home

Sunday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 10:28:57 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In case you are wondering, I like the Pats (+5 1/2) (and on the moneyline (+200)) and the Niners (+3) (+110) today.

In soccer, Chelsea, Athletico Madrid and Barcelona are my choices.

Open Thread.

< Opening SCOTUS Briefs In Hobby Lobby, Conestoga | Obama: Pot No More Dangerous Than Alcohol >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Morning Open Thread | 163 comments (163 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    When I was 12 and hung out on LA's skidrow (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 11:12:46 AM EST
    This photo I found online today, from urban Los Angeles in the 1970s, has sparked the memory of one of the more bizarre days in my certifiably surreal childhood (link):

    In the late 1970s, my father -- who had been divorced from my mother (with whom I lived) for almost a decade by then -- acted in an independent movie called ON THE NICKEL, about a group of winos on skidrow. The film was written and directed by Ralph Waite, who played the father on the old TV series The Waltons, and the title song and other music was written and performed by a young Tom Waits. The last day of filming, my father picked me up from my mother's house and took me to the set with him, which was on the actual streets of the skidrow section of downtown LA. Well, pops took off to film his scenes, leaving me to eat goodies from the craft services table, and then wander around the neighborhood a bit (wander around skidrow at 12 years old! My mother would've killed him if she knew). Aside from the dead body in the gutter that the coroner was retrieving, the most vibrant memory I have is standing in the doorway of the Hard Rock Cafe, not the commercial chain of current crapfood joints but the old school alcoholic bar from the photos on the back of The Doors album THE MORRISON HOTEL. My clear memory is of looking into this dive, and seeing a huge horseshoe shaped bar made of dirty concrete, peopled with hardcore drunks, trash and newspapers and other shit covering the equally dirty concrete floor. Today I found a photo of the outside of the place from the 70s. And, obviously, it brought the day back to me. A strange one, indeed.

    And, wow, I just found the trailer for that little movie that nobody saw. And, amazingly, at the 34 second mark, my old man is the bearded freak saying, "C.G. don't need you. You need C.G.!" (link)

    ... and the preacherman wore a leisure suit. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 12:24:30 PM EST


    Parent
    In That Clip... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 01:49:58 PM EST
    ...your pops sounds and looks like Waits with that wraspy voice that sounds like he's had a couple belts before lunch, even when he hasn't.

    Very Cool Stuff.

    Parent

    Pops says he's been smoking since he was 9 (none / 0) (#89)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 05:47:15 PM EST
    Which would mean he's been puffing for 77 years, which is insane to think about. He knew how to work that wino voice though, did a few other paying gigs in similar roles.

    Parent
    And here's Tom Waits singing the title song (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 11:16:13 AM EST
    I posted this once before, I think, but it has me captivated this morning. When your father is pushing 90, it tends to happen. (link)

    Parent
    Was that different from... (none / 0) (#6)
    by unitron on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 11:22:07 AM EST
    ...the "I thought at the time that it was a made for TV movie" where Waite played a white collar or academic type who winds up working as a blue collar ditch digger?

    After about 40 years, that's pretty much all I remember about it. It aired once on either CBS or ABC.

    Parent

    Very different (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 11:28:11 AM EST
    It was a very independent film Waite wrote and directed, in which he plays a wino, who was best friends with another, now reformed, alcoholic, played by Donald Moffat. Moffat spends the movie searching for his old friend on the streets.

    Parent
    Waite must've had some interesting (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 01:25:31 PM EST
    talks with Will Geer (Grandpa Walton) who was an old friend of Woody Guthrie.

    Parent
    My dad actually did a few shows... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 05:44:26 PM EST
    ...up at Will Geer's "Theatricum Botanicum" (love that phucking name), up in Topanga Canyon. That's every memory of my had of my father as a child, seeing him a few days a month, and all those days, or almost all of them, included either sitting through hours of rehearsals or sitting through a show, then a few hours, often into the a.m., of actors in coffee shops in Hollywood (Denny's on Sunset just west of the Hollywood Fwy.; Ben Franks further down Sunset in West Hollywood; or Norms on La Cienega) shooting the shit and coming down from their high after a performance. Crazy daze.

    Parent
    coffee shops (none / 0) (#90)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 06:16:43 PM EST
    silly me, they were really more KEEPING their high after a performance.

    Parent
    You are remembering, "The Secret Life (none / 0) (#15)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 12:48:36 PM EST
    of John Chapman," a made-for-TV movie based on the book, "Blue Collar Journal," by my former college president, John R. Coleman.  He was a labor economist who spent his sabbatical undertaking various blue collar jobs, which he then wrote about.  Coleman/Chapman was indeed played by Ralph Waite in the movie.

    Parent
    FINAL: Seattle 23, San Francisco 17. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 10:05:16 PM EST
    Now, THAT was a championship game!

    Next up for the Seahawks, a well-deserved Super Bowl date with their former AFC West rivals, the Denver Broncos.

    For the 49ers, their fans should be proud of them for a gritty effort. And now that their season is officially over, it's the start of a new era in their new home at Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara.

    Aloha.

    I am not a fan of either team (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:17:50 AM EST
    But I do like Payton Manning.  I also despise that Seattle fans think they are the "12th Man" (No, Texas A&M has been using that to describe the fans since 1922), and I only wish the Seahawks had to pay A&M even MORE than they do now for the licensing rights.  So for the next two weeks, I am a Broncos fan.

    (And it's funny that it's going to be the "Stoner Bowl I" - Colroado vs. Washington)

    Parent

    What does Texas A&M have to do with it? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 11:30:06 AM EST
    Especially given that the university is compensated for the Seahawks' use of the symbolic term "12th Man" to describe their overly boisterous fans in Seattle.

    You can cheer for whomever you want, but from my perspective, your "12th Man" argument sounds somewhat petty and contrived, as though you were going out of your way to search for some reason to voice disdain for the fans of a particular team, and found one.

    If you're a Texas A&M alum and / or an Aggies fan, then I'd offer that your ire would probably be more properly directed toward that university, which chose to lease out to the Seahawks its rights to the term, and not toward Seattle fans, for whom playoff appearances have often been fleeting over the decades -- never mind the even rarer Super Bowl berth.

    Personally, I don't have a dog in the Super Bowl hunt, having not had a favorite NFL team since my Sunday afternoon matinee idols the L.A. Rams moved east to St. Louis after the 1994 season. 20 years later, and "St. Louis Rams" still doesn't sound right to me. And in that regard, I suppose I'm not unlike those curmudgeonly Brooklyn Dodgers fans of yore, who still resented their team's 1957-58 relocation to Los Angeles.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I think a city (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 12:13:24 PM EST
    that touts itself as having average than smarter people, should be able to come up with a unique name for themselves.

    They are NOT the 12th Man.

    Parent

    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 12:37:46 PM EST
    ...because in all of the football leagues in the world, only the Aggies and the Hawks use that phrase.

    And according to Wiki:

    In American football, the first documented use of the term "twelfth man" was in an alumni publication of the University of Iowa in 1912 in reference to its fans. The first documented use of the term "12th Man", and the first use of the term to reference an individual, E. King Gill of Texas A&M University occurred in 1922. Students at Texas A&M began using the term as their moniker in the 1920s and the school formally trademarked the term in 1990.
    LINK

    So if you have problems with the Hawks using it, then you should have the same issue with the Aggies using it, neither was the first.

    Parent

    It was used once (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 01:09:59 PM EST
    In an alumni magazine at Iowa at not actually adopted as an "official" moniker. Texas A&M has used it for decades, and owns the trademark.

    Link

    Ten years before E. King Gill became the 12th Man, former Iowa football captain E.A. McGowan wrote about fans lifting the State University of Iowa (as Iowa was then known) to a victory in 1903.

    Wrote McGowan, in the 1912 Iowa Alumnus magazine: "As the Iowa team ran out on the field on that memorable day and looked at the thousands of valiant rooters waving their streamers and yelling, `Hold them, Iowa,' there came a feeling into the hearts of those men who were wearing the Old Gold jerseys, and who were to uphold the honor of their university that, `We must win.'

    "When the evening dusk began to gather over the field and the whistle had blown for the last down, the game was over with the score Iowa 12, Illinois 0.

    "The eleven men had done their best; the twelfth man on the team (the loyal, spirited Iowa rooter) had won the game for old S.U.I."

    In the decades since, references to a 12th man have been both specific (to certain venues) and generic (any loud home field).

    The NFL's Buffalo Bills recognized their "12th Man" on the team's Wall of Fame for "loyal support during the team's early '90s Super Bowl runs." And the Seattle Seahawks, who came into the league in 1976, developed a loud, loyal fan base that created what one writer called a "concrete cavern of noise" inside the old Kingdome. By 1984, the Seahawks had retired the No. 12 in honor of their fans.

    In 1989, however, Texas A&M filed to register the term 12th Man as a trademark. Since it was approved a year later, the school has fought others from using the term (including taking action against the Broncos for the flag-wielding parachutist).

    "We have aggressively pursued them," says A&M's Cook.

    He says the entire 12th Man concept "speaks to our DNA here at Texas A&M," and goes far beyond the football program.

    "It really embodies everything we are here," says Cook.



    Parent
    So is the objection ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 01:42:02 PM EST
    ... is the lack of originality on the part of Seattle fans in using the term "12th man", or the fact that they don't own the trademark but still use the phrase?  If the former, the same could be said for a lot of teams that have used the phrase after its origination, including Texas A&M fans ("I think that a university that touts itself as having average than smarter people, should be able to come up with a unique name for themselves.").  If the issue is that A&M was the first to think of trademarking the phrase, they willingly licensed the use of the phrase to Seattle, soooo ...

