) (#114)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 06:27:38 PM EST
    You've long since proved that what Mary Richards once was to hosting parties on the old Mary Tyler Moore Show, you are to sports prognostications -- an inevitable debacle waiting to happen. So, revel in your time, and don't be afraid to be bold in your predictions.

    Personally, I like:

    No. 11 Belmont over No. 6 Arizona. The Wildcats have talent to burn but have clearly looked uninspired this season. I think it'll carry over into the NCAAs. The Belmont Bruins are a talented and veteran ball club whose players have been here before, and they are hungry.

    No. 13 Montana over No. 4 Syracuse. While the Orange obviously have more overall talent and a deeper bench, I think the Grizzlies are a real sleeper. Montana has a potential equalizer in hardworking senior point guard Will Cherry, to whom I look to try and light it up early with a barrage of three-pointers. If he's on fire -- watch out, 'Cuse.

    No. 3 Florida over No. 14 Northwestern State -- but not by as much as people think. I do like your Gators' chances overall regarding a deep run into the tourney, but for some reason the red flags are up for me in their first round matchhup against a pretty tough Demon squad. If the Gators are rightly cranky after being upset by Mississippi yesterday in the SEC tourney final (as they should be), that should give them sufficient incentive to take care of business. But if they emerge from the Ole Miss game in a collectively morose and self-absorbed mood, NSU is the type of opponent that could easily give them fits and, with a few breaks, even send them packing early.


    I'm just a debacle on March Madness brackets (none / 0) (#158)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 10:07:55 AM EST
    I'm pretty good at everything else.

    NCAA Tourney Quirks (none / 0) (#45)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:56:57 PM EST
    North Carolina as an 8 seed matches their worst seed in history.

    There is no team in the tournament from the state of Texas. (but the state will host games in both Austin and Arlington)

    Gonzaga has the worst strength of schedule ranking of any number 1 seed in 20 years.

    Because Kentucky's Rupp Arena hosts 2nd and 3rd round NCAA games, Kentucky has to go on the road as a #1 seed in the NIT

    Liberty University, yes Jerry Falwell's Liberty, by winning their conference tourny gets an invite even though they lost 20 games. (making all of us North Carolina A&T Aggie fans tomorrow evening)

    So what? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 06:50:45 PM EST
    CG: "Gonzaga has the worst strength of schedule ranking of any number 1 seed in 20 years."

    Gonzaga's overall RPI ranking is No. 6, because the Bulldogs were 13-2 against teams from the Top 100 (including 4-0 against the Big 12), which was the best in the country. Indiana, by contrast, has a No. 7 RPI ranking, but finished the season 10-5 against the Top 100.


    I believe the last time they were (none / 0) (#187)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:35:48 PM EST
    An #8 seed they went to the final four after beating #1 seed Stanford in the second round.

    Paging Oculus... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:13:40 PM EST
    I need you to jet up the 101 to Santa Barbara and fill your trunk for me....the tide done brought in the jackpot.

    Ha. Probably too late. (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:53:56 PM EST
    I'll be driving down that way next week. (none / 0) (#86)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 03:10:32 PM EST
    (But my car is very small..)

    WSOP Main Event World Champion... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 03:43:51 PM EST
    Greg "Fossilman" Raymer entrapped by Wake Forest PD over the weekend.

    The gratuitous pun that never gets old..."He must not have liked his hand". Ba dum dum;)

    The F?? (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 04:10:26 PM EST
    Wake Forest police have nothing to do?

    Apparently not my friend... (none / 0) (#126)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 07:29:14 PM EST
    I'm sure their schools and hospitals could use funding.  Shameful.

    Nate Silver (none / 0) (#98)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 04:24:12 PM EST
    throws his computer's hat into the NCAA ring. Here are his top picks to win it all:

    Most likely to win tournament

    1. Louisville 22.7%
    2. Indiana 19.6%
    3. Florida 12.7%
    4. Kansas 7.5%
    5. Gonzaga 6.1%
    6. Ohio State 5.8%
    7. Duke 5.7%
    8. Michigan 2.4%
    9. Michigan State 2.1%
    10. University of Miami 2.0%

    I like Miami at those odds (none / 0) (#121)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 07:00:48 PM EST
    Silver isn't going to be able to have the advantage with sports he has with politics, since you can't do polling and playoffs are like regular games on roids. He did pick New England and Seattle for the Super Bowl in January, after all.



    That's the spirit! (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 06:14:54 PM EST

    Sigh, cross Michelle Shocked off my list (none / 0) (#111)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 06:15:36 PM EST
    Wow. Had no idea she'd become a born again Xtian (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:04:44 PM EST
    That alone is enough to turn me off her for good. But...the fact that she got famous over 20 years ago as a very out lesbian singing the hit "Anchored Down in Anchorage" which I must have heard about a million times whenever I turned on the radio or walked into a coffee house or tavern in Seattle!

    Well, she's just another Donnie McClurkin now, I guess.

    Too bad. More proof that religion totally f*cks people up.


    Anchored Down in Anchorage (none / 0) (#164)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:02:51 AM EST
    Damn I loved that song. That whole album. I remember her doing Letterman and playing "When I Grow Up (I Wanna Be an Old Woman) and thinking, sh*t, this gal is the chops. Life is long and the human mind, sigh, such a vulnerable organ. Hope she comes back to earth again.

    Oh NO!!! (none / 0) (#131)
    by Lena on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 07:59:04 PM EST
    I always thought she was better than that.

    She and David Mamet should hook up (none / 0) (#165)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:13:43 AM EST

    Sometimes I wonder if someone's "dosing" these folks, 'ala a new form of the CIA's MK-Ultra program..

    And I'm only half kidding.


    I wonder if she's still (none / 0) (#167)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:49:59 AM EST
    "Shocked", or is the K Street corruption now just part of God's plan?

    We need to take up a collection to send to Sinead O'Conner to her house to open up a can of a little Liberation Theology whup as*..


    the more i've been reading... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 03:14:51 PM EST
    ...the more i think she's just had a mental breakdown. she got arrested at OccupyLA a year or so back, for shit's sake, how incongruous is that? i think it's the fragile mind. i have to.

    pardon my merde, er, French, n/t (none / 0) (#176)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 03:16:03 PM EST
    An arrest has been made (none / 0) (#146)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 08:10:20 AM EST
    in Pakistan, in the brutal killing of Daniel Pearl - almost 11 years after his death.

    The suspect has been on the radar for a long time in this case.

    The day that video was released (none / 0) (#171)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 12:14:15 PM EST
    is the day I found and joined TL.

    Republicans (none / 0) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 08:36:03 AM EST
    sure are cranky today.