March Madness, Sweet Sixteen Open Thread

The investments today:

Syracuse +6 over Indiana, Arizona +4 over Ohio State, Marquette +6 over Miami Florida, Wichita State -4 over La Salle.

Currently 25-21 ATS, +15 units, for March Madness.

Open Thread.

< George Zimmerman Lawyers Seek Sanctions Against Prosecutor | Evil Koch Bros FGCU v. The Good Florida Gators >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    RIP Richard Griffiths (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 10:50:21 AM EST
    One more clip from the same film (none / 0) (#77)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 10:57:50 AM EST
    Can't stop myself (none / 0) (#78)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 11:04:13 AM EST
    And the final scene of the film (none / 0) (#79)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 11:07:56 AM EST
    What was found at the Lanza home (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 09:37:52 AM EST
    A huge cache of weapons.

    An astounding assortment of ammunition and weapons, including rifles, knives and samurai swords; damaged computer equipment; journals and a newspaper clip of a school shooting at Northern Illinois University.

    Those were among a chilling inventory of items the police found in the home where Adam Lanza plotted one of the deadliest school shootings in the nation's history, according to search warrants of the home unsealed for the first time since the Newtown massacre in December


    The police say Mr. Lanza used a Bushmaster XM15-E2S semiautomatic rifle with several 30-round magazines in the attack at the school and also carried two semiautomatic handguns, one of which he used to kill himself. The police also found a 12-gauge shotgun in the car he drove to the school. Officials have said he fired more than 150 rounds in the school.

    As the police combed through his home after the shooting, they discovered Ms. Lanza lying dead in a bed in a second-floor bedroom with a gunshot wound to her forehead and a rifle nearby.

    They also found hundreds of rounds of ammunition and a host of weapons in a brown safe and in bedroom closets. The police also discovered numerous books related to autism, including one titled "Born on a Blue Day - Inside the Mind of an Autistic Savant." Another book was called "Train Your Brain to Get Happy."

    The police also found a certificate from the National Rifle Association bearing the name Adam Lanza, and an N.R.A. guide to the basics of pistol shooting.

    I also read that he obsessively researched (none / 0) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 12:11:35 PM EST
    past mass killers and compiled a spreadsheet of them that was, like, 5 feet wide and 8 feet long, or something like that.

    His goal was to be the "best."


    So, what was that woman (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 03:13:01 PM EST
    so bloody afraid of?

    It sounds like she was one step away from planting landmines, and trenches with razor wire. While living in one of the most peaceful, bucolic communities in the country..



    Andy Enfield to UCLA (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 10:53:56 AM EST
    Bank on it. I hear the rumor is Gottfried from NC State. Forget him.

    Does UCLA hire coaches (none / 0) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 11:03:55 AM EST
    that lost to Lipscomb University? Twice?

    Who did Brad Stevens lose to? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 11:48:44 AM EST
    ...when he got Butler to the championship game twice?  Or Shaka Smart VCU, or Larranaga at George Mason (now Miami) when they took nobodies to the Final Four. From watching his team in this tourney play two games, AND how his team responds to him personally, on a human level, I would hire Enfield in a second. It's the personality thing, that's what is rare. X's and O's guys are dime a dozen. But, hey, they could get blown out by Florida and look terrible doing it. I'd still hire him. And I hate Wall Street, so I hold my nose at that part of his past. But if it's not him, THIS is the type of guy you want. Valvano's rapport with players at NC State is another good example. Those guys are out there, you have to take the chance.

    Speaking of UF and FGCU (none / 0) (#8)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 12:22:55 PM EST
    and the ties that bind.

    Ben Hill Griffin Stadium on the Florida campus so named due to a large donation to the athletic department from the Ben Hill Griffin family.

    Alico Arena on the Florida Gulf Coast campus so named because of a large donation from the Ben Hill Griffin family which owns Alico Inc. (They also donated a large chunk of acreage for the FGCU campus to be built)


    Wow! (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 05:46:29 PM EST
    Talk about having a foot in both camps ...

    But weren't you also telling us ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 04:34:12 PM EST
    ... just the other day that UCLA would first be offering the job to Shaka Smart, who's instead signed a contract extension to stay at VCU, worth $1.5 million annually plus bonuses?

    Without a doubt, UCLA is one of the premier marquee names in college basketball, and the Bruin men's hoops program possesses as serious a pedigree as you'll find in any college sport whatsoever.

    That said, the head coach's job in Westwood has evolved over the last 38 years into one which now carries an awful lot of baggage and caveats -- namely, a mercurial fan base with unreasonably high expectations, and an alumni association that can probably be most charitably described as Machiavellian. Eight coaches have now come and gone since John Wooden's retirement back in 1975, and their average length of tenure has been less than five years each.

    I readily admit that I don't know all that much about Andy Enfield, other than he's a wealthy former Wall Street operator who made his fortune and got out before the bubbles started bursting, and is married to a supermodel. No doubt, he's been on a wildly successful ride this year as head coach of the FGCU Eagles.

    But all that said, he's also one of those proverbial "shiny new objects" who's presently captured people's attentions and imaginations, and whose name's presently being bandied about for other coaching vacancies by a media that's more often than not looking to fill air time.

    Further, there's absolutely nothing that's been said by Enfield publicly thus far to even remotely indicate that he's interested in the UCLA job, save for the repeated assertions of certain sports analysts who keep eyeballing the vacancy in Westwood and insisting it's a vacuum which needs to be filled immediately.