    Parent
    Carrol again invoved in receiving improper gifts. (none / 0) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 01:50:14 PM EST
    Seems to be a habit with him.

    Parent
    What are improper gifts in the NFL? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 01:59:47 PM EST
    underage hookers?

    Parent
    (confused)??? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 02:19:16 PM EST
    Somebody gave Carrol a license to use the phrase "12th man"?

    Parent
    An attempt at a joke. Didn't work apparently. (none / 0) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 02:30:16 PM EST


    Parent
    No It did Not... (none / 0) (#70)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 02:45:02 PM EST
    ...here I was trying to Google it and coming up empty, well except for USC stuff, then I saw Yman's comment, and realized you were making a funny.

    Parent
    Ya. I live in LA, though I'm an import, (none / 0) (#74)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 03:48:21 PM EST
    so although SC and UCLA sports are not my passion like they are for many others who grew up here, Carrol's getting out of dodge when he did, under the circumstances he created, do stick in my craw enough that I generally root for whoever is playing against Seahawks.

    On the other hand, one of the kids I grew up with playing Little League baseball, etc., from my childhood days in NJ, is the Defensive Coordinator for Seattle, so I'm torn.

    Oh well, ultimately I'm rooting for Denver in this SB...

    Parent

    That's perfectly understandable. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 08:28:25 PM EST
    SUO: "Carrol's getting out of dodge when he did, under the circumstances he created, do stick in my craw enough that I generally root for whoever is playing against Seahawks."

    As its football coach, Pete Carroll really did a number on USC. Why a surprising number of Trojan fans still continue to pine away for him, I'll never know.

    I'm not a USC fan by any measure, but I do feel sorry for those players who ultimately paid a high price for the lackadaisical way Carroll ran that program, because many of them were only in the fifth and sixth grades when the most egregious violations occurred. They get sent to the NCAA doghouse because of something called "lack of institutional control," while he gets off scot-free and takes his talents to Seattle.

    Sometimes, there is no God.

    Parent

    I'm not happy they licensed it (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 02:49:12 PM EST
    But Seahawks fans will never be the true 12th Man.

    Actually, what I said was I don't really like either team in the Stoner, er Super Bowl, but I like Payton Manning, and hate the Seahawks fans, and and their name, so for two weeks, I can root for Denver.

    Parent

    The Stoner Bowl... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 03:48:27 PM EST
    ...that is hilarious when you consider that the attendees are what the NFL considers the best of the best.

    Even funnier is that both teams have/had key players sitting our for several games for violating the NFL's drug policy.

    Von Miller was out the first 6 games, Walter Thurmond and Richard Sherman, were suspended for 4 games I believe, Sherman's eventually overturned on appeal.  Yes, the same Sherman on who made the interception at the end of the game possible.  Brandon Browner has been infidelity suspended.

    Browner is the only one who used performance enhancing substances, which means the others were recreation use, and look where they are, headed to the SB, so it would appear that drugs aren't the GD devil.

    Parent

    I love the (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 04:09:04 PM EST
    sobriquet "The Stoner Bowl."
    Although, since this game is not being played in either Colorado or Washington state, but at the MetLife stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey.......perhaps not so much.    ;-!

    Parent
    The Goomba Bowl. (none / 0) (#77)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 04:12:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Goomba Bowl! (none / 0) (#78)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 04:17:28 PM EST
    Sounds good to me.
    Although, I must add a caveat.  We have several friends who reside in New Jersey, and none of them are "goombas."
    So, there you are.   ;-)

    Parent
    The Chemical Bowl ? (none / 0) (#128)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 01:16:43 PM EST
    Wish I Were in NYC Bowl ?

    The Traffic Study Bowl ?

    The Improper Use of Federal Hurricane Relief Funds Bowl ?

    Parent

    How about ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 03:07:21 PM EST
    ... the "Toxic Landfill Bowl"?

    Parent
    Gawd, how original. (none / 0) (#138)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 04:24:45 PM EST
    I'm sure you'd appreciate the Jan 26 game billed as the "Hawaiian Ice Bowl."

    Parent
    Well, the Pro Bowl game out here ... (none / 0) (#142)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 08:16:21 PM EST
    ... has become something of an embarrassment in recent years, both on-field and off. 30 years ago, the Pro Bowl was floundering and dying in the vine. Honolulu saved the game for the NFL, by turning it into annual island-wide community happening and national showcase. The game's always a sellout, the players love coming here, and they always take part in various community events around the island of Oahu. It was a win-win for everyone.

    But now, the NFL owners are trying to extort millions of dollars from the State of Hawaii for the right to continue hosting the game. Gov. Abercrombie told them in so many words to shove it and take their game elsewhere, if that was what they wanted. That's why it was played in Miami a couple years ago, rather than here.

    When that didn't work out, in large part because the players resented having to go to Florida where many of them already play during the regular season, the NFL came back here, but with hat still in hand, purportedly asking for $20-25 million. The governor's still inclined to tell them to shove it, and I support him. Let them play the game in Kansas City or Buffalo in the dead of winter, and watch what happens to it.

    And this week's Pro Bowl could indeed be the Hawaiian Ice Bowl, if the screwy weather keeps up. While the mainland was in the grip of that so-called polar vortex, it hailed out here -- not just once, but twice. And not just a little, but rather heavily. The stones were the size of lima beans, and sounded like thunder on our roof, and pitted our Plexiglas skylight over the laundry room. One of the damnedest things I've ever seen out here, weatherwise.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Ya. I was referring to HI's stupendous (none / 0) (#149)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 01:28:53 AM EST
    methamphetamine dependency.

    I even linked to it.

    Parent

    In the land of Chris Christie ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 04:25:36 PM EST
    Supper Bowl XLVIII.

    Parent
    C'mon, he's on a diet. (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 04:36:29 PM EST
    He said "Shut the fridge," not "Shut the bridge."

    Parent
    Perhaps Christie (none / 0) (#85)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 04:44:01 PM EST
    should have "shut his mouth" instead.  
    In whichever sense you want to take that.

    Parent
    Yup... (none / 0) (#82)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 04:34:49 PM EST
    ...Eli got a ring in Peyton's House(when he played for Indy) and Peyton is probably going to get a ring in Eli's House.

    Parent
    Whatever floats your boat (none / 0) (#72)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 03:42:49 PM EST
    Anyone can root for any team for any reason, but I just didn't understand the strong ire directed at Seahawks fans for their use of a phrase that: 1) is a common football term 2) their use of which predates A&M's trademark 3) doesn't even originate with the "true 12th man" (presumably A&M fans), and for which Seahawks fans get criticized for not being smart enough to come up with a unique name.

    BTW - Doesn't the Bronco's use of the phrase without A&M's consent trump the Seahawk's authorized use of the phrase under license?

    Parent

    I Didn't Even Know... (none / 0) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 04:19:09 PM EST
    ...that was an A&M thing, much less that they trademarked it and I live in Houston, less than an hour from A&M, and I love football.

    Every team with a loud crowd makes that claim, and rightfully so.  It's why, on average, the home team is given -3 points on the spread, everything else being equal.  That is almost entirely due to the 12th man.  

    I doubt you could attend any football game at the NCAA/pro level and not see a 12th man sign.

    Parent

    Neither did I (none / 0) (#84)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 04:41:59 PM EST
    But I guess if Paris Hilton can trademark "That's hot." ...

    Another trademarked, sports phrase that surprised me is "three-peat", trademarked by Laker's coach Pat Riley.  In 2005, a bunch of USC students tried using the phrase "three-Pete" (in reference to their anticipated, 3rd BCS championship under Pete Carroll), but they lost their case.

    Parent

    I am rooting for the Broncos (none / 0) (#81)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 04:30:31 PM EST
    Mainly because of Seahawk's Richard Sherman's d!ckwd gesture and mouthing off.
    Not exactly the greatest reason, but what can I say?  Sherman is a jerk.
    I hope that the Broncos clean the Seahawks' clock.
    And in any case, I will be preparing Buffalo chicken wings, St. Louis style toasted ravioli, and other such bad-for-us food for the Super Bowl.  All of which I only make for such an occasion.
    ;-)

    Parent
    I think it's ridiculous that the remarks of (none / 0) (#86)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 05:11:06 PM EST
    someone clearly jacked up on end-of-the-game-victory adrenaline, which didn't really add up to much more than, "your mouth wrote checks your play couldn't cash, so before you go taking potshots at me, you'd better be sure you're as good as you think you are," has turned into such a "controversy."

    Face it, there's a reason Fox wanted Erin Andrews to get to Richard Sherman - they knew he'd say something that would get people's attention.

    Crabtree, whom Jim Harbaugh had called the greatest pass-catcher ever (I'm sure Anquan Boldin appreciated that) just the week before, failed in this huge game, just as he failed in the Super Bowl last year.  Sherman, who speaks his mind, but isn't a punk or a thug, called him on his trash-talking.  I'd say Crabtree had it coming.

    Now, you want to talk about a jerk?  Let's talk about John Elway...I wouldn't root for the Broncos if every player on the team was named "Peyton Manning."  Not disrespecting Manning's talent, just not interested in Jerkwad John Elway having something to celebrate on Feb. 2nd.

    All that being said, Super Bowl Sunday won't be anything all that special at our house - an AFC team that has Elway in its organization, and an NFC team I wouldn't ordinarily give two hoots about but for their being in the position of having a chance to send the Broncos back to Denver boo-hooing in their hankies.

    Not really a calorie-worthy Super Bowl, in my opinion!