    I think you're making an awfully big assumption about someone whom you know only by virtue of a few randon TV interviews and couple of NCAA tourney games (and not personally), that he has "a profound ego to stroke. Period." Your instincts about him might indeed eventually prove correct, but I'm not going to bet the family farm on it, given the paucity of actual information about him thus far.

    I mean, how do we know for certain that Enfield doesn't actually like living in Ft. Myers and working at FGCU? Why do so many of us (not just you) naturally assume that if ever given the opportunity, people are going to immediately bolt from the hinterlands for the bright lights, big city atmosphere of L.A., New York, Miami and Chicago?

    For all we know, Enfield may in fact love living on the Gulf of Mexico, and may relish the prospect of building a heretofore unknown basketball program at FGCU to his own specs and turning it into a regional power or even marquee name.

    And who further knows, when all's said and done 20 years from now, Enfield may prove himself to be more in the mold of Don Haskins, the longtime and legendary UTEP coach ("Glory Road") who turned the Miners into a well-respected and perennial power, and who regularly disdained the siren calls from elsewhere to bail out of El Paso for the limelight that's Supercalifragelistic State University.

    The point is, we don't know who Andy Enfield really is at this juncture. When speculating as we are, all I can take into serious consideration right now is that not everybody who's coaching college basketball is going to be motivated solely by the prospect of money and fame, and not everybody is necessarily going to be enamored with the idea of living in Southern California. And until Enfield finally opens his mouth and says otherwise, that's what I'm basing my own current judgment on.

    Personally, if I was the UCLA A.D. and / or head of the Bruins' search committee, I'd be looking at Tubby Smith, who was coincidentally let go by Minnesota the very same day that UCLA showed Ben Howland the door. Smith is both well-seasoned at 62 years of age and a proven winner (511-226, .693), and he would be a good selection if they're looking for someone to oversee a transition period and groom a young successor.

    But then again, Coach Smith has already experienced this sort of pressure cooker at Kentucky, and I don't know if he'd opt to again spend nearly half his working days simply trying to manage the unreasonable expectations of a demanding and unforgiving fan base.

    Okay, I've praddled on enough here. As always, Dadler, it's both very interesting and a lot of fun discussing sports with you. Back to work now. Take care, and Aloha.


    Wow. Now Donald is (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 06:16:13 PM EST
    writing. long comments.

    You have my permission to slap me hard ... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 03:06:56 AM EST
    ... across the face the next time I ramble on like that. I just love talking about sports and history. That was one of the benefits of working at Murphy's all those years. Televisions everywhere, and all we did was sling the drinks and yak about sports. It was a lot of fun.

    Ironically, given the discussions we have here at TL, the one ironclad rule I rigorously enforced from behind the bar was that there was to be no talk about politics and religion while I was on duty -- and most of my customers knew how politically active I was, even back then. But as someone of Irish descent, I know of no surer way to provoke a fight in a bar, than to allow people who've been drinking to start talking up those two subjects.


    Does "Wall Street operator"... (none / 0) (#59)
    by unitron on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 09:28:49 PM EST
    ...mean he actually lived in the general NYC area?

    Because if so, and he got out of the market with lots of jingle in his pockets, I'd suspect if he still wanted the whole big city thing he'd still be up there.

    "Far away from NYC" might have been one of his current gig's biggest selling points.


    Immigratrion Fakery (none / 0) (#4)
    by gaf on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 11:16:00 AM EST
    Hi BTD - what's your opinion on this -> http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/pro-immigrant-group-slams-obama-for-immigration-fakery-in-omittin g-immigration-reform-from-second-term-plans

    It basically says Obama has been preventing immigration reform for many years (because of union pressure) and only supporting immigration reform verbally.

    One of my favorite films (none / 0) (#7)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 12:12:02 PM EST
    Hitchcock's The Birds, was released 50 years ago today.  HuffPo has a recent interview with star Tippi Hedren who talks about the complex relationship she had with her director, including his abusive conduct with her on the two movies she did with him.

    I would call The Birds a flawed great film, minute for minute not quite as good as, say, Psycho, but still a fine, eminently watchable horror film which has an intriguing ending that is atypical for a Hollywood big studio production.  It's one of the handful of Hitch films I never seem to tire of watching again and again.

    OMG! I love "The Birds." (none / 0) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 05:01:57 PM EST
    Alfred Hitchcock went directly for the jugular with this one, correctly deducing that if he stoked his audience's primal fears about nature run amock, they'd be wide-eyed on the edge of their seats. And yet all the while, his film very carefully hovers just this side of high camp.

    Despite its (almost) laughably preposterous premise, "The Birds" has to be one of the most thoroughly engrossing and intriguing horror films that I've ever seen, and its almost deliberately understated ending really underscores Hitchcock's brilliance as a master storyteller. Whenever I'm channel surfing and run across it, I immediately cease channel surfing.



    On the same day (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 12:27:51 PM EST
    That Barack Obama appointed Julia Pierson the first female head of the Secret Service, we are finding out that a woman is in the running for the CIA's head of National Clandestine Services, but she comes with some controversy - namely, that she had helped run the CIA's detention and interrogation program after 9/11, and that in 2005, she had signed off on a decision to destroy videotapes of prisoners being tortured.

    Controversy? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 12:39:36 PM EST
    In today's CIA, that comes as a compliment.

    Continuity. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 02:39:32 PM EST
    ...she had helped run the CIA's detention and interrogation program after 9/11, and that in 2005, she had signed off on a decision to destroy videotapes of prisoners being tortured.

    This is a nice complement to the appointment of Jon Brennan, who also had a soft spot in his heart for torture.. I mean enhanced torture... I mean interrogation torture enhanced.

    And someone who destroyed evidence!

    How could one not be drawn this marvelous representative of the brave new world first given us by Bush and his enablers and now preserved for a whole new generation by the Mr. Changeyoucanbelievein.


    Seems to me (none / 0) (#17)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 02:47:07 PM EST
    as tho the WP story has lots of unnamed source material, with equally lots of supposition & an equal measure of denial?  So, who knows?  Classic agency personnel infighting, perhaps (no matter the level.)

    If I had a nickel for every (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 03:22:02 PM EST
    news article being written about administration doings where sources are on the record and identified by name, I'd be a very poor person.

    Rather than "classic agency personnel infighting," I think it's more likely that this is a woman who knows where the bodies are buried and they want to keep her close.

    Let's just say that this administration used up the entire allotment of benefits of the doubt I'm comfortable giving, and not only do I have no more to give, but it seems it would be unwise and dangerous to do so.


    For that kind of advancement for a woman (none / 0) (#29)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 04:42:08 PM EST
    ...odds are that the rumors/innuendo/etc. developing around this projected appointment may have something to do with the fact that this type of appointment can bring out the sharks & a variety of detractors from among the boys who had the same ambitions.  As you know, thats an old--but, unfortunately, still surviving motif (i.e., smear the woman in public without attribution)--standard...heightened by a natural assumption that she would be in a position to know to "where the bodies are," figuratively and/or literally.    Without more, tho, it would appear to involve co-worker (& the like) jockeying rather than any higher level scheme.... If this goes further than some old associates, retired & otherwise, running to their neighborhood WP...well, that would be v e r y interesting.

    Isn't it time for you to feed the unicorns? (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 05:13:29 PM EST
    ::rolling eyes::

    Would youo like to join me, then? (none / 0) (#35)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 05:32:52 PM EST
    Since we were both speculating...lots.  (We're almost in there with the WP :))

    I'm (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 07:07:48 PM EST
    just curious...

    If it turned out to be true, that

    ...she had helped run the CIA's detention and interrogation program after 9/11, and that in 2005, she had signed off on a decision to destroy videotapes of prisoners being tortured.

    what would that mean to you?


    On the surface, the destrudtion of tapes (none / 0) (#64)
    by christinep on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 12:42:27 AM EST
    would be troubling, at the least.  Certainly, the basis for "signed off on a decision to destroy videotapes...." would need to be seen, reviewed, etc.  In short: I'd like to know the substance of the decision which she purportedly ok'd.  In the absence of extenuating circumstances, that kind of concurrence would shift the burden...that is, my presumption that nefarious deeds did not occur would jump shift to a tentative conclusion that the process was flawed, wrong...and, that there should be consequences for such covert action.

    BUT based on what I've seen thus far, most of where we are is based on rumor, gossip, unnamed sources of accusation, and surmise.  I would assume that there would be something else if the fire is where the supposed smoke may be.


    Good Lord, christine - were you asleep (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 06:20:20 AM EST
    all through the early 2000's?  Do you not remember the ongoing discussion about the plan to destroy the tapes?  Does the name "Jose Rodriguez" not mean anything to you?

    For starters, here's a handy timeline from the ACLU that should help refresh your memory, and here is another link to the Jose Rodriguez horror show, and some info to help bring it all back to you:

    One of the acts he is best known for is the destruction of ninety-two video tapes documenting the multiple waterboardings of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the September 11th attacks, and Abu Zubaydah, an alleged Al Qaeda operative, in secret prisons--tapes that he had been explicitly told to preserve as part of an official investigation.

    No, there's no mention of the woman at the heart of our discussion, but I don't expect her name to be made public - not after the brouhaha with Rodriguez.  

    But please, stop acting like there's some question that these events occurred, that people at high levels approved them, or that someone involved with all of it could possibly be promoted to a higher position.

    We see this all the time, christine, and do you know why we see it all the time?  Because the powers that be want it that way.

    I would think an old government hand like yourself, someone who knows about interagency machinations, would have known that.


    We see this all the time because (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 07:00:20 AM EST
    the powers that be are never held accountable.

    Die hard Republican supporters dismiss as rumor, rationalize and justify the actions of their presidents and politicians and refuse to support holding the government accountable when a Republican administration oversees these actions. Die hard Democratic supporters dismiss as rumor, rationalize and justify the actions of their presidents and politicians and refuse to support holding the government accountable when a Democrat administration oversees these actions.

    We do see this all the time.  


    Yes, we do see that tendency (none / 0) (#86)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 10:15:33 AM EST
    And, I often follow said "die-hard" Democrats.  But ... And this is important ... No matter the Party, I do like to see the evidence.  In this situation, there is something (at least, so far) a lot less than evidence.

    I also would have liked to see the evidence (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 10:37:51 AM EST
    except that it was destroyed.

    When evidence is purposely destroyed it does tend to result in less evidence being available.

    Providing actual, verifiable "evidence" in the current environment tends to lead to prison sentences.

    So with evidence being destroyed and whistle blowers being jailed, you will probably be able to continue to discount, rationalize and justify to your heart's content.  