    Parent

    If I have it right (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 05:44:47 PM EST
    he continued his rant later, so it wasn't all just jacked up end of game trash talking. Since he was part of the interception, I think Fox had more of a reason to get him on camera than just trash talking.

    And then there was the fan(s) throwing food as the injured player was carted off the field.

    Before the game, we had the org blocking ticket sales to fans in Ca.

    Seattle seems to need some lessons in winning big games with a bit more grace. ;)

    But I'm totally with you on that Elway guy :)

    Since we usually have nice weather in Feb, I'll prob be working in the yard on SB Sunday.

    Parent

    From what I saw in the postgame, his (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 07:00:17 PM EST
    comments were delivered rationally, calmly and directly; he continued to explain himself today, in his column at MMQB.

    Here're a couple of excerpts:

    Michael Crabtree stutter-stepped out of his break on first down and sprinted toward the end zone. I was in good position for a pick until he pushed me in the back. My interception became a tip and an interception for Malcolm Smith in the end zone.

    Game over. The Seahawks are in the Super Bowl.

    I ran over to Crabtree to shake his hand but he ignored me. I patted him, stuck out my hand and said, "Good game, good game." That's when he shoved my face, and that's when I went off.

    [snip]

     It goes back to something he said to me this offseason in Arizona, but you'd have to ask him about that. A lot of what I said to Andrews was adrenaline talking, and some of that was Crabtree. I just don't like him.

    It was loud, it was in the moment, and it was just a small part of the person I am. I don't want to be a villain, because I'm not a villainous person. When I say I'm the best cornerback in football, it's with a caveat: There isn't a great defensive backfield in the NFL that doesn't have a great front seven. Everything begins with pressure up front, and that's what we get from our pass rushers every Sunday. To those who would call me a thug or worse because I show passion on a football field--don't judge a person's character by what they do between the lines. Judge a man by what he does off the field, what he does for his community, what he does for his family.

    [snip]

    One thing I can't accept is what I read after the game about Seahawks fans throwing food at 49ers linebacker Navorro Bowman as he was being carted off the field with his knee injury. If it's true, it's beyond terrible. That's as low as it gets. I'm sure whoever did this is in a small minority of fans, because I don't think that kind of action is an accurate representation of the character of the 12th man. Navorro Bowman is a great player who plays the game the right way. When he went down, I dropped to a knee and prayed for him. He deserves better than having food thrown at him as he's carted off a field. All players deserve better than that.

    Oh - and that thing about blocking ticket sales?  That's apparently not against league rules, so I don't have a problem with it.  Neither, apparently, does Jim Harbaugh:

    The Seahawks caused a stir by limiting ticket sales to the NFC Championship Game, specifically excluding customers with credit-card billing addresses in California. But the ploy earned praise from an unlikely source Monday: 49ers head coach Jim Harbaugh.

    "I actually respect it - what you're trying to do for your team, put them in the best possible position to win," Harbaugh said. "I respect that their organization does that for their team. I think they do that in a lot of ways."

    I envy you being able to be outside in February...we're waiting for the next round of snow and sub-freezing temps...brrrr!

    Parent

    I thought he should have quit (none / 0) (#103)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 08:06:38 PM EST
    while he was behind. To go on and keep reiterating that MC was a mediocre player was unnecessary, imo.  He already won on the field, no need to be an a** off . . . again, imo. I just saw an article in the SF Gate, apparently there's a discussion going on as to whether he's an embarrassment to Stanford or not, lol!~

    I disagree with the coach on limiting ticket sales to fans. Some fans wait years for a chance to go to a game like that, and tickets are hard enough to come by.

    We've been @ 70 for a week or so and our 'cold' day this week will be 65 on Wed. Yeah, we have that not so little drought prob, but it might as well be sunny and kinda warm if it's not going to rain. Usually we get cold damp weather in the winter when it isn't raining. I'm just enjoying it since it is here, and I froze my tush off for 20yrs on the east coast :) It's been great dog walking weather down at the marina . . .

    Parent

    You don't have it right, and Sherman (none / 0) (#95)
    by BeDazzled on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 06:43:58 PM EST
    is both articulate and compassionate when he's not coming off the winning play. Seattle is very proud to say he's on our team.

    I believe I read where your complaint about ticket sales being blocked is not the least bit unusual, so putting it all on Seattle is hardly justified.

    We laughed a lot, though, when a San Fran radio station banned all Seattle artist's music from their air waves for the day.

    Complain all you want, there's a response for every accusation you threw - oh, and it's Seattle going to the Super Bowl.

    Parent

    I never said he wasn't articulate (none / 0) (#101)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 07:55:44 PM EST
    I happen to know he went to Stanford (Ya know, that school down here in CA)

    You are obviously biased about your team, which is fine, but I honestly don't think ANY team should block fan tickets sales. Hard enough for fans to get to the games as it is. Good luck getting SB tickets, those are also severely limited to the fans.


    Parent

    BTW, it seems your guy has (none / 0) (#104)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 08:13:54 PM EST
    issued an apology.

    Parent
    And, I hope you read the apology (none / 0) (#114)
    by BeDazzled on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 04:03:48 AM EST
    because it is far more representative of who Richard Sherman is than the broad brush you've painted him with over one comment.

    Seems that you, too, are biased toward your team. Kind of logical.

    And, yes, I do know where Stanford is.

    GL

    Parent

    Right... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 09:28:15 AM EST
    ...but you can't have it both ways, the apology was for something.

    You don't rub it in someone's face that you are better right after you beat them, that is like page 1 of the good sportsman handbook.

    That being said, big deal, OMG there are poor sportsman at every game every played, just most aren't stuck in front of the camera.

    I like the guy, he is fricken awesome, but you can't act like a child and expect no one is going to say anything.  Pretty sure that is why he apologized.

    The bigger deal to me, the choking symbol, it's illegal, disrespectful, and no one actually choked.  But he will pay his fine and hopefully not do it again.


    Parent

    What broad brush? (none / 0) (#127)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    I haven't said anything about him, only about what he said.

    And my team wears green and is on a different coast.

    Parent

    Seems like the coach had some thoughts (none / 0) (#105)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 08:26:08 PM EST
    also

    and I did have it right.

    Parent

    That's a tough one, Anne (the Elway thing) (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 06:50:45 PM EST
    While I'm planning to make lucky pasta fazool--as I did in 1998 & 1998 to cheer on then-quarterback Elway in our two winning Superbowls--I concentrate on great-quarterback, nice-guy Peyton Manning and good-coach, also nice-guy John Fox in this quest.  Oh, yea, and the team does seem to have it together (especially if they can keep a disciplined defense as they did yesterday) ... and more.  As for John Elway ....

    Well, as a person who dumped his wife Janet after the two SBs (when he seemed to be going through the athlete's version of who-am-I-now) and a Denver businessman who has pursued, from time to time, the Repubs as they have pursued him, John Elway has demonstrated his ability to be a real horse's patoot.  So, my friends and I concentrate on the team and the great quarterback.  The only retort I can make about Elway's "character" is that--in the midst of all his fame and notoriety--he has stayed clean of criminal charges and he doesn't mistreat animals.

     But, looking at facts and statistics, I acknowledge that John Elway was a damn good quarterback, an exciting athlete who pulled our community together with his feats.  And, now he is part of the football endeavor putting smiles on a lot of peoples' faces here again ... after all, it was Elway who had the drive and the wherewithal to recognize the talent that Peyton Manning still retained and coax/persuade him to come to Denver.  (BTW, I was wrong in thinking that Elway had screwed up at the time.)

    Who knows?  Maybe the years and life's vicissitudes have altered that jerkiness in persona that we both saw in Elway.  For now: I'm happy for the team and the city ... and, as you know, the good feeling and smiles that these next two weeks will bring.

    Parent

    Some useless John Elway trivia: (none / 0) (#141)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 07:24:52 PM EST
    Q: Who was the only regularly scheduled team, conference or non-conference, to defeat John Elway's Stanford Cardinal in consecutive seasons during his four-year collegiate career at Stanford (1979-82)?

    A: San Jose State, which was then coached by his late father, Jack Elway. The Cardinal were only 2-2 against the Spartans with young Elway at quarterback. (I daresay most people would probably never even guess that.)

    In fact, Elway fils suffered his worst game as a collegian against his father's team in his junior year (1981), a thoroughly dreadful affair in which the highly regarded quarterback was sacked nine times by the Spartans and threw five interceptions in a 28-6 thumping, which still stands as the lowest number of points ever scored by the Cardinal in this series. (One can only imagine what subsequent conversations must have been like at the Elway homestead in the immediate aftermath of that game.)

    The following season, his senior year, John was touted as the heavy favorite for the 1982 Heisman Trophy. And because the son was the Heisman frontrunner while the father was working on the opposing sidelines as head coach, ABC Sports capitalized on the Elway family storyline and broadcast the Stanford-San Jose State game live on national television, as its "Game of the Week."

    But unfortunately for John, father Jack once again had his son's number. The national audience thus watched as young Elway floundered early under a relentless Spartan pass rush, while San Jose raced to a surprising 21-point first half lead. And in a horrible 4th quarter, John was sacked by the Spartans on six consecutive plays over the course of two series late in the game, as he desperately tried to rally his Stanford team. He capped it off with an ill-advised throw on the seventh play, and the resultant Spartan pick-six finished the Cardinal off for good.

    John Elway later posted a second place showing in that year's Heisman Trophy balloting behind Georgia's Hershel Walker. But many sportswriters subsequently speculated that his miserable showing in that nationally televised early season upset loss to San Jose State likely sent Heisman voters looking elsewhere for new candidates, and cost him any reasonable shot at that award.