    Apart from our private nightmares... (none / 0) (#88)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 01:28:50 PM EST
    We still are left with too much supposition, too much tale-weaving, and too much intranet-agency intrigue & in-fighting on a lot of different levels.  There is too much erecting of tales fitting underlying preconceptions...no matter what those preconceptions may be.  

    You & I start with differing preconceptions ... But, I'm not sure there is any version of WMD-or-smoking-gun in a situation where we don't even know the potential appointee's name.  It may be the harbinger of skullduggery or it may be the kind of thing not-so-openly practiced by this group as SOP for years (see earlier Brodie comment.). It seems to make sense to allow for some more info to develop ... And, in these kinds of situations, it usually does if there is any there there.

    And--hey--in the meantime, a little respect for different opinions, please....


    The there was there in connection (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 02:16:11 PM EST
    with the use of torture yet the evidence was destroyed without any consequences for those who destroyed the evidence.

    The facts are CIA officials defied a court order by deleting videotapes that would have shown the interrogation, and very probably the torture, of two suspected terrorists.

    The facts are that the Obama administration decided that we must move forward and not pursue criminal charges.

    WASHINGTON -- Central Intelligence Agency officials will not face criminal charges for the destruction of dozens of videotapes depicting the brutal interrogation of terrorism suspects, the Justice Department said Tuesday.

    After a closely watched investigation of nearly three years, the decision by a special federal prosecutor is the latest example of Justice Department officials' declining to seek criminal penalties for some of the controversial episodes in the C.I.A.'s now defunct detention and interrogation program. The destruction of the tapes, in particular, was seen as so striking that the Bush administration itself launched the special investigation after the action was publicly disclosed.

    Regardless of the fact that these actions occurred and this administration has chosen to use every available means to cover up past abuses including prosecuting those who disclose these illegal activities instead of those who authorized and conducted these activities, you choose to discount these ongoing reports as agency infighting.

    As to respect, maybe I should have just went with the unicorn theme.


    What is it about your opinion (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 04:08:24 PM EST
    that we're supposed to respect, exactly? That you have one? Okay, I can respect that you have an opinion, but I sure as heck don't have to respect the opinion itself.

    You have gone out of your way to ignore what is right in front of you, and all signs point to your not having read any more than the few snippets provided, if that.

    Where are the anonymous leaks denying that this woman did exactly what she is portrayed as having done? Seems to me that "interagency infighting" requires, you know, an actual fight, but there are no signs of that, are there? Hmmm...strange.

    Given who the president has chosen to stock the highest levels of the intelligence agencies with over the last 5 years, what would give you pause to think she hadn't been up to her armpits in some of the worst and most shameful actions and decisions made in this area?

    And given that there have been and will not be any consequences to those who were part of it, I've come to regard most of Obama's nominees/appointees in this area to be a giant middle finger of yeah-what-are-you-gonna-do-about-it-sucker?

    Respect your opinion? Not now, probably not ever - not on this one.


    When opinions differ, they differ (none / 0) (#91)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 04:56:41 PM EST
    Trying to sling the hash via deprecating words to obtain agreement is only that...slinging words to get another to see it your way.  The problem:  I offered an early opinion about a potential aspect of the matter (the speculated-upon role of a speculated-upon, unnamed person in the soy industry) and you responded with your opinion characterized as a factual statement...and, it has been back & forth since then.  

    As I have several times already--& will reiterate here--the situation as to the speculated-upon, unnamed woman calls for more facts.  Not a but-but "how can facts be assembled with what we perceive/suspect to be so nefarious?," but some additional form of corroboration.  Believe me, I understand facts...in many forms. 'Tis an issue in this matter.

    The FACT that I hold a different opinion from what appears to be ordained as the-only-acceptable-view should not be treated with obvious attempts at ridicule to cause me or anyone else to  back off or form an opinion that tracks with yours.  

    People in Court have different opinions all the time ... That's what it is all about.  The Court of Public Opinion" is similar in many ways, albeit primarily political.  And, today, the verdict in the latter is certainly still out.


    I'm amazed at your ability to type (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 10:57:57 PM EST
    with your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed...

    The one thing you haven't told us is what your opinion would be if it could be proven to your satisfaction that the woman named to head the clandestine service did, in fact, sign off on the destruction of the torture tapes, and was one of those involved with the program.

    And even if it couldn't be conclusively proven, do you think the participation of anyone in these matters should preclude their continued employment in the government, much less their promotion?

    Really, christine, how much are you willing to ignore, excuse and defend in service to your loyalty to the Democratic Party and Barack Obama?


    IF (2.00 / 1) (#99)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 12:49:19 AM EST
    "it could be proven" that she wrongly signed off on a document directing the destruction of evidentiary tapes (and said tapes were or could have been material to the ends of justice), I believe that that persona should not be rewarded with promotion.  

    A few of your other paragraphs, tho, lessen the impact of the question in that they amount to a diatribe against me for not agreeing with you.

    And, A Joyful & Happy Easter to You, Anne.


    Excuse typo reading "soy" (none / 0) (#92)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 05:07:27 PM EST
    Should read "spy"... Unless the individual does deal with soy.

    About smoking guns, unnamed sources (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 05:12:34 PM EST
    and infighting

    There was an unnamed source from German intelligence who came forward with the information that Curveball was unreliable.

    There was infighting among the CIA as to whether or not the information from Curveball was reliable.

    There was infighting among the military on whether or not we should invade Iraq. The media dismissed the opinions expressed by retired generals much like you dismiss the statements of what you theorize as "some old associates, retired & otherwise" on the consequences and the costs associated with the invasion. Politicians and their supporters ignored, dismissed or ridiculed the information that would have prevented a $4 trillion war of choice that cost the lives and health of hundreds of thousands of people.

    The information was there then like now for anyone who chose not to dismiss it. The choice to not only absolve high level people of their illegal activities but to reward them will have future consequences that are may well rival the consequences of dismissing the objections on Iraq.


    No. Anne, I have not been asleep (none / 0) (#80)
    by christinep on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 12:02:12 PM EST
    Tho, I am a bit weary now...perhaps, from your unnecessary lecture.  
    My position on anonymous smears is fairly clear & legitimate: I want more evidence before jumping to conclusions in any matter that has many players with many differing interests and an obvious patina of internal agency maneuvering.  That is my considered opinion.

    The fact that you have deemed it (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 12:32:23 PM EST
    a smear would seem to suggest that you have, in fact, jumped to a conclusion.  And have apparently not been interested enough to do any additional research.

    Here's something from Democracy Now that you might find less smear-y (bold is mine):

    Report: Official Promoted to Top CIA Post Linked to Black Sites, Destruction of Torture Tapes

    A Washington Post investigation has revealed a woman recently promoted to head a top CIA division played a key role in the agency's discredited detention and interrogation program after 9/11 and signed off on a decision to destroy videotapes of torture. The woman, who was not named because she is undercover, served as chief of staff to Jose Rodriguez, the CIA's former head of clandestine operations. In 2005, she and Rodriguez signed an order to destroy tapes of interrogations at a secret prison in Thailand where two prisoners had been waterboarded. According to the Los Angeles Times, she also ran a "black site" prison overseas. The official is mentioned in a Senate Intelligence Committee report that accuses top officers of misleading Congress about the effectiveness of the interrogations. She became acting head of clandestine services at the end of last month. One of the first decisions faced by new CIA Director John Brennan is whether to keep her in the post.

    And unless you think the following, from the Post article, falls under the category of "damning with faint praise," it's hard to characterize the disclosure of her association with the interrogation programs and destruction of the torture tapes as a "smear:"

    She "is highly experienced, smart and capable," and giving her the job permanently "would be a home run from a diversity standpoint," the former senior U.S. intelligence official said. "But she was also heavily involved in the interrogation program at the beginning and for the first couple of years."

    And, for what it's worth, nowhere in the Post article is the gender of the anonymous senior intelligence official revealed - for all you know, it could be a woman.  In which case, I guess you'll reduce this to "cattiness."

    Far better to wallow in petty irrelevance than address the implications of someone with her background being in charge of the clandestine service, eh?

    ::rolls eyes::


    The story has the characteristics (2.00 / 1) (#84)
    by christinep on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 07:04:19 PM EST
    of a smear. That is elemental.

    What gives?  IMO, your comments in this particular thread seem on edge.  


    OK (none / 0) (#70)
    by lentinel on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 05:13:15 AM EST
    Let's see where the smoke leads us.

    I don't give this administration any more benefits of a doubt than I gave W.

    You are more willing to do that.

    But, honestly, this should be settled one way or the other.
    There should be no doubts about whether she acted to protect torturers if she is to assume a prominent position in the Obama administration as the head of the CIA's National Clandestine Service.

    Personally, I could do without a "National Clandestine Service", period.

    Gives me the creeps.


    We all could do with a true reformer (none / 0) (#73)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 08:36:45 AM EST
    heading up both CIA and the overall nat'l intel apparatus.

    But I don't believe a real shaker-upper has ever been nominated and confirmed as DCI.  That has never been permitted, and never will be so long as the agency remains essentially unaccountable.

    Only person coming close to the type of reformer that corrupt spook agency badly needs is Ted Sorensen, nominated by Pres-Elect Jimmy Carter to head the Company, only to have his name sullied in the press for taking an unacceptable position on his draft status as a youth.  Carter of course didn't stand behind him, Sorensen being a true liberal and Kennedy guy, and so he was forced to withdraw his name.

    CIA, NSA -- they're virtually a government operating clandestinely within the public gov't, like the Pentagon.  We really have 3 gov'ts therefore, but only one is elected and somewhat accountable.


    The potential CIA appointment (none / 0) (#12)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 01:14:32 PM EST
    Had heard about that as well.  Only, how can we know much at all--other than something akin to rumor--about the individual purportedly under consideration for the position when the nature of such position does not allow for the release even of the candidate's name?  Perhaps, "inside or would-be insiders" are "leaking" or ?

    Ya think? If there's one thing we (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 02:01:38 PM EST
    know for sure, it's that trading in information obtained from anonymous sources is what passes for reporting these days.  The administration leaks sensitive information all the time when it suits their purpose, but brings the full force of the law down on anyone who dares to blow the whistle on what's happening if it casts them in a bad light.

    The Washington Post (my italics):

    She "is highly experienced, smart and capable," and giving her the job permanently "would be a home run from a diversity standpoint," the former senior U.S. intelligence official said. "But she was also heavily involved in the interrogation program at the beginning and for the first couple of years."

    The former official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in discussing internal agency matters, said that Brennan "is obviously hesitating" at making the chief permanent.

    CIA officials disputed that characterization.