    (Your truly was attending Washington at the time, and the Huskies were then ranked No. 1. As John Elway stumbled and bumbled about in humiliating defeat, We all watched and cheered and laughed in the dorm, chanting "Overrated!" at the television. Alas, little did we know at the time that Mr. Elway would have the last laugh. Six weeks later, he sliced and diced our poor top-ranked Huskies in what was arguably his best-ever collegiate game at Stanford, and the 43-31 thrashing ultimately cost us a Pac-10 title and Rose Bowl berth. His performance in that game also got him back into the Heisman picture.)

    Further, John Elway's time at Stanford marked the very first time that San Jose State ever defeated the Cardinal in football over two or more consecutive seasons. Overall, Stanford leads this series by a 52-14-1 margin, with the last Spartan win happening in 2006.

    This often lopsided but sometimes intense backyard rivalry was renamed the "Bill Walsh Legacy Game" in 2007, because the legendary Walsh was a successful coach at both schools. In fact, when Walsh departed San Jose for Stanford, Jack Elway not only succeeded him as head coach of the Spartans, he later took over at Stanford himself, albeit with much less success. Sadly, there are no more games scheduled between the two programs for the foreseeable future.

    So, if you ever see John Elway in person and you want to get his goat, you probably need only mention three words to him: San Jose State. In probably one of college football's supreme ironies, Jack Elway's Spartans proved themselves to be the reef upon which his son's '82 Heisman hopes were to be forever dashed.

    (Elway would would later insist, perhaps tongue in cheek, that it was "The Play," Cal's historic kickoff return through the Stanford marching band in the final game of the '82 season, which ultimately did in his Heisman candidacy. While that makes for a really great story and a readily convenient excuse, I's like to believe that while Heisman voters have sometimes shown themselves to be pretty shallow and petty in their choices, they're generally not THAT shallow and petty.)

    Aloha.

    Parent

    His first couple of years in the NFL (none / 0) (#145)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 09:19:20 PM EST
    he had such a cannon that every time I saw him play I found myself thinking "this guy needs to take a little off the ball". His twenty yard passes were like RPGs; his receivers must've led the league in drops through little fault of their own.

    Parent
    Not sure who I'm ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 06:20:48 PM EST
    ... rooting for, but I have no doubt your "Supper Bowl" will be awesome ...

    Parent
    Oh, and (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 06:46:01 PM EST
    Breaded fried zucchini, mushrooms, and onion rings.
    Marinara sauce for dipping those, plus for the toasted ravioli.
    And tzatziki sauce with pita bread, pita chips, and crudités to dip in it.
    And beer.  Plenty of beer.
    Whoever wins, we will be well fed.
    At the end of the night, I suspect none of us will give a royal rat's patootie who has won.      ;-)

    Parent
    Sherman is not a jerk, but if (none / 0) (#111)
    by BeDazzled on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 03:50:21 AM EST
    you are going to base your opinion of someone on one hyped up sentence you've heard, that's your choice.

    He's actually one very fine and decent human being who gives a great deal back to the community.

    Parent

    Sherman, huh? (none / 0) (#139)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 05:55:24 PM EST
    Now you can combine two of your favorites in the "Who said it?  Richard Sherman or Chris Christie" quiz.

    Parent
    Speaking of Texas A&M and trademarks, ... (none / 0) (#144)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 08:41:02 PM EST
    ... now-former QB Johnny Manziel's application to trademark the name "Johnny Football" has been suspended by the U.S. Trademark and Patent Office.

    Maybe A&M officials should consider changing the name of their sports teams from the "Aggies" to the "Egos."

    =|>:-O

    Parent

    We all like Peyton (none / 0) (#73)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 03:43:48 PM EST
    Use the "e" and you'll be an official fan for 2 weeks.

    As for the Twelfth Man:  My take has nothing to do with trademarks and which came first.  It all seems like one big egg to me, since my ol' memory keeps returning to major goof-ups and the penalties that followed from having the Twelfth Man ... as in when Penn State beat Tennessee during a New Year's Orange Bowl outing when Tennessee made the mistake/goof of having twelve men on the field.  So, for me and now for a lot of us Bronco fans, Twel(ve) signifies goof ups.

    Parent

    Last I checked, Seahawks don't ever (none / 0) (#97)
    by BeDazzled on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 06:50:35 PM EST
    play against A&M. Every team has their own 12th man in the fans, they shouldn't have to come up with a new term for the stadium crowd. This is just about the most obvious cry for attention ever. Someone who has no connection or interest in the Super Bowl or the two teams has cooked up quite a way to become the subject of the thread. And, she even managed to insult the intelligence of the entire population of Seattle.

    Love your response, Yman. :)

    Parent

    Well, the Seahawks LOVE their (none / 0) (#94)
    by BeDazzled on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 06:36:29 PM EST
    12th man and consider this to be the BEST city ever to be playing for. As for Seattle "thinking" they are the smartest city, the truth is it is a city with the highest percentage of college graduates - that's all. Heaven knows a college degree doesn't mean you are smart. It means you are educated.

    Parent
    "Working for the Few" (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 12:31:38 PM EST
    The combined wealth of the world's richest 85 people is now equivalent to that owned by half of the world's population - or 3.5 billion of the poorest people - according to a new report from Oxfam.
     LINK

    It added that the wealth of the richest one percent of people in the world now amounts to $110 trillion, or 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world's population.

    The republicans are always so quick to call anything that takes away from the wealthy as income redistribution, but what about when it goes the other way, when rich folks use their wealth to change the rules of the game to increase their already enormous wealth ?

    Capitalism, something to be championed.

    85 = 3,500,000,000 people's wealth should be a global capital crime.  No one on the planet needs more than a million/yr, the excess should be redistributed so people can eat and have clean water, instead of paying $628,000 for a bottle of booze.

    So the new Republican talking point (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 08:03:00 PM EST
    About how underemployed the nation is, and why we don't have to raise the minimum wage is because the teachers all failed our students and they are cranking out the too stupid to be employed like the skittles factory spits out skittles?

    Jesus Spaghetti Monster Christ!!!

    Josh has just been invited to join National Junior Honor Society.  Most of the kudos for this goes to Josh OF COURSE!!!!  Then there is the kudo to the middle class income that his father earns that insures that mommy does nothing other than blog about healthcare needs and see to everything that Josh needs.  My husband's middle class income also allows me to throw down anything in my hands at a moments notice and run to whatever needs to happen so he stays competitive at work, and the military is nothing if not competitive.

    My average day with Josh....and keep in mind my husband is in Korea right now so we are completely single parent.

    Wake up, choose my clothing and Josh's because Josh takes extra time to brush teeth and eat.  He has microstomia.  Josh cannot run or move fast enough to have a locker in Junior High so his mother must find him a very good well balanced backpack on wheels, she helps him load it properly, he has missing muscles and lacks strength but he is also a moving locker.  His mom must also make sure he has two freshly sharpened pencils and one cheap mechanical pencil because...because she is OCD and friends could need a pencil too or something.  School can't happen without pencils.  Something called the polar vortex has been happening in the subtropics, so mum must also schedule a 15 minute warm up for the car now.

    To school, Josh chops wood and carries water.

    Mum picks Josh up.  Josh officially has restrictive lung disease right now as well as a very tiny stomach so he is both tired and hungry.  He is my only child to include grandchildren who gets any kind of fast food he wants.  I must get calories into a small space.

    We get home, download, sometimes a nap is involved.  Then mom gets more food together while homework happens.  Mom's loving hands and smile are always available as well as a huge selection of whatever food is needed.

    Laundry, scrub toilets, dishes, lawn and leaves, power wash something outside covered in mildew or the house is eventually worth a molding decomposing nothing, small home maintenance repairs, dust things, drive to Atlanta surgeons, and Birmingham specialists, school make up work, and yadda and yadda and yadda.

    Pretty sure that if Josh is failing at school it has nothing to do with his teachers and would have everything to do with his parents trying to survive on minimum wage.

    Congratulations, Josh. And his parents, (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 11:39:40 AM EST
    teachers, and medical care professionals.

    Parent
    MT (none / 0) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 11:18:37 PM EST
    About how underemployed the nation is,

    The Repubs learned that from you.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Learned what from me? (none / 0) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 04:07:18 PM EST


    Parent
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 252 (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 10:31:43 AM EST
    The NSA has a new secret hand sign. (link)

    v. 251
    v. 250
    v. 249

    Happy Sunday, peeps. Go Niners! And big ups to my liver!!

    Chelsea is off to a great start (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 10:47:41 AM EST


    Is that a team... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by unitron on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 11:17:04 AM EST
    ...a real estate area, or a Clinton?

    Parent
    I think in the UK it's a state of mind (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 12:14:53 PM EST


    Parent
    Right up there with rooting (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 12:16:07 PM EST
    For Alabama or Auburn

    Parent
    Whereas being a Watford fan ... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 10:11:02 PM EST
    ... is like rooting for East Carolina.

    Parent
    One of my neighbors (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 06:29:22 PM EST
    Planted shrubs on his frontyard hill that spells out ECU.  I thought he was pretty eccentric to be so attached to the Enterprise Credit Union since we live in a town called Enterprise, but hey, to each his own right?  It would seem that I wasn't the only one who didn't get it because he eventually bought a fancy banner and stuck it into the middle of the hedging.  OHHHHHHH, that's what that means.

    Parent
    I have SUCH a bad feeling about the Niners (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 11:35:54 AM EST
    They just have not matched up well with Seattle, in any game recently, home or away. They may have won the last meeting at Candlestick, but they really weren't in control of that tilt in any way.