    Cypress Update... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    The banks are open, but it ain't business as usual...large depositors get jacked up to 40%, 300 euro withdrawal limit, no checks being cashed, direct deposits of wages or pension not being deposited, can't leave the country with more than 1000 euro.  Linkage

    You've been warned, my friends with money in a bank...you've been warned.  Don't think it can't happen anywhere and everywhere...this could be a "test case" for world governments and their bosses, the international banking cartels.

    I (none / 0) (#14)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 02:29:12 PM EST
    hear you... and think you are right...

    but what is one to do?


    First, may I ask you 2 questions? (none / 0) (#20)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 03:04:39 PM EST
    1. Do you have hands, and.....ankles?

    2. Are you limber enough to bend over from the waist so your hands can reach the floor?

    After I receive your answer to these two qualifiers, I will email you the remainder of the answer regarding, "what is one to do?"


    Your Licensed & Bonded


    I (none / 0) (#26)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 04:20:31 PM EST
    believe I heard this answer applied to the question about what one does when one sees the bright flash of an atomic bomb...

    oh, no, no, no (none / 0) (#41)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 06:18:55 PM EST
    crouching under your desk actually does protect you from death or injury during a thermo-nuclear explosion.

    Brother Michael of the Marist Brothers told us that doing that, and putting our faith in the Lord, would protect us no matter what. I'll never forget that scornful smirk on his face as he said (with a disdainful laugh) "you think our Lord can't handle a little atomic bomb? And, as he was saying that he made that gesture with his right fingers, as if flicking a booger off his wrist. That's what Jay-sus would do to that stinkin little bomb.

    At 7 years old, it did make us all feel better, and, there we were, a classful of 7 year olds, laughing at being blown up.


    Actually, (none / 0) (#47)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 06:54:10 PM EST
    that wasn't the answer I thought you were referring to.

    I watched one of those fifties "duck and cover" films not too long ago. Our government progressed from that - telling us to get under a desk or crouch near a wall - to telling us to protect ourselves with duct-tape. They really, really like us don't you think?

    The answer I thought you were alluding to, when you were wrote,

    Do you have hands, and.....ankles? Are you limber enough to bend over from the waist so your hands can reach the floor?

    was, "now kiss yer arse goodbye".


    Right, and right again (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 08:04:39 PM EST
    I started off with the buttocks solution, then, the famous "duck and cover," but, then, Brother Michael butted in.

    Sorry, it does come over slightly convoluted. lol


    How it can be done (none / 0) (#15)
    by suzieg on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 02:38:17 PM EST
    Counterpunch has an article saying the same thing and explaining  how it can be done



    I'm (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 02:50:06 PM EST
    afraid that it can and will be done.

    Depositors will be turned into shareholders of a piece of dreck.

    We have been marching steadily down the path of fascism since 2001. And this would be one more step.

    People have lost their homes, their retirement plans, their jobs.

    And now... our savings.

    I just have no clue.
    What is the alternative of a bank?


    Cash & Carry baby... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 03:33:15 PM EST
    it can be a hassle at times, living off the economic grid, but it's so worth it imo.  In principle, so as not to give banksters and grifters capital to hold, leech, and gamble with...and also for reasons of economic sovereignty. No power outtage or bank closing can keep me from my money.

    But when it comes down to it, if the system collapses because they try to pull a Cypress here, paper currency will only be slightly less worthless than a computerized bank balance...at that point we best have our life savings solely invested in nonperishable foodstuffs and bottled potable water.


    I (none / 0) (#39)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 06:12:31 PM EST
    believe in cash and carry also.

    I pay for what I get, and don't use credit if I can possibly avoid it.

    But, as you say, if banks become unsafe, and our hard-earned money is traded in for worthless stock in a crappy bank, the alternative is cash.

    But, as you say, if paper money becomes worthless as well, that's another pickle.

    I am not pessimistic, but I am even less optimistic.

    I've seen my country embrace torture and protect the torturer.
    I've seen my county relentlessly bomb civilian areas in Iraq.
    I've seen my county treat its disabled veterans like trash.
    I see it turning on social security and medicare.
    I see it being trillions in debt.

    So, no. Fking with depositors' money... that doesn't seem to be as impossible as I would like it to be.


    How about your mattress? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 05:41:44 PM EST
    C'mon, what are you waiting for? Go to the bank right now and close all your accounts, and stuff every mattress in every bedroom in your house with the cash!

    Then when they're all full, dig a big hole in your backyard, stash a Hefty garbage  bag in there -- or two, even! -- full of whatever's left of your moolah, fill it back up with dirt, and plant a tree over it.

    I swear, I won't tell a soul where you stashed all your dough. Promise, cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye.

    But just in case I forget my vow after one too many margaritas or hits from the bong, you better also go and amass for yourself an arsenal of weaponry, before the Obama administration comes and takes  all the guns away, too.

    Good luck. And remember, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that President Obama and the World Bank are not out to get you.



    Good (none / 0) (#38)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 06:01:03 PM EST
    advice, Donald.

    But, as kdog points out, paper money might turn out to be worthless also.

    But of course, this is all paranoia as you say.
    It can't happen here.


    That's not true. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 06:54:48 PM EST
    In the cold climate where you live, you could use it for insulation in your attic, or to start a fire in your fireplace.

    Wow. (none / 0) (#50)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 07:03:59 PM EST
    More useful advice.

    Of course, your proposed course of action presupposes that paper money would have lost its value in the marketplace.

    And we know that could not happen.