    Match-ups are everything. I hope ours have leveled out in the last few months. And that, somehow, an atmospheric even causes the ungodly noise in the stadium to evaporate into the mist.

    Fair points (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 11:57:05 AM EST
    buuuut, I think Crabtree really changes things a ton and not having Harvin a huge blow for the Seahawks.

    Plus the Niners are playing their best ball now. Not so Seahawks.

    Parent

    I don't think it'll matter. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 04:13:03 PM EST
    Were the game at The 'Stick, I hear you. But it's not.

    Rather, it's in Seattle at The Link, which is the home of the 12th Man, the loudest partisan crowd in football, and where the Niners have literally been pillaged and plundered the last two games there.

    And with all due respect, Percy Harvin's not the only arrow in the Seahawks' quiver.

    But I'll agree with you that this game's going to be a punishing affair.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Kansas City broke the record (none / 0) (#112)
    by BeDazzled on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 03:51:55 AM EST
    for loud right after Seattle got that title, so Seattle is not the loudest partisan crowd in football - it is, though, the proudest.

    Parent
    No small wonder why, given that ... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 04:13:24 PM EST
    ... the Chiefs blew what should've been a commanding 38-10 lead in the third quarter of their wild-card playoff game against the Indianapolis Colts two-plus weeks ago.

    Were I a Chiefs fan, I'd still be hiding my head in shame over that one. It would be a real shame, should people ultimately remember this particular Kansas City team for that one game, rather than for the nine-game turnaround they engineered out of the ashes of that 2-14 season they had last year.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Well, the betting market (none / 0) (#28)
    by Zorba on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 04:27:26 PM EST
    says that the Niners would win about 40% of the time.
    But I am rooting for San Francisco.  Go Niners!    ;-)

    Parent
    Harvin will play in the SB (none / 0) (#113)
    by BeDazzled on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 03:54:31 AM EST
    and, Seattle hasn't had him on the field for almost the entire season...

    Parent
    One thing for sure (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 11:58:29 AM EST
    It'll be the most physical game of the year.

    It's going to be brutally violent.

    And lord help me, it's what I want to see.

    I'k such a hypocrite.

    Parent

    It is going to be positively Roman (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 01:14:21 PM EST
    I expect five or six players to be knocked out of the game on concussion protocols.

    Parent
    My wife is a bigger football fan thatn me (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 01:41:03 PM EST
    And she hates cleaning FAR more than I do. (What planet do I live on?) As such, with my doubts about the Niners, she has exiled me to the basement with my negative vibes.

    I love that broad. ;-)

    Parent

    Ha (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 01:53:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Hee, hee! (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Zorba on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 04:29:02 PM EST
    I would have done the same thing if I were her, D.    ;-)

    Parent
    And, it seems your feelings were on the mark (none / 0) (#93)
    by BeDazzled on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 06:29:33 PM EST
    GO HAWKS!!!

    :)

    Parent

    Obama: I would not let my son play pro football (none / 0) (#14)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 12:47:48 PM EST
    here

    As much as I enjoy bashing authority figures, occasionally even I agree with them.

    The other day, in a new book by ex Defense Secretary Gates, Obama got outed, booed, and soundly hissed for expressing doubt about the heavily funded idea that Afghanistan could be won.  

    To me, Obama's doubts seemed the height of rationality.  Once in a while it's nice to realize that he isn't the blundering, blustering F***wit that our previous president was.

    (And now, back to my regularly scheduled bashing.)

    And how would Obama (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 01:10:18 PM EST
    keep his ADULT child from doing what the child wanted?

    Parent
    By preventing him from playing HS football, (none / 0) (#24)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 02:50:09 PM EST
    which prevents him from being picked by any of the monetizing collegiate franchises.

    Parent
    I don't (none / 0) (#25)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 04:11:39 PM EST
    think that it is a father's role to prevent his child from pursuing their dreams.

    He has a right and a responsibility to point out the dangers inherent in the life of a professional athlete - or in many other professions.

    But actively preventing ones child from going for what captivates them... that I don't get.

    Another thought:

    Astroturf is very hard on the bodies of professional athletes. No one cares. The show must go on.

    At present in Australia, some of the players are collapsing in the heat because the organizers of the tennis competition have not closed the roof. 111° degrees of heat. The $how must go on.

    And then there's hockey....

    The conditions that make a profession unsafe should be the focus of our attention.

    Authoritarian paternal posturing is not at all attractive to me.

    Parent

    Well, on the other hand, (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Zorba on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 04:40:32 PM EST
    Obama does not have a son.  It's all good and well to say what you would do "if."
    Sometimes, when push comes to shove, reality and your kid's desires and talents trumps what you might have wished for them.
    It is, as you said, a parent's job to educate kids about the pros and cons, but if this is the child's heart's desire, it's pretty hard to tell them to forget about it.
    I do absolutely agree with you, especially about what makes pro sports (and other professions) unsafe.

    Parent
    I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 05:04:51 PM EST
    how it feels to Obama's daughters when he refers to the son he never had...

    Parent
    Yes, well (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Zorba on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 05:21:10 PM EST
    This is not the first time he has referred to the "son he never had."
    I kind of wonder about this, too.

    Parent
    Why would they resent ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 10:38:53 PM EST
    ... a rhetorical figure of speech?

    Parent
    It's not (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 12:59:12 PM EST
    a figure of speech...

    How could you think that?

    I would expect that he could think about why there is so little attention paid to women's teams.

    Why so little exposure for women's basketball.

    Why no interest in women's baseball.

    That would be an interesting thread for discussion - musing over the future prospects for his daughters instead of those of the son he doesn't have.

    This is my personal reaction.


    Parent

    Speaking as a parent of a ... (none / 0) (#136)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 03:58:19 PM EST
    ... now-former college women's volleyball player (who's presently a boys volleyball head coach at the high school level out here), I'd like to think that President Obama has more important things to worry about, but I'm sure he's given a lot of thought to issues of gender equality, as have most fathers of daughters today. Besides, Title IX (authored by the late Hawaii Congresswoman Patsy Mink) has been on the books for four decades now, and the Justice Dept. has actually been pretty diligent about enforcing its provisions over the years.

    And FYI, women's volleyball and softball are both steadily growing in fan popularity at the collegiate level. At Nebraska, Penn State, my alma mater Washington and also here in Hawaii, women's volleyball is a proven moneymaker for their respective university athletic departments. Further, all four programs have been regularly outdrawing men's basketball in attendance, with Nebraska and Hawaii each averaging over 8,000 fans per home match.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Astroturf? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 04:36:04 PM EST
    lentinel: "Astroturf is very hard on the bodies of professional athletes. No one cares. The show must go on."

    That's so 1970s and '80s! Those stadiums that were outfitted with Astroturf have either:

    • Replaced those once-ubiquitous plastic-covered cement playing surfaces because of increased injury concerns, or

    • Since been demolished, and replaced with taxpayer-subsidized, state of the art facilities with plenty of corporate-owned luxury boxes, and a plethora of minimum wage employees staffing them who'll wait on the modern-day hoi polloi hand and foot.

    Aloha.

    Parent
    A contractor I hired last year for a renovation (none / 0) (#43)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 10:05:28 PM EST
    told me, at one point after a long day, that he hadn't allowed his kid to play high school football.  Too many injuries.  Too dangerous.  


    Parent
    My nephew suffered a very bad concussion ... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 10:35:40 PM EST
    ... this past fall as a freshman defensive back on his high school's varsity team, and my sister is understandably quite reluctant to allow him to play again next year. The doctor has already recommended the she at least keep him out of spring practices in May.

    (Personally, I don't think that any high school freshman has any business playing varsity football. From all accounts, he got creamed during a game by an 18-year-old who outweighed him by 50 lbs.)

    If she says no, which is the direction she's presently leaning, then I fear that it's going to be one of those maternal decisions which will only be appreciated by her son later in life. Right now, he's acting like his 15-year-old world is crashing down around him, because this kid literally lives for football.

    Having once been a rather intense teenaged athlete myself, I really do feel for him. But as a parent, I must defend my sister's prerogative, because she'll act with his best long-term interests at heart. And as much as I like football, no sport is worth risking further significant injury.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Perhaps she should have said he could only play JV (none / 0) (#47)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 12:35:15 AM EST
    hindsight's pretty cool that way ;) Maybe something could still be worked out with the school/coaches.

    I can't imagine what would have happened if my parents had taken away my passion in HS. I actually started college 2x with different goals before I finally followed my path/passion and hoofed it off to art school :) My father never really understood my life/career, but to give him credit, he tried. He just never figured out exactly what I did at my various jobs, lol!~

    Parent

    We'll see. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 02:12:56 AM EST
    I do know that admittedly in hindsight, my sister deeply regrets having given her consent for him to play varsity football, particularly since his head injury turned out to be much more serious than we had initially thought.

    Three days after the game, he complained to his algebra teacher that he had a very bad headache and was feeling dizzy, and she took him to the office where he then got nauseated and vomited.

    Upon further medical examination by a neurological trauma specialist who was called in, it was determined that while he suffered no intracranial bleeding -- as was first feared when they took him to the E.R. -- he had suffered a very severe bruising of his still-developing frontal lobes, probably because he got planted head first by that big guy in the game.

    His physical activities were significantly curtailed, so not only was he done playing for the season, he was not even allowed to participate in P.E. activities again until this month -- and even then, he is not to be in any contact sports.

    Football history, pedigree and culture all loom very large at my nephew's school, and like I said, he lives for the game. (His room is a virtual shrine to now-retired Chicago Bears defenseman Brian Urlacher, his idol.) He was so proud of having made the varsity as a freshman. I would think that being consigned to JV would represent a come-down to him, and one doesn't want to crush his spirit. The coaches, school officials and teachers, to their credit, have been very supportive since he got hurt in late September.

    We'll just have to wait and see what his neurologist says after she examines him again later this spring. My sister said that the doctor's professional opinion will be definitive in making her own decision in the matter.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    fwiw, and no I can't find a link, (none / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 11:44:31 AM EST
    but my kids' recent Science magazine ranked the rate of pro football concussions 4th behind pro soccer and pro hockey, with the far and away "winner" being pro horse jumping (iirc, the rate of pro horse jumper's concussions was something like 125x the rate of pro football's).

    Parent
    Should we ban equestrian sports? (none / 0) (#132)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 03:13:57 PM EST
    That would not be good news for Rafalca, Anne Romney's Olympic dressage horse. Once rendered obsolete were that to happen, I can see ol' Mitt practically auctioning that poor steed off to Ralston-Purina for gourmet Shih Tzu food, even as we speak. He'd probably get a tax break for that, too, for all we know.

    ;-D

    Parent

    For you folks who demanded proof (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 01:08:23 PM EST
    From that FAR RIGHT WING paper, USA Today:

    A Senate report on the Benghazi attack that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans bolsters Obama administration critics who suspected from the start that al-Qaeda was involved and that it was not a spontaneous protest that went out of control.

    The report, released Wednesday by the committee's Democratic majority, said individuals affiliated with groups such as al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula were in on the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. compound.

    Whether the attack was ordered by a high-level al-Qaeda chief or planned on short notice by people on the ground remains unclear, the report said. But the report left no doubt that it was an organized terrorist attack -- a fact denied for days after the deaths by President Obama and former secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    Link

    ;-)

    Proof of what? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 01:30:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh, c;mon! Can't you see that ... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 04:45:36 PM EST
    ... it's definitive proof of the fact-free epidemic that's long afflicted the parallel universe inhabited by America's far right?

    Parent
    We won't know the real ... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 01:32:18 PM EST
    truth about Benghazi for decades. And then no one will care.

    The Republicans grabbed the wrong thread if they really wanted to unravel this thing. But I don't think they really did.

    Probably for the best. Most Americans aren't prepared to handle the real politik of U.S. Middle East policy. They prefer the fantasies.

    Parent

    The real story is that Obama's (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 04:36:59 PM EST
    administration wasn't prepared for a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 on a US embassy.

    And that Obama lied about when asked and lied about over the following days and allowed Rice to lie about it on the Sunday shows and lied about it in his UN speech.

    Why?

    Because he was fearful that if he admitted it was a terrorist attack he would lose the election.

    The same reason that Nixon lied about Watergate.

    The Repubs made him resign.

    The Demos don't have the morals to do so.

    Parent

    And despite all kinds of warnings, (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 06:36:26 PM EST
    the Bush administration wasn't prepared for the original attacks on 9/11/01; does "bin Laden determined to strike in US" ring any bells for you?

    And  I would seriously avoid any finger-pointing on the issue of "morals," for obvious reasons.

    Give it up, Jim; the dirt from the hole you're digging is just going to end up burying you.  As usual, but not before more of your lame nastiness...

    Parent

    Glad you brought the subject up (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 06:59:24 PM EST
    Let us look at an interview with Richard Clarke, Clinton's National Security Advisor, who Bush kept on in spite of the fact that Clarke certainly was no fan of Bush.

    RICHARD CLARKE:Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

    Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998.And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

    What this shows is that Clinton had let three very important issues slide for two years. You have to wonder if Clinton had supported the Northern Alliance in its fight with the Taliban would OBL ever been able to be in Afghanistan in the first place?

    And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

    This shows that the claim that Bush didn't immediately go after OBL to be a complete fiction.

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

    Again we see Bush taking action. Just days of him becoming President he decided to increase the CIA's resources 500%.

    Let's review.

    (Angle)QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the -- general animus against the foreign policy?

    CLARKE:I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

    JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

    CLARKE: All of that's correct.

    Link

    Now, let's just forget about the fact that in the May time frame we had an international incident with Communist China. Our leaders must be able to focus on several things at once. I think you Demos say it is Obama playing 11 Dimensional Chess. (sarcasm alert)

    Anyway. What did this ramped up activity yield in the way of intelligence? Let's look at another interview. This time with Condi Rice, Bush's NSA. The subject is a meeting on July 5, 2001.

    "At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115170,00.html">Link

    Now that was 31 days prior to the infamous PDB that all the Demos like to refer and claim that Bush paid no attention. OF COURSE HE DIDN'T. HE ALREADY KNEW WHAT THE BRIEFER WAS SAYING 31 DAYS BEFORE. The guy was lucky. If I had been Bush I would have fired him on the spot for wasting my time and then fired his boss for wasting my time in a CYA exercise.

    So you see, the facts are against you. What you need to do is to quit relying on KOS, MSNBC, MediaMatteres and ThinkProgress for your "talking points."

    Parent

    More, silly Fox News stories (none / 0) (#106)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 08:53:18 PM EST
    So you see, the facts are against you. What you need to do is to quit relying on KOS, MSNBC, MediaMatteres and ThinkProgress for your "talking points."

    THAT, from a guy who gets his "facts" from Fox News is pretty funny.

    But lets take a look at the real facts behind the Fox "facts" you keep repeating:

    1)  Richard Clarke - So you're impressed by the fact that Clarke - who was working directly for Bush at the time - did was he was told and attempted to defend Bush's lousy record?

    Heh.

    What else did he say about this massive "500%" increase in (unspecified) spending at the 9/11 hearings?  He said: "I was asked to make that case to the press. I was a special assistant to the President, and I made the case I was asked to make... I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done."

    In short, he was spinning for Bush, because that was his job.

    What did he say when he wasn't acting as a spokesperson for Bush?

    1.  In the summer of 2001 the intelligence community was convinced of an imminent attack by Al Qaeda, but could not get the attention of the highest levels of the Bush administration.

    2.  The Bush administration was distracted from efforts against Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization by a pre-occupation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

    3.  After 9/11, Bush administration officials were pre-occupied with finding a link between Iraq and 9/11.

    4.  Clarke also testified that the Clinton administration DID have a plan for dealing with Al Quaeda, which sat for 8 months while Bush focused on Saddam.

    During Clarke's earlier testimony, he stated that Bill Clinton did not have a comprehensive plan on dealing with terrorism. During later testimony, he stated that President Clinton did have a comprehensive plan on dealing with terrorism.

    Rice's self-serving interview on Fox re: the July 5 meeting is also one of your favorite, silly claims - oft repeated, with a few inconvenient facts omitted.  Problem is, the 9/11 Commission looked at that meeting, and didn't forget those facts:

    1.  The July 5 meeting focused on overseas threats.

    2.  The domestic agencies had no "playbook" to deal with these threats and were given no instructions to come up with one.

    3.  The attendees were specifically instructed they couldn't disseminate the information they were given at the meeting.

    Those "fact" things, Jim.  So inconvenient, huh?

    Heh.

    Parent

    So, what special measures did they (none / 0) (#107)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:25:26 PM EST
    take, jim?  You know, since they had two months between that July 5 meeting and the actual attacks on 9/11.  Please, tell us - we're all on the edges of our seats, waiting for the next chapter in this story you're spinning.

    Relying on Fox News for your "facts" means that you get only the ones that fit the message they're pushing.

    And for what it's worth, jim, I don't get my facts from the outlets you referenced - for the same reasons: I don't just want to know a party line - I want to know as much as there is to know so that I can make up my own mind.

    Thinking for one's self is a lost art, apparently, but you might want to take a stab at it.

    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#146)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 11:07:39 PM EST
    Evidently they didn't take special measures.

    Of course since no one knew HOW the attack would occur it would have been difficult outside of closing down airports, buildings, etc.

    Of course OBAMA HAD THE FACT THAT 9/11 HAD OCCURRED AND STILL ALLOWED AN EMBASSY TO BE UNGUARDED.

    Criminal in my view.

    And what I have given you is AN INTERVIEW.

    Are you saying Clarke lied??

    Parent

    "In my view" being the most relevant (none / 0) (#148)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 11:48:50 PM EST
    phrase in your post.

    Your view is also one that portrays an AA president you resent as a half-naked African witchdoctor, and can't be forced to consider the possibility that the Bush administration might have made mistakes in the run-up to 9/11.

    The upshot being that your view is about as fair-minded and reliable as the distorting mirror in a carnival funhouse.

    Parent

    jondee makes things up..... (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:01:18 PM EST
    But what's new??

    I never said mistakes weren't made. Obviously the various departments warned on 7/5 didn't move quickly enough and the FBI was too frightened of being non PC to look at the hard drive.. Those were definite mistakes.

    But the claim that Bush did nothing is BS. Go back and read what Clarke said.. The increase in spending by 5 fold.. the continuation of the lethal findings from Clinton's admin..

    My point was, is and will remain, that Obama's minions, and that includes Hillary, ignored what was going on in Libya, ignored the fact that 9/11 was the anniversary of 9/11.... and then didn't make an all out effort to rescue them and lied and lied...

    Parent

    Makes things up.. (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 10:45:16 AM EST
    So, you don't feature a mawkish, racist, 19th century picture of Obama at your blog?

    And lets face it, when it comes to Bush and the 3,000 dead on 9/11, unlike Benghazi, the buck has always stopped for you everywhere but the Whitehouse: you spin like Hannity on methamphetamine.