    Cash Card (none / 0) (#46)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 06:52:33 PM EST
    Works like a debit card - you load it w/your money.  Can be used for all kindsa stuff - anything that can be direct-deposited.  

    No banks.


    More (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 09:07:51 PM EST
    info please.

    I don't quite get it.

    You load exactly what with your money?

    And how do you load it... if it is not a transfer from a bank account?

    Do you just buy one somewhere - like a visa card - with cash?

    Sounds interesting... but still... what does one do if one has, say, fifteen thousand dollars saved up - and doesn't want to deal with a bank? Donald's mattress solution would be somewhat lumpy.

    Can you buy a fifteen thousand dollar cash card?


    Not to mention many tens of (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 08:41:54 AM EST
    thousands and even hundreds of thousands, for some of us fortunate ones.

    Where do I put all that money safely?

    Sorry, but for the moment I think I'll continue to opt for the traditional means of keeping money, even with the very modest interest rates and even with the possibility the system might fail me.

    And keeping any more than a few hundred around in hard cash makes me nervous.


    Here is suzieg's link to (none / 0) (#27)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 04:32:26 PM EST
    Ok, I'll say it (none / 0) (#19)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 02:54:57 PM EST
    Is Robert Zimmerman Jr. perhaps the most unhelpful family member of a defendant ever?

    Tis better... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 03:12:48 PM EST
    to stay off social media and be thought a fool, than to speak your mind to billions and remove all doubt.

    heh, indeed. (none / 0) (#25)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 03:58:24 PM EST
    Well, since Billy Carter's brother was never... (none / 0) (#60)
    by unitron on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 09:38:44 PM EST
    ...a defendant, I think Jr. might rank up there in the top 1 somewhere.

    Chicago Cubs are baseball's most (none / 0) (#30)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 04:47:39 PM EST
    profitable franchise. So sayeth Forbes.

    Clearly, on field performance does not figure into the Forbes equation.

    I'm as big a Cubs' fan as you will ever meet, but this is ridiculous. If the team is that valuable why doesn't Tom Ricketts take a page out of the George Steinbrenner playbook and buy us a winning team?

    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 05:04:12 PM EST
    the Cubs are more valuable year to year as the Loveable Losers.

    C'mon! Admit it! (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 05:25:14 PM EST
    What would you do, Casey, if the Cubs ever actually won it all?

    Honestly, I think that part of both the lore and the appeal of Chicago Cubs baseball to its legions of fans is that franchise's almost hapless history of near-successes, shocking collapses and inexplicable pratfalls.

    If there's ever a team that has deserved the monicker of "lovable losers," it's the Cubs. No matter what they do or how they perform, their loyal fans just can't get enough of 'em. Every fall like clockwork, you all curse and swear that this will be the last season you'll ever root for them. And yet every spring, also like clockwork, there you all are again -- back for more, in the expectation that somehow, this year will be different. Until it isn't.

    But rest assured, the law of averages says that one of these years, it really will indeed be different, just as it was for both the Red Sox in 2004 and the White Sox the following year. And at that seminal moment, just as it was with those other two franchises, Cubs Nation will be magically transformed from millions of long-suffering fans, into a multitude of insufferable boors.

    But hey, who cares? Just a couple more days, and it's "Play ball!" I can't wait.



    I'd be thrilled if the Cubs won the WS. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 06:26:26 PM EST
    The lovable losers thing may have endeared the Cubs to the fans of all the other teams, but the vast majority of true Cubs fans want the team to win. Being a national punchline is only funny to everyone else.

    Sure, we joke about the long drought. Our public persona is self-deprecating. Trust me, we are not laughing on the inside.

    When the Cubs finally win a WS I don't think we will all become "insufferable boors" as you seem to think. The Northside is not Boston, and seriously, Cubs fans are not at all like White Sox fans.

    When the big win comes I think we will fall into a state of collective shock, express our deeply felt thanks that we lived to see it, and spend the rest of our lives regaling our grandchildren with stories of the "the year the boys won it all."


    ... with stories of the year the Cubbies won it all, that'll be far more than my late paternal grandfather was ever able to do with us, because the Cubs never won anything except a couple of division titles during his lifetime, either.

    And so it was with many of my family members. (none / 0) (#49)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 07:03:23 PM EST
    One of my grandfathers, may he rest in peace, was around for the last WS win. He was 8 years old. He was the only family member alive in my lifetime who was around for that event.

    I have grandparents and uncles and aunts and great uncles and great aunts and cousins and my father who all cheered for the Cubs and did not live to see them win it all.

    Right now my 85 year old uncle and my 84 year old mother are starting to accept that they will never see the Cubs win the Series. Since I don't think the Cubs have a chance to win it this year or next, I fear they are right. But boy would I love for them to see the Cubs win the series. It seems like such a small thing in the scope of world problems, but it would make them so happy.


    Three words, Casey. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 02:18:20 AM EST
    The '69 Mets.

    I mean, if the '69 Mets could come out of nowhere and win the whole enchilada, then who's to say that the Cubbies can't do the same?

    Oh, excuse me, I forgot. The '69 Cubs can say that. Never mind.


    Where is ruffian? (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 06:19:48 PM EST
    More on MLB and money. (none / 0) (#62)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 10:27:06 PM EST
    The injured, and IMO overrated, Alex Rodriguez, will earn $29 million this year. And he will be out for at least half the season.

    A-Rod's salary for this year is more than the entire payroll for the Houston Astros.