    Parent

    Speaking of "lied and lied ..." (none / 0) (#156)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:09:53 PM EST
    My point was, is and will remain, that Obama's minions, and that includes Hillary, ignored what was going on in Libya, ignored the fact that 9/11 was the anniversary of 9/11.... and then didn't make an all out effort to rescue them and lied and lied...

    What do you call repeating baseless accusations with no evidence?

    But it's interesting how - under Bush - the buck stops with the "various departments" who's hands were tied, because Condi Rice had one meeting that focused on overseas threats.

    Heh.

    Parent

    By "they", you mean the Bush admin (none / 0) (#150)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 08:22:04 AM EST
    Evidently they didn't take special measures.

    Of course they didn't.  Because the only meeting on the subject gave them no game plan and focused on overseas threats, as testified by the participants in that meeting.  Not to mention the fact that they were prohibited from sharing the little (and vague) information they were given.

    But if by "they", you mean the people in charge (the Bush admin), then you may be right.


    Of course OBAMA HAD THE FACT THAT 9/11 HAD OCCURRED AND STILL ALLOWED AN EMBASSY TO BE UNGUARDED.

    Curious - do you think lies become more believable if they are in caps?  The embassy in Libya is in Tripoli.  The building in question was a diplomatic mission or consulate, not an "embassy".  More importantly, Ambassador Stevens knew the situation in Benghazi (as in most war zones) was extremely dangerous, but knew that he wouldn't be able to do his job from inside the protected walls of the embassy in Tripoli.  He also refused (twice) offers of additional security before the attack.  Of course, it probably didn't help that Republicans have consistently voted to cut diplomatic security.  OTOH, both the State Department and SOS HC acknowledged they were responsible for any weaknesses in security.  Contrast this with Bush (and you) pointing the finger at everyone else for 9-11.

    And what I have given you is AN INTERVIEW.

    Are you saying Clarke lied

    No - what he was doing was what he was asked to do by Bush ... spin.  It was his job.

     Clarke:  I was asked to make that case to the press. I was a special assistant to the President, and I made the case I was asked to make... I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done.  And as a special assistant to the President, one is frequently asked to do that kind of thing.

    Of course, once Clarke was free to give his own opinion of the Bush administration efforts, he made it clear that no one was listening about the threat of Al Quaeda because they were focused on Saddam Hussein and tax cuts.

    Heck'uva job, Bushie!

    Oops.

    Parent

    So you are saying that Clarke was (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 06:53:41 PM EST
    lying.....??

    Really?

    You're desperate, aren't you!

    ;-)

    Parent

    Do you actually read ... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 06:59:57 PM EST
    ... the posts you're responding to?  Because the only other options are a serious, reading comprehension problem, or you just prefer to intentionally misrepresent what you just read.  But okay, I'll spell it out again using small words for you.

    Clarke was not lying - he was spinning for his boss, which is what he said in the quote I provided.  Of course, when he was free to voice his own opinion, he pointed out the multitude of problems he faced trying to get Bush to pay attention to the threat of Al Quaeda instead of his obsession with Saddam.  OTOH - Clarke had high praise for the Clinton admin.

    The truth hurts, huh, Jim?  Guess that's why you make things up instead of addressing the facts.

    Parent

    Please quit with the reframe. (none / 0) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:08:29 PM EST
    Was Clarke lying when he said:

    Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998.And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

    or this??

    And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

    or this?

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.


    Parent
    Is English your second language? (none / 0) (#157)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:27:38 PM EST
    He was spinning for his boss, as was his job at the time, as he pointed out in the quote about this very subject.  He wasn't giving his own assessment - he was doing his job as a special assistant to Bush, who told him to do it.

    So, for example, he could make the following (meaningless) quote which you offer as evidence of Bush's strong efforts, but which (in reality) means nothing:

       So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

    Really?  It was "decided in principle" - as opposed to actual practice?  "To increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Quaeda".  Really?  What resources?  How much went toward the "example" of covert resources, and how much of that increase in covert resources was dedicated to Al Quaeda, as opposed to what Clarke pointed out was the real obsession in the early Bush administration - Iraq and Saddam?  Clarke never says.  It doesn't mean he was "lying".  It means he was spinning for his boss (as was his job) - offering meaningless sentences that make it sound like Bush was doing something about Al Quaeda to people who have weak reading comprehension skills.

    OTOH, when he was no longer acting on behalf of the Bush WH and was free to give his own assessment, his opinions were strong and clear.  Bush and his admin were focused on Iraq and Saddam, and he couldn't get anyone to focus on Al Quaeda.

    Heck'uva job, Bushie!

    Parent

    It aint spinning (none / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 07:53:11 AM EST
    if it is the truth.

    Of course if the truth hurts your claims I can see why you whine.

    Parent

    IF it's the truth. (none / 0) (#161)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 06:58:40 PM EST
    Exactly.  Not to mention the fact that Clarke himself, when he wasn't acting as a spokesman for Bush (his job), made it clear that Bush did nothing about Al Quaeda because he was focused on Iraq and Saddam.

    Of course if the truth hurts your claims I can see why you whine.

    Parent

    Uh, let's review (none / 0) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 04:10:59 PM EST
    JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

    CLARKE: All of that's correct.

    Very powerful actions.

    Of course you will mealy mouth it.

    It is what you do.

    Parent

    "Very powerful" - heh (none / 0) (#163)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 06:42:48 PM EST
    I'm not the one "mealy-mouthing" it - that would be Clarke, because he was trying to spin the best he could - and precisely what he admitted.

    Interesting, though ... Angle didn't ask (and Clarke didn't say) what this "five-fold increase" in covert action was spent on.  Of course, we also know Clarke said no one in the Bush administration would listen to him re: Al Quaeda  because they were so obsessed with Iraq/Saddam.  Not to mention the fact that the end of the summer was 10 days after 9-11.

    But what was Clarke's own assessment when he wasn't doing his job as an advisor spinning for Bush?

    As Clarke himself noted, his position as counterterrorist czar was immediately downgraded after Bush took office:


    Rice decided that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism would also be downgraded. No longer would the Coordinator be a member of the Principals Committee. No longer would the CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] report to the Principals, but instead to a committee of Deputy Secretaries. No longer would the National Coordinator be supported by two NSC Senior Directors or have the budget review mechanism with the Associate Director of OMB [Office of Management and Budget].

    No longer a "principal" himself, Clarke had to lobby Rice and others to organize a meeting of the Principals Committee on the Al Qaeda threat. But nearly eight months passed before the meeting finally occurred -- a week before September 11, 2001.

    Clinton, according to Clarke, understood the gravity of the situation and became increasingly obsessed with stopping Al-Qaeda. He had developed workable plans but was hamstrung by political infighting and the sex scandal that led to his impeachment. But Bush and his advisers, Clarke says, didn't get it before 9/11 and they didn't get it after, taking a unilateral approach that seemed destined to lead to more attacks on Americans and American interests around the world

    But those inclined to believe Clarke will find that he makes a devastating case about the Bush administration's failure from the beginning (when Clarke's position was downgraded and he was taken off the top-level Principals Committee) to make terrorism as high a priority as Clinton's did

    Heckuva job, Bushie!

    Parent

    The Republicans didn't make Nixon resign. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 05:54:42 PM EST
    The president resigned on August 9, 1974 because he was within days of being impeached by the House, due to the totality and convincing nature of the evidence against him.

    Fact of the matter, Jim, is that 13 days earlier, 11 of the 17 Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee had voted against the articles of impeachment against Nixon. But while the president probably still retained the loyalty of the majority of congressional Republicans, enough of them were breaking ranks with the GOP caucus that when combined with Democratic votes, the president's impeachment and removal were all but foregone conclusions, had he decided to try to hang onto his office.

    Nixon needed at least 34 GOP senators in his corner to survive in Congress, but by that point only the most stubbornly obtuse could continue to deny the president's culpability in Watergate. Sen. Barry Goldwater, et al., arrived at the White House on the night of August 7 to inform Nixon that he could no longer count on a sufficient number of Senate Republicans to act as his firewall against removal.

    In announcing his resignation to the country the following evening, Nixon bowed to the inevitable, but he did so of his own accord. Republicans didn't compel him to do anything, but what Goldwater did make clear was that if Nixon indeed gave a rip about his party, then the White House should not put his fellow Republicans on the spot, because they could not guarantee a positive outcome for him.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Right, Jim - you Repubs are ... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 06:12:20 PM EST
    ... the ones with "morals".

    Newt Gingrich.

    Rush Limbaugh.

    David Vitter.

    John Ensign.

    Mark Souder.

    Mark Sanford.

    Vito Fossella.

    Larry Craig.

    Mark Foley.

    Steve Latourette .

    Etc., etc., etc. ...

    Yes, Republicans "have morals" enough for a few of them to join Democrats to impeach a President who was actually caught engaging in illegal activities, but those Democrats refuse to impeach Obama for offenses that exist only in the vivid imaginations of the wingnuts.

    Heh.

    Parent

    "Proof"? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 02:32:24 PM EST
    Of what, exactly?

    Parent
    I'm loving it (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 04:25:04 PM EST
    Yman trying to change the subject.

    ;-)

    I'm loving it, Jim (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 06:00:38 PM EST
    Jim, unable to answer a simple question - to specify what wingnut, Benghazi lie he thinks has been proven by the release of the Senate report.

    Does it prove that Rice/Obama lied when they said the attack may have been sparked by the video?