    Here's my favorite foto... (none / 0) (#63)
    by desertswine on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 11:50:13 PM EST
    And were they also playing ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 02:44:28 AM EST
    ... "La Isla Bonita" over the P.A. / sound system whenever he came to the plate?

    LOL. Classic.


    From our "Vagina Ideologues" file: (none / 0) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 06:51:43 PM EST
    The Idaho Dept. of Education has opened an official investigation into the classroom conduct of Tim McDaniel, after a handful of thoroughly repressed and sexless souls in his hometown of Dietrich complained that the high school science teacher used the dreaded "V" word during a biology class lecture about women's private lady parts, and that his students were exposed to nasty images which could make them think impure thoughts.

    Perhaps McDaniel should've instead used the politically correct term, "ladies' hoo-hahs."

    I take it that (none / 0) (#51)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 07:06:53 PM EST
    the high school drama department will not be staging "The Vagina Monologues" any time soon.  ;-)
    But seriously, how the heck do you teach the biology of human reproduction without mentioning "vagina"?

    There is always the time-tested (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 07:13:04 PM EST
    euphemism "down there". Not scientifically precise and it does assume that students have some idea of the geography of human anatomy. Although with the quality of parents these students seem to have, I would not bet on these kids knowing much at all about the body.

    You're probably correct. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 02:27:14 AM EST
    But I heard that their production of "Cabaret" was outstanding.

    Oh, Donald...you really need to (none / 0) (#55)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 07:21:48 PM EST
    get with the program. "Va-jay-jay" is so much better than "hoo-hahs."  Sheesh.

    Personally, I'm partial to Monty Python's ... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 02:20:35 AM EST
    ... "naughty bits."

    But some want every student (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 08:24:35 AM EST
    To read violent unmarried sex Atlas Shrugged before they can graduate.  Strange people

    A state trial court judge (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 07:34:07 PM EST
    just recused himself from a lawsuit brought by parents of public high school students' parents alleging yoga at school = religion. Judge practices yoga  

    Since we're on the subject (none / 0) (#95)
    by NYShooter on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 08:23:43 PM EST
    of school business,

    I saw a story on TV where a principal cancelled the school's annual "honors award night" celebration. It seems the principal bowed to pressure (from where/whom I don't know) due to the students who didn't achieve scholastic "honors" status feeling bad, inferior, depressed, and who knows what else. Obviously the parents of the kids who studied & sacrificed all year long to achieve those honors, which also gave them a leg up for college admissions, are quite upset.

    Virtually every organization that has to do with child development has condemned this principal's action. Even some psychological committee said, "part of winning and getting ahead in life is learning how to lose."

    So, now we've gone from baseball where every game ends in a tie to every student being valedictorian.  

    Now, that's how we're going to compete with the Chinese and Asians.


    Frank Bruni, who has no (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 10:36:51 PM EST
    children, opines on how to raise them:



    The last people I want to hear from (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:35:52 AM EST
    My children are night and day.  One abused choices and the other might be a Dr. Spock pinup.  Good luck with one size fits all or any for that matter.  Frank Gallagher (alcoholic character from Shameless) insists that your children come pre wired :). And there is some evidence of that :). What do you do with the pre wire though?

    "Unmerited self esteem." (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 09:53:56 PM EST
    As usually happens (none / 0) (#100)
    by Coral Gables on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 08:12:39 AM EST
    A FOX news story ends up screwing the pooch.

    statement from Ipswich Middle School:

    Ipswich Middle School is dedicated to high achievement in every facet of our students' lives.

    We did not cancel honors recognition as erroneously reported on FOX News in Boston. We changed our Honors Night from an exclusive ceremony at night to an all inclusive ceremony during the day with the entire school present. During this ceremony we will honor those who have excelled academically, athletically, in the Arts and in the Related Arts.

    TSA "hi jinks" at Kennedy Airport (none / 0) (#54)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 07:14:15 PM EST
    The TSA agent found what he thought it was a laser pointer, played around with it, and sprayed his fellow agents with pepper spray.  I mean, really.  This is just complete idiocy and incompetence. I wonder if they'll fire him?
    Oh, and the TSA tried to "keep it under wraps," but the Post got wind of it and began asking about it.

    Quick question for anyone (none / 0) (#57)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 08:21:40 PM EST
    Did TL have a thread recently about those two Texas State troopers who conducted full cavity searches on female drivers stopped for alleged traffic violations, then suspected of hiding contraband......."down there?"

    If not, I have the link somewhere. And, while we're being gross, one truly sickening item stands out from my memory. The females who were violated complained that, as if the searches weren't humiliating enough, they said the officers conducting the invasions didn't bother changing their rubber glove when going from "rear" to "front."

    Ugh, ugh, and more ugh!


    That sordid event was discussed in an open (none / 0) (#61)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 10:24:24 PM EST
    thread at the time it hit the news.

    Disgusting is too mild a word for the way those women were treated.


    BTD (none / 0) (#75)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 08:46:49 AM EST
    kicked some bookie butt last night.

    starting to get really interesting (none / 0) (#81)
    by NYShooter on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 12:21:33 PM EST
    as my Orangemen peaking just at the right time.....wiped out Indiana. Can see Indy guys saying after the game, "who were those guys?"

    Orange looked very good (none / 0) (#83)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 01:46:17 PM EST
    Completely dominated athletically. Impressive as hell. Gonna be a barnburner with Marquette, but I like Syracuse in that one.