    Nope.  Just the opposite, in fact.  The report shows that the CCTV video that showed no protests evidence that there were no protests at the facility prior to the attack was not reviewed until two days after Rice's interviews.  The FBI did not disseminate its interviews with witnesses until two days later, and the CIA did not update its analysis to reflect this new information until Sept. 24th.

    But Jim thinks it was known/proven within an hour of the attack, and that the Senate report supports these wingnut, conspiracy theories.

    Moreover, "The Majority concludes that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to "cover-up" facts or make alterations for political purposes."

    Heh.

    I'm loving it.

    Parent

    Yay! Broncos! (none / 0) (#34)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 05:04:06 PM EST


    Yes...One more time GO BRONCOS (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 05:14:16 PM EST
    It is a beautiful happy day here in Denver!

    Parent
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 253 (none / 0) (#49)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:11:51 AM EST
    His heart isn't healthy enough for sex, because he ain't got one. (link)

    v. 252
    v. 251

    Happy MLK day, y'all.

    9th Ckt: Bloggers have 1st Amendment Rights (none / 0) (#51)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:30:33 AM EST
    - like Journalists - Jonathan Turley

    "The decision came in a defamation lawsuit where the panel ordered a new trial in the case of Crystal L. Cox, a blogger from Eureka, Montana. Cox was sued for defamation by attorney Kevin Padrick and his company, Obsidian Finance Group LLC, after she wrote about what she viewed as fraud, corruption, money-laundering and other illegal activities."

    "The opinion was handed down on January 17, 2014 in Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox."
    NFL Bragging.. (none / 0) (#52)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 10:21:41 AM EST
    I rarely do this except with sports, I called the Broncos/Seahawks around week 8 right here at TL.

    It is a rare year in which the 4 best teams are in the conference championships.  Never mind the seeding, it's complete BS with the wild card teams.  And yesterday IMO the two better teams won.  San Fran can play better, but they are not consistent and I didn't see any scenario in with the Pats could beat the Broncos.  Ditto for the Hawks, I don't see any scenario in which they put up more points that the Broncos, well one, Manning gets hurt and can't play.

    I am too lazy too look it up, but it's also rare for the two #1 seeds to actually end up at the SB, in years past one of those spots has gone to a wild card team more times than not.

    I also get NFL depression once the playoffs start, no Monday/Thursday night football and while the Saturday games help, it totally sucks knowing that there is only one game left for the next 8 months, and even then, it take about 5 weeks before the truly interesting part of the game to take shape, the match-ups.

    I know the NFL said they would call the game if the weather is too ridiculous, but I can't see that happening unless it's like Ice Bowl conditions.  I am hoping for some snow and maybe in the 20's game, might be the last chance we have a championship game up north and outside.

    Yesterday was awesome, beyond the game, the storylines with Brady and Manning and Harbaugh and Carroll and many others, always adds layers to the game making it that much more interesting.

    According to the folks at ESPN, ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 11:45:40 AM EST
    ... this will mark only the third time in the last 20 years that the two top seeds have met in the Super Bowl. The last time was New Orleans v. Indianapolis in Super Bowl XLVIII, and before that, Pittsburgh v. Dallas in Super Bowl XXIX back in the 1995-96 season.

    Parent
    Another factoid? (none / 0) (#57)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 12:19:52 PM EST
    Top Offense v. Top Defense ... always makes for lively speculation, at least.

    Parent
    And no home field advantage, either. (none / 0) (#109)
    by EL seattle on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 01:56:56 AM EST
    Probably no mile high elevation benefit for Denver, and no CLink stadium noise benefit for Seattle.

    Parent
    First time since the 1991 Super Bowl (XXV). (none / 0) (#133)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 03:26:24 PM EST
    And of course, that particular Super Bowl ended up being a rather exciting affair that went down to the final play, when the Buffalo Bills' Scott Norwood hooked that 47-yd. field goal attempt just one yard to the right as time expired, giving the New York Giants a dramatic 20-19 victory. It remains the only Super Bowl game to ever be decided by one point, and I consider it to be one of the best ever played.

    I always thought it too bad that the Bills were never able to fulfill their promise, losing the next three successive Super Bowls by lopsided margins. That team was the only one to ever appear in more than two Super Bowls in a row, which is a singular accomplishment in itself.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The buzz around Buffalo was always (none / 0) (#140)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 06:45:42 PM EST
    that Kelly, Reed, Smith & co listened to Marv Levy about as much as Ali listened to Angelo Dundee in between rounds. Kelly wanted to run the k-gun offense all the time, which wore out the offense and didn't give the defense enough of a break. Marv is a great guy, but those guys needed a, shall we say, firmer hand; a P arcells type. But, the last time Old Man Potter shelled out big bucks for a coach was in the seventies when they went after Chuck Knox.

    Parent
    In the words (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 01:39:05 PM EST
    of the late, great Warren Zevon, that Richard Sherman's a bit of an "excitable boy". I hope Carroll has the good sense to put a gag on him for the next two weeks,because the press is going to do everything in their power to coax some quotable smack out of him..

    Multi-dimensional chess? (none / 0) (#108)
    by EL seattle on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 01:50:16 AM EST
    Maybe they're setting up some mind games for Jersey.

    Personally, I'm still trying to figure out what was planned, what was improvised, and what was just random in that fourth-and-seven non-field goal double-count free pass that provided a touchdown to gave the Seahawks the lead in the 4th quarter.

    It wound up being a thing of beauty, but it sure didn't seem like that at the time.

    Parent

    Carroll doesn't need to gag Sherman (none / 0) (#110)
    by BeDazzled on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 03:42:43 AM EST
    He's a very smart player and is always out-spoken. But, he knows when to speak and when not to. He is not going to say anything that will pump up the opponent between now and SB Sunday.

    There is so much written on Sherman out on the net that gives a really honest view of who he is. It's entertaining reading, as well.

    Parent

    Umm, did you read what Carrol said? (none / 0) (#126)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 12:50:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Ummm, I sure did (none / 0) (#159)
    by BeDazzled on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 08:27:51 PM EST
    but, it seems you will find whatever you want in between the lines.

    The years have not been kind to you.


    Parent

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 254 (none / 0) (#115)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 08:58:36 AM EST
    From the as*hole who brought you a completely clueless use of the phrase "mentally retarded" yesterday. (link)

    v. 253
    v. 252

    Peace, my friends. Again, to The Capstan I extend my deepest apologies. I couldn't feel like more of a prick.

    I Sympathize... (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 09:45:58 AM EST
    ...but that word has been off limits for a while, right there with calling dudes, girlie parts names, and/or homosexual slurs.

    My childhood repertoire has been reduced to almost nothing in the past decade, which stinks, but if the price is not hurting a lot of folks feelings, I can live with that.

    But the regulars know you didn't mean any disrespect.

    Parent

    I'm a dick (none / 0) (#118)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 10:25:20 AM EST
    Here's the deal. 20 years ago, I worked with both at-risk youth who were gang members AND developmentally disabled adults. And that is the term I use, developmentally disabled. I don't used mentally retarded in that context. I should've used addled in my haste, but, to be bone honest, I don't like addled.

    Either way, I suck.

    Parent

    Next time go with "twisted" (none / 0) (#119)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 10:41:18 AM EST
    "stunted", "degenerate", "imbecilic" etc etc

    And don't beat yourself up; it never does any good. Retard.

    Parent

    thank you from the wretch ;-) (none / 0) (#120)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 10:46:39 AM EST
    i think i can take off the hair shirt, which i donned in shame with genuine contrition. as deserved. The end.

    Parent
    The Coup -- "Land of 7 Billion Dances" (none / 0) (#121)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 11:05:41 AM EST
    These inner-city Oakland kids bend it way better than Beckham. (link)

    Betting op: (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 11:51:18 AM EST
    perfect NCAA bracket =1billion dollars

    Latest Q Poll (none / 0) (#124)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 12:17:45 PM EST
    Christie drops to a close 3rd trailing both Paul and Ryan for the GOP nomination.

    More meaningful (or to show the meaninglessness of the poll), no Republican polls higher than 12%.

    The shadow lurking while the others continue to harm themselves could be Mike Huckabee. (Q doesn't sample him)

    Same poll - General Election...Hillary in a rout.

    Well, one thing's for sure. (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 03:36:03 PM EST
    We don't have to worry about former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell as a prospective GOP presidential candidate any more. Both he and wife Maureen were indicted today on federal corruption charges.

    Parent
    It's To the Point... (none / 0) (#135)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 03:53:44 PM EST
    ...of becoming a curse.

    this is funny, yet alarming:

    In exchange, authorities allege, the McDonnells worked in concert to lend the prestige of the governorship to Williams' struggling company, a small former cigarette manufacturer that now sells dietary supplements.

    They said the first couple arranged access for the CEO to top state officials, allowed the historic governor's mansion to be used for a launch party for his company's new non-FDA approved pill and attended events designed to boost the company's prestige with university scientists who might research the company's product.

    Of all manufactures that should be getting into the supplement game, seems like cigarette manufacture would be right there with asbestos manufactures.  The jokes just write themselves.

    Jim, you were saying something about morals yesterday...

    Parent

    Typo - No one higher than 13% (none / 0) (#125)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 12:19:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#129)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 02:34:18 PM EST
    This is the biggest problem right now:

    American voters are divided 35 percent to 36 percent on whether Christie would make a good president, the latest survey shows, down from 49 percent who had a positive view of his ambitions in the university's November survey


    Parent
    Police Sketch (none / 0) (#130)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 02:40:52 PM EST
    Check THIS out, it's the sketch of an armed robber.

    Sunday Morning Open Thread | 163 comments (163 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment