Sunday Night Open Thread

On my agenda: Homeland and the Good Wife. Here's a new open thread, all topics welcome.

< ISIS Releases Dabiq No. 4 : Yazidis, Sotloff and Attacks on the West | Oscar Pistorius Sentencing Hearing Begins >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Naguib Mahfouz's "Morning and Evening (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 12, 2014 at 08:45:48 PM EST
    Talk."  Such a great writer. Excellent translation.

    PS. NYT article today on whether reading a book to a child on a tablet has the same benefit as reading the child an actual book.  Although not definitive, the answer seems to be "no."  

    Cards squeak out a (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 12, 2014 at 10:57:46 PM EST
    5 to 4 victory over Giants in the 9 th to tie the series 1 - 1.

    got a call from a good friend of mine (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 12:40:32 AM EST
    yesterday and I answered with "so how did the ducks do?" (I don't follow any sports but she is a major ducks fan) she answered "well they won but played badly and if I didn't care about how they played I would just be happy about the win". IMO sports fans are nuts (including my very close and dear friend - she is nuts).  ;)

    Of course she's nuts. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 02:31:30 AM EST
    Anyone who roots for the Oregon Ducks has got to be nuts. The only fans who are worse are those of us who root for the Washington Huskies. At least, that's what Ducks fans will tell you.

    And while we're on the subject, I heard that the University of Oregon has decided to replace the turf at Austen Stadium with cardboard, because the Ducks always look better on paper.



    :) Well I suppose I can sort of understand (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 09:10:46 AM EST
    because this was her father.

    Donald, you know I hate to (none / 0) (#94)
    by fishcamp on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 06:11:45 PM EST
    agree with you but it's all true about the Oregon Ducks and the Washington Huskies.  Nobody down here cares about the Trailblazers or even your Seahawks.  btw it's Autzen Stadium in Eugene.

    We Ducks will be playing (none / 0) (#129)
    by fishcamp on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 07:48:12 AM EST
    you Huskies next, but I think you are the underdogs,  pun intended.

    Well I guess everyone has a different (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 07:00:06 AM EST
    definition of nuts. For some, like you, it is sports fans. For others, like me, it would be someone who would eat a piece of meat that has.been blow torched.

    This gives me an idea (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 09:25:50 AM EST
    for a dinner with artist friends who are sports nuts. Menu: start with a bowl of toasted nuts and cocktails. Then more cocktails and/or wine and a Jackson Pollock salad to nibble on while I attempt to make Lautrec steak -a squeaky link -on the fire in the fireplace (with real wood not one of those pressed logs). That would take so long that everyone would just go to sleep on the couches and floor. Second course, steak and eggs in the morning. Dessert: Mondrian cake.  By that time it is time for everyone to just get back to work in their studios.

    Oh, forgot, (none / 0) (#20)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 09:28:19 AM EST
    some blow torched ribs ribs for starters too. Gotta have more of that fire action. We could all bring our studio torches and the piece(s of food) would be interactive.

    Several years ago in Paris, (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by fishcamp on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 06:23:03 PM EST
    the hipest of the hip would hang upside down and have their hair cut by blow torch.  That fad flamed out, so to speak, after some trips to the hospital.

    I would think that the smell... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by unitron on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 10:30:53 PM EST
    ...would have made that the shortest lived fad in history.

    Link? (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 08:36:58 PM EST
    No torch and probably (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 11:47:10 PM EST
    not in Paris:

    upside down haircut


    Oculus, the hair story (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by fishcamp on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 07:44:18 AM EST
    was told to me in Paris by French friends while discussing my need of a haircut.  For you to dispute the veracity of my story is disturbing.  Also your upside down man cutting his hair has nothing in common with the recent blowtorch stories.  The upside down illustration does, but the subject, in my mind was the blowtorch.  But that's ok since neither story is important.

    FC, further research uncovered a buddy (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 09:17:24 AM EST
    video where one drunk guy cuts off part of his drunk companion's super long goatee. Is that closer to being ON topic?

    No (none / 0) (#136)
    by fishcamp on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 12:49:00 PM EST
    You have morphed into a harsh (none / 0) (#137)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 01:52:06 PM EST

    Yes, I think you are right about (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by fishcamp on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 04:20:22 PM EST
    that Oculus.  It must be the seven Outlander books I have been reading, where the Scottish were criticized, and then killed.  Maybe when I finish the series, I will morph back into the kind, and gentle fisherman of the past.  The Tannasgeach, Scottish spirits, must have gotten a hold on me.  Only half a book to go.

    Is there any documented cause and effect re (none / 0) (#145)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 04:24:04 PM EST
    reading this series and overt (as opposed to subverted via blog comments) violence?

    I can see where you might think (none / 0) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 09:40:05 AM EST
    taking the chance of "torching the food with a dirty flame", having "raw fuel being blown onto the food" similar to an "old, carbureted car" might be a fun thing to do.

    Source: Modernist Cuisine


    Lautrec steak (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 10:56:16 AM EST
    my favorite part of that is that you cook three and throw two away.  
    So much for starving artists.

    Think Again (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 11:03:23 AM EST
    So much for starving artists.

    Why do you think that they are starving?

    I think that this is a perfect example...  

    IOW it does not make sense
    IOW artists do things that may not be in their best financial interests because they are too busy chasing an inspiration.


    Honestly (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 11:07:31 AM EST
    i thought it was revolting.  Talk about offensive conspicuous consumption.  If that's not the definition hard to imagine what would be.

    Just MO.


    And the finished steak didn't even (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 11:15:22 AM EST
    look very appealing.

    It looked good to me (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 04:16:17 PM EST
    It reminded me of how my grandmother would prepare some meats.  But at one time all she had was a cast iron fry pan for such things, and a wood stove.

    Art (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 11:17:08 AM EST
    hard to imagine what would be.

    How about art?

    Lautrec was an aristocrat, and would never be moved to do anything that resembled conspicuous consumption.

    As far as imagination Artists, and particularly great ones, are wired differently. As you know, they have an abundance of imagination.


    Truth (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 11:31:14 AM EST
    squeaky: "IOW artists do things that may not be in their best financial interests because they are too busy chasing an inspiration."

    ... in a world which does not take very kindly to individuals whose very lives serve as models of impracticality.

    Not to rain on people's creative parades, but one still has to eat and find shelter, and it is probably not wise to emulate Blanche DuBois and depend upon the kindness of strangers for one's succor and well-being.

    That's why those who do survive and eventually thrive in pursuit of the arts, are not so proud that they won't wait and bus tables at The Cheesecake Factory.



    Donald, respectfully don't agree (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 04:59:16 PM EST
    First, who considers artists to be impractical? They are wrong if they do. Yes, sometimes artists do things that are not in their best financial interests, but so does pretty much everyone.

    Every artist I know had or still has a "day job". Artists are their own bosses - they have to manage their time and money. They have to provide their own benefit packages. They do not get overtime pay. They have to promote their work. They have to provide discipline to their practice. They have to work A LOT. They have to be able do do public speaking and have the social skills to intermingle with even extremely wealthy people. They probably do not have any of those skills as native talents, so they have to work very hard to develop them over time.


    ... not all impractical people are artists. I agree with you, because most of the artists I've known have also held other jobs to pay the bills.

    I'd say most are not involved in the arts to make a living, but rather for their own sense of being and self-fulfillment. If they can somehow make a living at it, that's great, but the notion of a big payday is usually not their primary motivation for creative self-expression.

    We have a neighbor who's heavily involved in local community theatre, to the point where she's garnered some considerable renown. She not only acts but also directs as well; her work is generally well-received and I'd say she's very good at what she does. But her longtime day job has been teaching high school English at President Obama's alma mater. She just so happens to love the stage, and her paycheck from Punahou affords her the opportunity to indulge her artistic side.



    Well, Donald, (none / 0) (#90)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 05:33:52 PM EST
    lots of people do some sort of athletic expression too. But to do a sport as a profession - that takes something else than just wanting to express their athletic interests. And not all sports nuts :) are aggressive bullies or thick skulled jocks. So, keeping in mind our cultural unquestioned prejudices, not all artists are impractical.

    Don't forget that artists have to be (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 08:39:31 PM EST
    to write successful grant proposals.

    Ha! haven't heard back and actually (none / 0) (#115)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 10:30:22 PM EST
    I don't think I fit the criteria very well so if I was the committee I wouldn't give my grant proposal the approval either. No worries. The writing for the grant was a great exercise and got my thinking much straighter. I have not even finished with the installation fully yet. Still I previewed it to 5 people in the last 2 weeks with verbal explanations of the finished installation. This has been a fascinating project for me - the art is very comfortable, but the $ grant process is not for me. But I am determined to learn to write better and not just conversationally, and thank god for spell check.

    Also (to Donald) (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 05:27:50 PM EST
    the art world is extremely political. So artists need to become aware of that and manage their part of it. They have to have a working knowledge of art jargon and the art theories of the day, and of yesteryears.

     Artists have to develop thick skins and just get over getting personally trashed in the screaming headlines of newspapers and magazines - and blogs. In a small city like Portland artists cannot act like buffoons and all vain or they will p*ss other people off or even invite jealousy from other arts people. They have to learn how, and when to stick up for themselves and not always be too "nice" either (and get rolled into doing things that are not good for their art or careers).

    They have to manage always getting hit up for art donations since many organizations think an artist's time is not valuable and know they can profit from those donations. They have to be able to handle so very many people who think artists should get a "real" job - even family.

    If you think that politics is political, try the politics of the art world.


    The art world has it's propagandizing (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 01:58:52 PM EST
     money=speech problems and outright frauds just as much as the political world does.

    Take Jeff Koons and the dog shooter for instance..


    what is the dog shooter? (none / 0) (#151)
    by ZtoA on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 06:36:36 PM EST
    PETA (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 10:24:12 AM EST
    jondee's PETA subscription alerted him to this artist.

    His name is Tom Otterness and he is not only a great artist but a great human being. PETA (and jondee) have been using him as propaganda for their cause.

    "Thirty years ago when I was 25 years old, I made a film in which I shot a dog. It was an indefensible act that I am deeply sorry for. Many of us have experienced profound emotional turmoil and despair. Few have made the mistake I made. I hope people can find it in their hearts to forgive me -- Tom Otterness."  

    It appears that the act Otterness is being punished for, is really self serving publicity for politicians, PETA, and at least one artist who put a bronze sculpture of a man shooting a dog in the subway along with Otterness other bronzes.

    Really stupid. People feel good about themselves and use Otterness to make themselves look like moral upstanding citizens by trying to trash him and his art.

    His art is great, and his huge success is a testament to his hard work, talent and perseverance.


    Oh forgive us (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 03:00:06 PM EST
    our lack of immediate forgiveness - we're just in a dark place right now.

    Exploring the transgressive-poetic limits of righteous indignation..
    Tom would understand. Some of our resident philistines, sadly, not so much.

    So, TO wasn't at all being "self-serving" and self-promoting with his nihilist-chic animal snuff film schtick? Wasn't in any way succumbing to a willing-to-do-anything-to-get-your-name-out-there instinct? The conceptualizing, staging, and (of course unintentional) distributing of the film were of course more regrettable oversights..  


    Immediate Forgiveness (none / 0) (#176)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 08:14:37 PM EST
    This happened almost 40 years ago.

    I know the man and he is a man of great integrity and an extraordinary human being, not to mention a great artist IMO.

    I did not know him when he was 25 years old.


    For those just learning of this now, (none / 0) (#177)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 08:38:16 PM EST
    it is like it just happened, and it doesn't matter to them that it happened 40 yeas ago; surely you can understand that.  That you consider him a man of integrity is all well and good, but for some people, "integrity" isn't what one thinks of when considering what he willfully  did.

    And for those who already knew, but have no personal relationship with the man, don't "know" him, well, they're still entitled to have an opinion that isn't in line with yours.


    Anne, a bit of context is needed here (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by ZtoA on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 09:14:57 PM EST
    in the 70s so very many artists were experimenting with the gross and the repulsive. I could give links if you wish. Shirley you can understand that. And yes, of course, you are totally entitled to your opinion. I just hope your opinion can become more informed about the context this horrible, repulsive, gross art was created in.

    I am listening to the audio book (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 12:56:09 AM EST
    of the novel "All the Light We Cannot See," by Anthony Doerr.  It includes the assertion Audubon shot and killed the birds he used as models for his famous paintings. Then he ate them.

    Several non-fiction sources confirm this. Here's one:


    Willfully Did? (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 09:15:22 PM EST
    The narrative is owned by PETA. It is the story that PETA wrote.  

    Otterness has sincerely apologized and wisely chosen not to explain or defend his act. He has moved on.

    He delights children, and many connoisseurs who find depth in his work. Many laypeople love his work as well.

    He is one of the most well known public artists.

    To trash the work he has done for the last 37 years because of the dog video is absurd. It speaks about people who could care less about art but have an axe to grind that has nothing to do with Otterness or his work.

    He is also one of the few political artists who has succeeded to make work that is not didactic and heavy handed. His work is  multi-faceted and has depth besides its politic.

    In no way is Otterness a psychopath, nor was he ever one. In fact he is an inspirational a model for anyone who has talent and a dream. Work extremely hard, preserver and you can find great success. Many with his talent never work as relentlessly as he did or preserver. And he has  done this with powerful enemies who want to crush him and destroy his career.


    I haven't "trashed" his work - I just (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 10:17:36 PM EST
    don't find it particularly to my taste.  Is that allowed?  I'm sorry, but many of his works resemble little plastic figures my kids, and now my grandson, played/play with.  There's a cuteness to them, if that's what you like, but I don't find them particularly "deep."

    I also never branded him a psychopath.

    And you have failed to address the point that, for those who are just learning of his history, it doesn't matter that it happened 37 years ago - it is as if it just happened.  Think of something you learned of for the first time that may have happened long ago, and how long it may have taken you to process and "move on."  

    I get that you think this guy hung the moon, maybe more so because you know him, and some may appreciate your personal take on the man, but have the courtesy to allow people the space to process in their own way and on their own timeline, and have opinions about what he did.


    so do you think the ABORTION (2.67 / 3) (#199)
    by ZtoA on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 02:15:19 AM EST
    gotten by Wendy Davis should "count' in her race for TX gov?? Does her "mistake"made a difference now?  Myabe you do - you and the teapartiers.

    Last time I looked abortion (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 07:57:43 AM EST
    was still legal in the U.S. I, also, don't recall Davis describing her abortion as a work of art..

    I think your comparison is really off the charts. To compare what to many is a painful decision to a man who made a conscious decision to go out and obtain a dog for the purpose of killing it is IMO rather gross. For there to be any type of true comparison, Davis would have had to make a conscious decision to get pregnant for the sole purpose of getting an abortion in order to help her political career.

    You, not any one else, are the one labeling Davis' decision a mistake. You, not anyone else, made the choice to make this comparison. You, not anyone else, brought Davis and her abortion into this discussion. You, not anyone else, are using the techniques of the tea party to rationalize killing a dog.



    Context Anne, context (none / 0) (#197)
    by ZtoA on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 10:40:15 PM EST
    You do not need to be so mean to someone who might know a little more than you on this one particular subject. You obviously do not care for the art field. But others do.

    You and many many many others have been critical of contemporary art. And I mean that from all times people do not like or understand contemporary art. You have every right to not like it. You and so very many people have that right - so it is always "allowed". You have equal "space" on TL, or anywhere, to have your valid opinions. All opinions are valid.

    I cannot and will not "defend" what this particular artist (or Koons either for that matter) did 37 years ago. But if one is not so reactive and emotive and "sensitive" about it then one - meaning you - might just be able to understand it more. Just a thought.


    Alerted me? (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 03:17:17 PM EST
    his Bob's Big Boy meets Blade Runner travesty is three blocks from my house.

    Thank God for C-4 and the fact that Halloween is coming (he said sardonically.)


    Oh poor you Jondee, living so near (2.33 / 3) (#174)
    by ZtoA on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 07:30:29 PM EST
    some public art which was commissioned and approved by committee. When a public art piece gets past a committee that means that someone on that committee advocated well for it. There's a lot of bad public art, but a lot of it is good too, and don't we want art to be around? -- not just war and the ten commandments? It's out there and people are welcomed to stick up their noses and say "Well it's not MY taste, My taste is just so much better than that". But, hey, I've said that too - the art is just out there and public dialog is invited. And the artist gets paid, sometimes a living wage.  

    Cute joke about blowing up a bronze public art piece that you personally don't like the artist and don't realize that that kind of art was not owned/expressed by one artist (matt groening) only. Forget Crumb? He had a few personal flaws too.

    I did not even know of his 70s despicable antics - only knew his bronzes. Lots of 70s art was gross - as in body fluids and gore and stupidness. It was only several years after an artist, Manzoni, canned his sh!t and sold it. Then he committed suicide. Yes the art world is nuts. Sports world is nuts. Lawyers and the legal field is nuts. Politics is nuts. Humanity is nuts.


    So at 25 years old (none / 0) (#158)
    by sj on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 12:46:55 PM EST
    Otterness' sense of right and wrong wasn't developed enough to know that it was wrong to adopt a dog from an animal shelter specifically for the purpose shooting it in the head and filming it?

    I hadn't heard of Otterness before, but if I ever hear his name again it will be in conjunction with "dog shooter" as well.

    If Mitt Romney's treatment of his family pet is still in play 31 years later, why shouldn't Otterness' despicable act also be?

    Granted, Otterness apologized. So what? He still did it. Just like Romney did.

    If he has such "huge success" you should feel very proud to stand by him.

    But that ain't "propaganda" dogging him. That's karma.


    Yes (none / 0) (#160)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 01:05:01 PM EST
    SJ punishments are US...

    Just like BushCO..

    He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday

    Of course it does not matter what the artist has said or who he is today, or what he has done since, you (of course knowing zero about the guy) has him as an EVIL person.

    Says something about you and nothing about Otterness.

    No wonder we are prison nation. All the christian types forgive themselves for never forgiving anyone else.


    wev (none / 0) (#161)
    by sj on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 01:55:57 PM EST
    I'm nothing to him. And my thoughts are nothing to him. He can sculpt away. That's fine.

    He did what he did. For good and ill. This action is ill indeed and seared into my memory. Dog shooter that he is.


    By the way (none / 0) (#162)
    by sj on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 01:59:52 PM EST
    sociopathy isn't really a curable condition. I'm sure lots of other sociopaths are also multidimensional and have done good and/or interesting things in their lives.

    But a sociopath is still a sociopath.

    But maybe adopting a dog just to shoot him and film it isn't sociopathic behavior to you.

    Says more about you than him.


    Get ready for some Nietzschean (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 03:12:51 PM EST
    art and artists are Beyond Good and Evil horsesheet..

    My response being, o.k  I'll tentatively accept that formulation, now what's Otterness's excuse?



    I suppose you simply write off (2.33 / 3) (#173)
    by ZtoA on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 07:10:28 PM EST
    Wagner too. And just so many others. Otterness apologized even. You might not like his art - many people do not - but many do and that includes the committees that have approved his very very many public art projects. Hate Keith Harring, hate Tom Otterness, hate cartoon and graphic novel art, but it IS a valid art expression.

    I think most people are capable of (4.00 / 4) (#179)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 08:49:01 PM EST
    nuanced, complex thought, and can acknowledge the existence of artistic talent without having much respect for the artist.

    Apologizing doesn't make it go away; when delivered sincerely, the apology conveys that the person is not a total sociopath and is capable of regret and a sense of right and wrong, but i don't know that people ever really, completely let it go.

    I have a good friend who has been involved in animal rescue for years - she has taken in probably hundreds of dogs and cats over the years, finding forever homes for many of them and incorporating the others into her family.  I've seen the look of gratitude that rescued animals have, and it frankly just sickens me to think about what Otterness did.  

    I won't apologize for that, or allow you or anyone else to use your art-world snobbery to invalidate how I feel about this.


    Really? (4.00 / 3) (#180)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 08:54:09 PM EST
    My goodness...all this emoting about art and art opinions?  Really?

    Think it's a interesting thread (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 09:04:35 PM EST
    personally being a known fool for dogs I am of course repelled.  And I wonder if he would be as quickly excused if he was killing dogs for money by fighting instead of for art.
    That said.  People do stupid things and then sometimes grow up.  I was only marginally familiar with the art so I googled.  I have to say I like it a lot.
    Would also mention that the search "Otterman Rochester sculpture" produced pics of the little dog he killed.  He will never escape this.  And he shouldn't.  He might agree.  He seems to have a lot of dog themed art.

    People do stupid things sometimes (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 09:14:21 PM EST
    I adore my dogs.  But people do stupid things that they regret.  I'm certain every single person in this thread has done that.  When I was a kid people shot dogs all the time.  People out of town around here still do, any stray dog near their property will be shot.

    Animal rights is fairly new, even considering that animals have feelings and deserve decent treatment is a fairly new social concept.


    It's an ugly thing Captain (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 09:20:40 PM EST
    But plenty of people get to "escape" much worse things that they have done.

    Interesting trivia? (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 09:29:52 PM EST
    i can't help remembering the most famous magazine cover in history, National Lampoons "buy this magazine or we will kill this dog"
    also a small black and white dog.  I checked the dates.  Lampoon was 73 his "art" was 77.  Are the two completely unrelated?  In no way comparing the events or excusing what he did.  Was it a twisted comment on the cover?
    Just wondering.

    That time frame (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 09:40:59 PM EST
    It was more socially accepted.  I remember as a child thinking a lot of adults were disgusting because they handled those kinds of realities very casually.  I was a strange kid though.  My father shot a deer, and I wouldn't eat any of it.  I was very angry with him and distrusting, thought he was evil.  I'm still not crazy about meat.  But my dogs are eating plenty of death of others, doesn't bother them a bit :)  If someone wanted to shoot their dog in the 70s though that was okay.  It might be considered slightly quirky to film it back then, but hardly criminal.

    You know what else I remember (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 09:47:48 PM EST
    About killing dogs in the 70s?  It seemed like either strychnine was more readily available and lots of dogs were poisoned, or there was a social myth of it happening all the time.

    Not myth around here (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 10:02:55 PM EST
    its why I keep my dogs behind a secure fence.  It happens here all the time. Not at all uncommon to shoot strays here either.  Just had a friend lose a dog to poison.   And she lived in as remote an area as you can imagine.
    Both are horrific but at the same time a stray can be a real threat.  To other smaller pets by aggression or disease or ever to small kids.    I would never kill a dog.  But I only pity the dogs not the owners.  IMO there is no good excuse for letting a dog run loose.  Especially a big one that can be a threat to pets or kids.

    Otterness (none / 0) (#182)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 09:10:21 PM EST
    you know what I mean

    "art world snobbery" (3.00 / 4) (#187)
    by ZtoA on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 09:27:00 PM EST
    man, there are so many snobs around here. 'Art-world' snobs do not rule here.

    "Snobs" come in all forms. "Snobs" hated Eakins, hated the impressionists, hated Stravinsky and on and on and on.

    Your attitudes are just so typical of people who actually don't know much about art or the so called "art-world". I do listen to them tho. But having had listened to them for simply decades and to hear the not-so-hidden distain in them I'm really tired of that.

    I am not, in any way, trying to invalidate your friend's experience or her sensitivities. They are wonderful actually. No one, I repeat, NO-ONE is trying to "invalidate" you or your views on animal cruelty! My bet would be that every one here agrees with you on that !  

    Look, Squeaky said he actually knows, in the flesh, this artist  and that should mean something. It does to me at least, and I had not known about the dog thing but had known of his public art works.


    Oh, poor you...again. (3.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 09:55:04 PM EST
    I honestly don't think I know anyone who talks out of as many sides of her mouth as you do. For which I am exceedingly grateful.

    Just so you know, "snobbery" is when someone who purports to have expertise mocks and belittles the opinions of others on the basis that they just "don't know much about art or the so called "art-world."

    News flash: I don't have to have an insider's view of the art world to know that "rescuing" a dog in order to kill it for "art" is reprehensible.  I happen to know someone in the public art field, and I can assure you that Lisa Kaslow didn't ever kill any animals to advance her vision or make her name.

    You don't know as much about me as you think you do, and your assumptions about what I do or don't know about art or the art world prove the truth of what happens when one makes those kinds of assumptions.  

    Lastly, and I hope it doesn't send you into a tizzy of self-pitying breast-beating, but having had more than a passing glimpse into the kind of person squeaky is, getting his seal of approval isn't exactly the ringing endorsement you think it is.


    Oy, what the hell Anne? (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 10:38:15 PM EST
    Anne, actually my breast feels just fine (3.00 / 4) (#195)
    by ZtoA on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 10:28:55 PM EST
    thank you for your concern.

    So this is about cliques. You are a clique person. I don't need anyone's 'approval' - least of all Your's! You are a TL ratings person - reads ratings which I do not, but now will.

    You have no idea how much I have had to deal with ('sensitive and nice' people IRL) people who have deep prejudices about art and artists and the art world. Sorry to 'go off' about this on TL, this is not the focus of TL, but you do know how to bait and provoke and I guess I have to read you when you directly respond to my comments. Otherwise I do not read any comment you make.

    You so obviously do not know anything about the arts since around 1900. It is just so obvious. I don't need to know you in real life to know that! No worries about that tho, most people don't and it really does not matter usually. Most people are at least not so judgmental and quick to their own snobbery as you. "Poor You" - having someone call you on your snobbery. Snobbery. ""the behavior or attitude of people who think they are better than other people". You think your un-infomed opinions are better than those who might actually know something about the field.

    I do not "talk out of different sides of my mouth" actually. I happen to know this field and talk with knowledge and context. You obviously do not know anything about this artist and what is more important you obviously do not know anything about the context of art making in the 60s or 70s.... or now either. But what is most important, you do not care. You do not care to look, be open, learn... maybe shake up your internal prejudices just a bit.


    What Otterness Did (3.00 / 2) (#188)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 09:28:04 PM EST
    it frankly just sickens me to think about what Otterness did.  

    You do not know what Otterness did.


    The act of shooting the dog (none / 0) (#163)
    by fishcamp on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 02:17:09 PM EST
    sounds more psychopathic than sociopathic to me.  They are almost the same except for the shooting.

    Akin to setting puppy dog tail's on fire. A (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 03:00:07 PM EST
    reliable diagnostic tool.

    I stand corrected, fishcamp (none / 0) (#164)
    by sj on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 02:22:55 PM EST
    Which came first: (none / 0) (#165)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 02:37:52 PM EST
    Otterness or Fisher Price Little People?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    Sorry - his art doesn't do much for me, although I will say there's an innocence about it, a cutesy rollie-pollie-ness that was what reminded me of the FP Little People.  

    If you told me the same artist that made those sculptures also "rescued" a dog in order to kill it for art's sake, I'd find something decidedly "off" about it.  Seems a little like over-compensation or something.


    His sculptures here (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 03:03:51 PM EST
    in Rochester are pure, minimalist Matt Groening knock-offs.

    Bart and Lisa after the Apocalypse.

    But the people in the Hamptons have spoken. Who are we to argue with the aesthetic judgments of the Gods and Market Forces?


    And may I just add: (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 03:16:24 PM EST
    "great human beings" do not rescue dogs in order to kill them; putting the act on film doesn't elevate it to art - at least not in my mind - in fact, it adds a level of depravity that is really quite disturbing.

    That he apologized for it is fine, I suppose, but what he did is always going to say something about him that will keep him out of the pantheon of "great" human beings.  As well it should.  It doesn't negate whatever good he's done since, and better that he did those good things - whatever they were or are, but still...it's hard to get completely past, at least it is for me.


    Poor Jeff Koons. His name has bern (none / 0) (#172)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 03:43:21 PM EST
    falsely sullied.  

    Plenty of artists sweat blood already (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 01:53:16 PM EST
    with little thanks or appreciation. Maybe for some there just isn't that much energy left over to suck up to Cheesecake Factory owner Stanly Kowalski.

    And practicality is sometimes grossly overrated. Expediency and practicality is the excuse our (alleged) statesman probably use to justify bowing and scraping before investment bankers and hedge fund managers.    


    jondee, I agree with your #138 comment (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by ZtoA on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 07:38:03 PM EST
    completely. The art world is not fair. The entire world is not fair.

    And the idea of "being practical" is such a stupid and prejudiced idea. Usually the idea of "being practical" is all about making money. Everybody, I mean everybody on the entire planet wants to make a living, so money counts for everybody. But money is not the only thing in life. When humanity is sacrificed at the alter of money, then, well, humanity is sacrificed. I knew I agreed with you deep down.


    Pride? (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 04:54:58 PM EST
    Nothing to do pride, at least what I was referring to in my comment.

    Not surprised you would take it there.


    More On Lautrec (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 11:26:47 AM EST
    He wrote a cookbook:

    Although Toulouse-Lautrec's recipe book contains a few things that are uncookable today, much of it is merely challenging and strikingly inventive. When I interviewed the surviving members of the Lautrec family in the lovely assortment of chateaux they still own, I was delighted to discover that several more recipes that weren't in the book had been handed down in the family. I had a go at cooking the easiest sounding of these - steak à la Toulouse, they call it - in the family chateau at Malrome, near Bordeaux, where, incidentally, they still produce a very drinkable claret.

    Interesting read from the Independent.


    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 11:31:27 AM EST
    i heard the pitch/intro.  Seriously, bullsh!t.  There were enough people starving in his day to make that unconscionable but today?   Today when half the world is starving to provide grain for cows that you cook and throw away.  Are you fu@king kidding me?  Making that recipe today, IMO, borders on a sickness.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 11:47:08 AM EST
    Think of all the starving people in India.

    And all that trifling art that is being made, film, food, visual, music, dance, etc....   all excess, unnecessary diversions for the rich. And by rich I mean people who can afford to wear shoes.

    The f'ing artists should all be growing plants to feed the poor.


    Indulgence in art can be escapism (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 04:21:12 PM EST
    But sometimes a vacation is needed.  For some, art can be a healing spiritual experience added to their other needed nourishments.  And if and when the spirit withers, the body can't be far behind.

    Actually I will NOT throw those two steaks away! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 12:17:45 PM EST
    That grosses me out too. I'll scrape off the char and eat the others as leftovers and maybe a bit will go to my friend's dogs for a treat. Just a little bit tho.

    I ordered the Lautrec cookbook and am looking forward to its arrival. Sharing a meal with friends and family can be great fun, not formal, silly and yummy.


    And when I do buy meat (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 12:24:20 PM EST
    (which is rare) I only get pasture raised certified humane local beef etc. I would never purchase and therefore support any container raised meats or eggs. I remember my mother, when I was a girl, ranting about container raising of chickens and pigs and for eggs. This was back in the 50-60s. Plus I'll pay the extra $ for local veggies, tho I can't get to the farm stands as much as I would like. When I cook I make enough so that I can freeze some and then I can just graze for weeks on end. I want to try your shepherd's pie recipe/process Captain.

    Would expect no less (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 12:29:59 PM EST
    that was not directed at you.  Beef is such a destructive industry.  It's wasteful to produce and the industry is really contributing to the destruction of the planet.
    I'm not a vegan.  I love a good steak.   But I try to eat as little livestock as possible and waste as little as possible.
    IMO it's the least I can do.

    Capt, I had the same reaction to the video (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 12:46:39 PM EST
    initially. But the idea of cooking in front of guests in the fireplace and it being a recipe by the great Toulouse Lautrec was just too much fun to resist. (I had a great cat named "Toulouse" in college - he was a devil and knocked my growing moon-rock solution all over my records one night - caught him red handed).

    Yes, beef is a horribly destructive industry the way it is done with corporations managing. Bad for the globe (methane gas), bad for the animals, bad for people's health. Bad karma.


    I am so lucky to be where I am (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 12:51:46 PM EST
    with all the livestock I need that is free range happy and healthy.  And far closer to chemical free.  There is probably stuff in the food.  But they mostly eat grass around here.  Same for pigs and chickens.  I don't raise them.  The family does.  

    I tried some wild hog this year (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 05:17:29 PM EST
    It is very fat free.  They are taking over here though and damaging land.  On post there is no limit to how many you may trap with permission to trap.  We need wild pig recipes.

    Wild Boar (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 05:58:49 PM EST
    Maybe I should reconsider Christmas menu. (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 03:17:39 PM EST
    Standing rib and Yorkshire pudding

    We are working on a different (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 04:23:46 PM EST
    Christmas menu.  Nothing agreed yet.  We have often done goose but my husband doesn't want prunes and citrus in it...but that is Christmas goose :)

    I think we should do something completely different.  Something squeaky gourmandish


    "Bring a torch, Jeanette Isabella." (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 05:00:53 PM EST

    I think that I prefer ... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 06:04:20 PM EST
    oculus: "Bring a torch, Jeanette Isabella."

    ... "Tina! Bring me the axe!"



    I can't cook the steak (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 04:29:44 PM EST
    but I have those exact plates :)  It's hotel Doulton. If only I cooked well enough to warrant the plate!

    You are about to get (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 04:58:50 PM EST
    The inclement weather we had earlier in the day.  As we get ready for round two,

    Duck and cover.


    It's here (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 05:07:13 PM EST
    Just started to pour.

    Whew, the DVR is full of unseen


    Did you see the Affair? (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 05:10:28 PM EST
    getting ready to try it.

    I did (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 05:12:31 PM EST
    I will be watching the rest.  Did they rip off the first True Detective just a bit?  Watch it and let me know what you think.

    The format. (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 05:23:33 PM EST
    yes.  But I think they use it a bit differently.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 07:00:39 PM EST
    neither claim the cigarettes.   Beautifully shot.  She almost looks like a different person in the two different stories.  I was reading about that.  How well she plays "both" characters.

    Yes, so if we find out (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 07:52:13 PM EST
    Who the cigs really belonged to are we closer to truth, or is this all about perception and how that is never exactly the same for anyone?

    rained all afternoon here, (none / 0) (#100)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 07:05:44 PM EST
    outside of Philadelphia.  Weather report this morning said cloudy, but zero percent chance of precipitation.

    Context (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 06:33:38 PM EST
    It could be that the connotation of "blow torch" does not fit with your idea of cooking meat.

    A blow torch used with cooking is a broiler that is attached to your hand, as opposed to the one in your oven.

    You have much more control with the one in your hand, but it does take more work. I would not cook a piece of meat with a blow torch as it would take too much effort, but to finish off a piece of meat it is a fantastic tool.


    Haven't blow torches and direct flames (none / 0) (#105)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 08:20:59 PM EST
    been used forever by high end restaurants to caramelize the top of creme brulee? I had a bite of my sisters creme brulee around 10 years ago and neither of us suffered from the fumes - or even tasted them. But I can understand the worry -- I stand way way back if I ever use a microwave and I cover the electrical outlets in my kitchen (seriously).

    I never knew that meat has sugars that can be caramelized until I read the ducasse method. I always thought browning was creating carbon - which it is not.

    I'm going to make duck confit sometime in the next several months. Will order the duck legs directly from a humane duck farm.  I'll either broil or flame the tops when I serve the legs to crisp up the skin.


    Duck Confit (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 09:33:55 PM EST
    Paula Wolfert's Cooking of Southwestern France is the best resource for Duck Confit, IMO...a great book of recipes and lore.

    She even includes a sous vide recipe, thanks to her discussions with Nathan Myhrvold et al. at egullet.


    I have her book per your recommendation but.... (none / 0) (#110)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 09:56:25 PM EST
    I am going to try this one. I like easy easy cooking.

    Why Not Sous-Vide (none / 0) (#118)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 10:37:19 PM EST
    Her Sous-vide method sounds easier to me..   You do not need much duck fat.

    But you seem to know what you are doing..


    Hahahaha! Squeaky I have (none / 0) (#122)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 10:51:34 PM EST
    NO idea what I am doing, in a kitchen or anywhere else for that matter. I'm just trying things out. If this recipe/process is not great I can try her recipe out too. So much to look forward to in the kitchen. Need to go on a diet tho. :)

    FWIW (none / 0) (#124)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 11:41:34 PM EST
    Here is Wolfert's duck confit in pouch recipe (sous vide)..

    I add a tablespoon or two of duck fat to the pouch.



    actually that sounds even easier-peasier (none / 0) (#127)
    by ZtoA on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 12:20:25 AM EST
    than the oven method. OK I am sold. I will try it. Thought I'd order duck legs here. Know of a better place?

    BTW I am going to get the first stem cell procedure done on my hip this Thursday. Looking forward to feeling worse, then much better.


    My Source (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by squeaky on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 09:41:22 AM EST
    I have ordered from these folks. They run a great operation, cage free, and no hormones or antibiotics.

    six legs $40 plus $35 overnight shipping.
    Also this is a great source as well. I order from them lots.. a tad more expensive, and I think that they get their duck legs from the first link..  4 legs $35 + $35 shipping.

    Sheridan Fruit may have it (portland) or Viande (ash st)...


    You are somewhat correct (none / 0) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 10:09:28 PM EST
     According to an expert there is a risk of raw fuel being blown into the food with a blow torch if it is not done correctly.  The wording states that this occurs  too often and not something like on rare occasions. Meat infused with raw fuel doesn't seem like a real healthy choice to me.

    Modernist Cuisine:
    Too often, people aim the blow torch at the food before they have it appropriately adjusted. Not only do they often end up torching the food with a dirty flame, but there is also some raw fuel being blown onto the food before it ignites. Like an old, carbureted car (and for the same reason), it is best to light the torch and adjust the fuel-to-oxidizer ratio before getting underway.

    I have some trouble with links when using my iPad but that quote is from your previous link so you should be able to access it.


    Yes (none / 0) (#120)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 10:40:38 PM EST
    Uninformed people mis use equipment on a regular basis.

    paintings infused with raw fuel are not (none / 0) (#121)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 10:46:38 PM EST
    good either. In 2004 I tried to burn some paint on a finished canvas (to see if it would burn and bubble). I didn't have a torch at the time, only a fire flicker. I accidentally set the canvas on fire. Put it out rather quickly (was proud that I actually had some wet paper towels handy) but there was a hole in the canvas. The painting sold anyway.

    But I, now, will know to adjust the flame before putting it anywhere. Thanks for the warning tho - I need those. I'll think "MO Blue says to check the flame before I torch this duck leg" - and that will be a nice thing to think. I am actually more careful with tools and flames and cooking than I probably sound here. Wasting any meat is a crime to me. I always thank the beautiful animal while cooking their meat. Any food infused with raw fuel sounds awful - for health and taste. I will be very careful.

    joke I've heard (and don't know the origination) -- If animals are not made to be eaten then why are they made out of meat?


    have to say that... (none / 0) (#7)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 12:51:44 AM EST
    Cristiies had a recent auction that appalled me: Sports and art $$ are totally  not understood by me. link  $$ in the art world, like the sports world are completely strange to me.

    Frieze: Ikea for Millionaires (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 12:00:46 PM EST
    Here is a good piece by Matthew Slotover, one of the co-founders of Frieze Art Fair.

    It is a response to articles like this one.

    I will take Slotover's POV in a heartbeat over Sara Kent's cynical view.

    Art is humanizing, expansive, and if the rich and powerful are buying it, mostly because they love it, I think that is a great thing.

    Sure there are those who have no brain cells and are buying art as if it were stocks, with only profit in mind. And those who seek only status.. but the large majority of art collectors love art, and that is a good thing, imo


    Just read your Slotover link (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 12:41:43 PM EST
    and, OK, good point. (will be able to get to your other links later).

    My main reaction to the Christie's sale was "where are the women artists?".

    I do understand the thrill of an auction. I only go to two auctions locally, one to support Oregon College of Art and Craft, and the other Cascade Aids Project (which is wonderful). They attract the rich in Portland and are both art auctions with lots of art at the 'milling around before dinner' part of the auction and then around 30-40 pieces auctioned off live during the fancy dinner. Both are curated. They raise needed $$. They raise awareness of their cause and institution.

    I've worked to help both auctions and was a procurer for one a couple of years. "Procurer" - sounds racy, but it just meant hitting up artists, many of them friends, to donate to the auction (in both the artists gets a percentage of the sale which is important).

    And I don't mind that a Jeff Koons went for, what was it?, 68 million. The vast amounts of money that the super wealthy throw around are usually not that apparent, so when it is in our faces it seems somewhat repugnant. But, better to throw it around with art than something else.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    Sexism abounds in the art market... museums too..  Maybe when there are more women collecting, there will be more women collected.

    I have heard crazy sh!t from some otherwise smart men who believe women, because they are able to make babies, cannot make art.

    Something about men having an extra drive to create because they cannot bear children (no pun intended).  Crazy..

    It may be that the bulk of collators are men and they relate to the energy or content of paintings made by men ergo, more women collecting more women artists collected..  who knows?

    But it certainly looks bad, as there are many, many great women artists who do not have a secondary market (auction) and are waaaay more interesting than some of the male stars out there.

    Taste?  again who knows?


    Many women are collectors these days (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 03:08:01 PM EST
    But women simply do not make the $$ that men do and cannot rise to the same economic stratosphere or positions. Inclusion of women (and sometimes it is most pronounced with white women) is changing, but it is slow. Really slow - too slow for my tastes.

    Auctions have a sort of fever energy to them. I have been a bidder, have had work being bid upon, and know other friends/artists who's work was on the block. It is so painful for the artist on the block. The energy in the room just goes into this strange fever.

    I refused to go to grad school for an MFA back in the 70s it was because of the male profs attitudes towards women artists. It was simply assumed that a woman could not be an artist and she would be a joke if she wanted any children. And their art was assumed to be stupid. Judy Chicago (a very mean woman) wrote about her grad school experiences and I read that book around 15 years ago and it confirmed to me that my choice to reject the fine art world and run off to do street portraits in NO was a fine choice. Didn't stay there long, but whatever I did was out of the mainstream and never glamourous. No regrets.


    OK just finished the S. Kent article (none / 0) (#50)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 02:57:03 PM EST
    Obviously I don't agree 100%, but she makes some good points.

    Flown in from all over the world, wealthy collectors will gain access before everyone else and won't even pay for the privilege, in the assumption that they'll fork out large sums for expensive items.

    Well, of course. This is the case in any art market, even ones in the art world backwaters. Here in lowly Portland Oregon, we had an auction of some art cows several years ago. Like the ones in Chicago and other cities. It was the craze for a while and each city used the $ raised for some good cause. I was among the around 100 artists to do a cow. I feathered mine in the pattern of a tiger - on the life-sized plastic cow form. "CowMingled". The auction event was held at some small (private) airport and these private jets kept flying in and depositing beautiful people to buy a cow. I was standing with a small clutch of artists. When one couple deplaned and were dressed so so very fancy in fancy cowboy clothes (I think they arrived from Las Vegas or maybe LA) my friend muttered "Well you can certainly tell which people are from Portland" . At least we were not wearing birkenstocks.

    And this shift from cultural to commercial centre has caused an inexorable slippage of power from museums, public galleries, curators and critics towards dealers, collectors and patrons

    Again, of course. But this is not new! Collectors and patrons have always had the power in the arts. Think Vatican City. So I do not agree with her here.

    The cash may be flowing, but the cost is too high. Creativity is the first casualty.

    Again definitely do not agree. Maybe London was (article 2010) experiencing a momentary lull in creativity, but as she said, many artists moved to Berlin at that time. The arts and creativity here is just exploding and the artists are friendly with each other. That is not the artists' culture in larger, more competitive, cities that get huge prices for art, or have artists who are mega-stars in the art world.


    Moronic Criticism, IMO (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 04:02:41 PM EST
    Flown in from all over the world, wealthy collectors will gain access before everyone else and won't even pay for the privilege, in the assumption that they'll fork out large sums for expensive items.

    There is no scarcity of great art around, and it is not all at Frieze, nor is it all snatched up. Most of the collectors she is lamenting about are behind the curve, it just takes a little talent (for hire, if necessary) and a lot of leg work to buy.

    So the argument that nothing is available because the deck is stacked is weak, imo.  


    If only the megabucks collectors (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 01:19:38 PM EST
    were then, post- purchase by an anonymous collector, motivated to share their purchase w/the 99% by frequent loans to museums. I get very distraught when a museum exhibits a work of art with the attribution "on loan from a private collection" in instances of retrospective shows, for example, if the work hasn't been in the public consciousness until then. Yes, it is great to see it, but where has it been all these years.

    Hahaaha (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 01:35:21 PM EST
    Most collectors lend to exhibits, if they provide proper insurance, and the loan seems to be low risk. I almost always lend works from my collection, when asked.

    But the Museums buy work from young artists, mid career artists and older artists, and stick it in their basements for 20 years.

    Most of their purchases never see the light of day.


    I suppose if I or someone else (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 05:10:05 PM EST
    really wanted to get bent out of shape about the $$ in the arts....we should just also check out the $$$$ in sports. Worldwide. Sports and the Arts - all nuts.  :)

    At the Prattville Enterprise HS football game (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 09:41:34 AM EST
    Enterprise was doing very badly and a State Trooper did a little walk by the stands to remind people to have manners.  My husband hates it when the stands start yelling at the kids.  It's high school, they are yelled at enough.  They don't get paid enough to be yelled at by the stands.  Thankfully he isn't here yet.  Will some aggressive attitudes improve by next year when the team is having a bad night? Probably not

    The Ducks played a terrible second half. (none / 0) (#38)
    by caseyOR on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 11:51:39 AM EST
    And they are lucky they did not lose. UCLA scored 20 unanswered points in the last ten minutes of the game while the Oregon defense was apparently on a coffee break.

    Arizona, who beat the Ducks last week 42-16, knocked off USC this week. They are the team to watch in the Pac 12.

    The loss, through retirement, of long time Ducks' defensive coordinator Nick Aliota has opened up a big fault line in the Ducks' game.


    Actually, Arizona lost to USC, 28-26. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 04:22:54 PM EST
    By all rights, the Wildcats should've won that game, but the Trojan coaching staff psyched out the AZ kicker and special teams at two key moments, and that cost the home team dearly.

    And also, the Ducks only lost to the Wildcats by a touchdown the week prior, so I'd say that Pac-12 race is wide open, per usual.



    I stand corrected. (none / 0) (#70)
    by caseyOR on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 04:31:44 PM EST
    I should have been more careful with my google search for scores. Thanks for setting the record straight.

    I stand by my opinion that the Ducks played a crappy defensive game in the second half of the UCLA game. It looked to me like Oregon assumed they had it in the bag and went out for coffee.

    The defense is, IMO, Oregon's weakest link, followed by attitude. Last season the Ducks lost out on the championship game and the Rose Bowl because of sloppy play and bad attitude. I hope that is not the case for the remainder of this season.


    The Ducks were up 42-10 (none / 0) (#73)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 04:47:11 PM EST
    with ten minutes left in the game, on the road, against the 18th ranked team in the country. That's hardly a poorly played game.

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 05:01:53 PM EST
    That Oregon-UCLA game was not anywhere near as close as its final score might otherwise indicate. It was a Duck walk, and the Bruins managed to close toward the end with UO's reserves on the field.

    Luck was with you MOBlue, congrats... (none / 0) (#10)
    by fishcamp on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 05:12:48 AM EST
    Yes they needed luck and HR bats (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 06:12:02 AM EST
    Their pitching was disappointing especially allowing the tying run to score on a wild pitch in the 9th.

    Luckily the Cards were hitting the ball out of the park enough to make up for their pitching.


    I love the Cards, (none / 0) (#17)
    by Zorba on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 09:07:45 AM EST
    But they drive me nuts.  I started watching the game after our guests left last night.
    Why, when the Cards do win, do they always take it right down to the wire?  This cannot be good for my blood pressure.  Or the blood pressure of many of their fans.
    Cards in 7 games.  That's my prediction.

    Yes, as we have discussed before (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 09:28:54 AM EST
    the Cards are real Drama Queens.

    Pitching so far with Giants has looked a little shaky. They need to get that going better and losing Yodi for the rest of the series is not a good thing.

    Definitely think that there is a good chance it will go to 7. Won't jinx the outcome by making a prediction but Go Cards.


    All the teams are driving me nuts :) (none / 0) (#25)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 10:42:30 AM EST
    They are good games, but could really do without so much 9th inning drama (I'm looking at you O's!)

    Oh, and Giants in 6  ;)


    I like you stray, but......... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 11:07:24 AM EST
    kdog says when he roots for a team it is the KOD.

    Hopefully, your support of the Giants will have the same results. ;-)


    I supported the Yankees for 20 yrs (none / 0) (#30)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 11:10:30 AM EST
    They sucked when I moved to NYC, but then things changed . . .  I moved to SF area in 2010 and what did the Giants do?  ;)

    Well your record is pretty good (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 12:44:32 PM EST
    from 2010 forward but not infallible. After all, they ended play after the regular season in 2011 and 2013.  

    Let's hope they end their season after losing the NLCS to the Cards this year.


    Even (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 08:36:40 AM EST
    John Waters (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 09:47:45 AM EST
    John Waters gives a performance at Foto-Focus (This Filthy World), and offers advice.


    After the performance, Waters stayed to take pictures and sign copies of his new book, "Carsick: John Waters Hitchhikes Across America." [excerpt]

    He is also a visual artist (photography), and an avid art collector

    The marketing of drugs (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 02:57:59 PM EST
    Pill color may affect efficacy.

    Blue pills, contrary to what Breaking Bad may have you believe, act best as sedatives. Red and orange are stimulants. Cheery yellows make the most effective antidepressants, while green reduces anxiety and white soothes pain. Brighter colors and embossed brand names further strengthen these effects--a bright yellow pill with the name on its surface, for example, may have a stronger effect than a dull yellow pill without it.

    When researchers take culture into account, things get a bit more complicated. For instance, the sedative power of blue doesn't work on Italian men. The scientists who discovered this anomaly think it's due to `gli Azzuri' (the Blues), Italy's national soccer team--because they associate the color blue with the drama of a match, it actually gets their adrenaline pumping. And yellow's connotations change in Africa, where it's associated with better antimalarial drugs, as eye whites can turn yellowish when a person is suffering from the disease. (Interestingly, this is the opposite of the norm. Just like with the burned-skin example, drugs usually work better when their color matches the intended outcome, not the symptoms of the condition they're treating). Such cultural variances are one reason why a drug may appear totally different in separate countries.

    Kinda makes you wonder why (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 03:37:10 PM EST
    that "little blue pill" is blue, if "stimulation" is the intended effect... :-)

    I was also under the impression that the color of a pill can signify its strength; the 5mg version of a drug may be white, for example while the 10 mg version may be pink, and so on.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 03:13:49 PM EST
    because my Synthroid comes in blue and it is not supposed to make me sleepy--quite the opposite.

    I have a friend who says (none / 0) (#56)
    by ZtoA on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 03:18:10 PM EST
    "the science of color is the next big thing. Color research will be a science".

    Did you know that the cone receptors in our eyes have never actually been tested to see if they are indeed Red, Green, and Blue? Cannot test for that on a living eyeball. So, if they are not necessarily arranged in three primary colors, then each can see a whole range of colors.


    I sent this article to my sister (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 03:22:21 PM EST
    Who works in a pseudo-medical research position, and she replied back to me:

    Earlier today I was reading an article on the placebo effect in surgeries - as in, doctors can put you under, cut your skin, kick back and play poker for 4 hours, and then tell you they did arthroscopic knee surgery.  

    Patient-reported effects match people who actually had the surgery.

    It is amazing what your brain can convince you of.

    A physician who cuts you... (none / 0) (#119)
    by unitron on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 10:40:01 PM EST
    ...with no aim other than to deceive you, would, it would seem to me, to be practicing pseudo-medicine.

    True (none / 0) (#130)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 08:07:40 AM EST
    Unless it was part of a study where the patient consented.

    I Find That Hard to Believe... (none / 0) (#62)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 04:15:07 PM EST
    ...but I will say this, I really dislike a generic prescription that is not the same color/size/shape as the original.  But I never though it to be less effective, just annoying.  

    Otherwise, I don't buy it, they took a select few, put them in uppers/downers and failed to discuss the big ones, pain meds which there is absolutely no rime or reason.  Oxy for example comes in like 10 colors, each a different strength.


    Let's hear it for the suburbs! (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 03:15:38 PM EST
    Especially for millenials

    It's an idea echoed everywhere from "Friends" to "Girls": Young people want to live in cities. And, we're told, a lot of them (at least the cool ones) do.

    It's a common assumption. But it's also wrong.

    Between 2010 and 2013, the number of 20- to 29-year-olds in America grew by 4 percent. But the number living in the nation's core cities grew 3.2 percent. In other words, the share of 20-somethings living in urban areas actually declined slightly.

    This trend has occurred in supposedly hot cities like San Fransisco, Boston, New York and D.C., notes demographer Wendell Cox. Chicago and Portland, Ore., both widely hailed as youth boom-towns, saw their numbers of 20-somethings decline, too.


    But it's not just that. According to the most recent generational survey research done by Magid and Associates, 43 percent of millennials describe the suburbs as their "ideal place to live," compared to 31 percent of older generations.

    Only 17 percent of Millennials identify the urban core as where they want to settle permanently. Another survey, by the Demand Institute (funded by the Conference Board and Neilsen), found that 48 percent of 20-somethings hoped to move to the suburbs one day. And contrary to popular myth, they hoped to own a single-family home. Sixty-one percent seek more space.

    These findings may actually understate the suburban preference. As people age, particularly entering the child-bearing period between 30 and 50, they long have displayed a distinct tendency to move to suburban areas.

    A lot of that (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 03:28:34 PM EST
    probably depends on what you define as the suburbs. Here in Atlanta anything outside of the perimeter is defined as the suburbs though to look at the area you would never put it in that category. I'm sure costs have a lot to do with it along with size of the yard and all. And in a lot of areas even if you live in the suburbs you are not as isolated as you are in my area. You can jump on a train or some other sort of transportation. I have neighbors that drive 90 minutes to work and from work every day. So some have sold and moved closer into the city.

    I Agree... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 04:29:41 PM EST
    ...cost is most important factor, it's why suburbs exist.

    People want to make big city wages and pay country prices and where those meet is called the suburbs.

    Start paying those wages in tiny towns and I bet those same people will be talking about how ideal unincorporated townships are.


    Not sure about "country prices" (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 04:36:37 PM EST
    I live in the suburbs, and still paying city prices.  Of course, I do live in the most expensive region in the country, so there's that.

    Would love to get a job somewhere else, and maybe I will start exploring those opportunities, but for now, here I stay.


    All of those cities are ridiculously (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by caseyOR on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 04:36:14 PM EST
    expensive if one wants to live in the city. If you are not insanely rich, and you have kids, forget living in San Francisco. And, while Portland is less expensive than SF, the close in neighborhoods cost a fortune by Portland standards.

    Speaking of suburbs, I left mine today, (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by fishcamp on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 07:36:12 PM EST
    to get my recalled Acura airbag replaced, the one that can go off at any time and leave metal fragments imbedded in your face.  En route the University of Miami Medical center called and said they had a cancellation, so there was an opening with the dermatologist I had been trying to see, and could I make it by noon, which I did.  On the form I put down Catholic as my religion.  While the doctor was circling an amazing number of locations on my sun fried body, he noted my name and asked if I was Irish or Scottish. I answered Scottish, he nodded and said there were very few, and he paused, so I said, Papists in Scotland, he laughed and said yes.  Then as he was burning batches of skin I asked if he was taking revenge, he laughingly said no, and burned more.  I now look like a spotted owl dipped in flaming natural gas by Kenneth Lay.

    Sounds like you've added to the discussion (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 09:51:57 PM EST
    on torched beef.

    Sounds scary. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 11:25:13 PM EST
    "torched beef" (none / 0) (#126)
    by ZtoA on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 12:12:51 AM EST
    I am going to use that in a sentence very soon. May be in a different context tho.

    Ok, now THIS (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 03:26:07 PM EST
    will get me to fear the Ebola crisis:

    Ebola threatens the world's chocolate supply.

    Ebola is threatening much of the world's chocolate supply.

    Ivory Coast, the world's largest producer of cacao, the raw ingredient in M&M's, Butterfingers and Snickers Bars, has shut down its borders with Liberia and Guinea, putting a major crimp on the workforce needed to pick the beans that end up in chocolate bars and other treats just as the harvest season begins. The West African nation of about 20 million -- also known as Côte D'Ivoire -- has yet to experience a single case of Ebola, but the outbreak already could raise prices.
    Continue Reading

    The world's chocolate makers have taken notice.

    The World Cocoa Foundation is working now to collect large donations from Nestlé, Mars and many of its 113 other members for its Coca Industry Response to Ebola Initiative. The initiative hasn't been publicly unveiled, but the WCF plans to announce details Wednesday, during its annual meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, on how the money will fuel Red Cross and Caritas Internationalis work to help the infected and staunch Ebola's spread.

    So far your comparisons are extremely weak (4.25 / 4) (#202)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 09:54:31 AM EST
    I get that you will go to any lengths to defend Otterness. I OTOH find the methods you have employed in your defense offensive.  You reached a real low IMO with the Davis/Otterness comparison.

    I get that you believe that no one else other than you and squeaky know anything at all about art. I get that you believe that anyone else who disagrees with your OPINION is completely lacking in knowledge and haters of all things related to art and artists. I get where you are coming from and I find it offensive and not behavior that is beneficial to the artist community as a whole.

    Maybe the artist community in Seattle is different than our artist community here in St. Louis. The majority of our artists tend to respect the opinions of others even when they disagree with them. They attempt to gently educate the general public rather than look down their noses at them. It would be a sad thing IMO if your superior attitude is representative of the artists in Seattle. I tendto think it does not.

    Homeland (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 12, 2014 at 08:22:06 PM EST
    Boardwalk Empire, Walking Dead(season premier), decided to record The Affair to see what that's about, recording the rerun of True Detective and I decided to record Shadow of Doubt with Joseph Cotton as the uncle from hell on TCM.

    Some creative DVR scheduling goin on here.

    Boardwalk Empire (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 12, 2014 at 08:46:47 PM EST
    amazing.  Paul Muni and George Raft are hilarious.

    Van Alden...took a page from the Hank Schrader (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 05:20:12 AM EST
    'going out like a man' playbook. That was great.

    And Chalky, what a story arc he had. Makes me want to start watching again from the beginning and just watch him.

    In fact I may have to do that anyway since it took me all these seasons to tell all the gangsters apart.


    Any Walking Dead fans?? (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 08:41:40 AM EST
    that was the best episode I have ever seen in all 4 previous seasons.  Excellent.  

    Yep - best one so far (none / 0) (#178)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 08:41:56 PM EST
    Boardwalk Empire was great, too, although at the rate they're going, I'm not sure they'll have enough characters to finish the season/series.

    We watched "Shadow of a Doubt," too. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 12:23:28 AM EST
    I had never seen it before. Joseph Cotten was always good at playing shady characters like Uncle Charlie, and he didn't disappoint. He was also very good as Olivia de Havilland's former lover in the 1964 suspense film "Hush ... Hush, Sweet Charlotte," in which they conspire to drive Bette Davis mad and steal her inheritance.

    I believe that (none / 0) (#11)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 05:14:07 AM EST
    "Shadow of a Doubt" was Hitchcock's favorite of his films.

    Also one of my favorites (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 08:36:51 AM EST
    i had seen it many times but I thought it would be nice to have on the DVR for rainy days.  Like today is going to be.  Huge line of storms moving through today. Tornados warnings, flood warnings, Wind , hail.  All the good stuff.

    But is it yours? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 04:57:01 PM EST
    I really enjoyed seeing it, but if I had to pick favorite Hitchcock films, No. 1 would have to be "Vertigo" (1958), with a three-way tie for second -- "Rear Window" (1954), "Psycho" (1960) and "The Birds" (1963).

    Two Hitchcock films I've yet to see are "Lifeboat" (1944) and "Strangers on a Train" (1951). I keep looking for them on TCM, but keep missing them. One of these days, we'll hopefully connect.

    The most unnerving Hitchcock film, in my estimation, is "Rope" (1947). It's actually very good, but its underlying subtext of amorality and the perfect murder creeped me out so much that I've really no desire to see it again. The screenplay is loosely based on the infamous Leopold & Loeb case in Chicago, but the real crime itself was so sickening and depraved that I often wondered why that film's screenwriters were inspired by it.



    Lifeboat (Talulla) (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 05:21:54 PM EST
    and Strangers on a Train are both excellent. But so is Marnie, Saboteur, Torn Curtain (you find that's actually hard to kill someone) Dial M for Murder, Spellbound, Notorious.

    One of my favs is The 39 Steps.  But for sheer creeping dread Shadow Of a Doubt is hard to beat.  

    I wouldn't be surprised if it was Hitchcock who was drawn to the Rope material.  Have you seen Hitchcock with Anthony Hopkins and Hellen Mirren about the making of Psycho.
    It's great.


    Yeah, I saw "Hitchcock." Great film. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 06:21:12 PM EST
    Alfred Hitchcock was indeed a strange man -- but as a film director, his long and storied career of over four decades is almost incomparable. Even toward the end of his life, he was still cranking out some great work, such as "Frenzy" in 1972 and "Family Plot" in 1976. He'll always be one of my absolute favorites.

    Favorite quote ever (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 06:34:36 PM EST
    I never said all actors are cattle; what I said was all actors should be treated like cattle.

    Alfred Hitchcock

    I saw an interview with Tippy Hedren once talking about the scene in the Birds when she goes upstairs.  She asked him, trying to understand her "motivation", why on earth would I go upstairs?
    Hitchcock said "Because I told you to."


    Strangers on the Train (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 05:35:54 PM EST
    is a must see, IMO.

    I also agree with Capt.. the 39 Steps is very good as well.


    I bet some of those (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 05:25:51 PM EST
    stream on Netflix

    No. (none / 0) (#103)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 08:01:11 PM EST
    "Shadow" is not my favorite of the Hitchcock films.

    I like "Strangers on a Train"... "North by Northwest"... "The Lady Vanishes"... The Man who knew too much with Peter Lorre and the remake with Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day...

    I like most of his films --- except "Frenzy"... and "Torn Curtain"...
    although I must admit that there are memorable scenes in those...


    All memorable. They all hold my attention.

    Oh - and Saboteur with Bob Cummings - and Sabotage with Oskar Homolka.

    I think part of his genius was in casting.

    I agree with you about Rope... it was an exercise in letting the film run with no cuts.

    I could go on and on...


    Oh... (none / 0) (#104)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 08:06:59 PM EST
    "Dial M for Murder"... That one I can watch over and over.
    So well done. Great characters... Ray Milland... Grace Kelly, Bob Cummings... and that English detective...John Williams...

    And - I had the opportunity of seeing it in 3D in a theatre in NYC.
    It was great.
    Not gimmicky. A true added dimension.

    He had some great eye, that Hitchcock.


    "Torn Curtain" is probably the ... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 10:28:16 PM EST
    ... one Hitchcock movie I could never get into, probably because I thought that both Paul Newman and Julie Andrews were miscast in this Cold War spy thriller. Further, Hitchcock's direction seems listless and distracted, almost as though he would rather have been doing something else at the time.

    I didn't (none / 0) (#131)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 09:15:22 AM EST
    have a problem with Paul or Julie...

    I did have a problem with the blatant propaganda aspect, however.
    The "story" didn't ring true.

    If Hitch was listless and distracted, as you say, that could account for it...


    They've both been on TCM in the past few months... (none / 0) (#113)
    by unitron on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 10:23:37 PM EST
    ...you need a TiVo and a wishlist set up.

    I suppose I do. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 10:36:02 PM EST
    I just never got around to it, because we really don't watch all that much TV. Not counting sports, I regularly watch PBS Newhour and I'll catch Rachel Maddow occasionally, and I like PBS Masterpiece. And I've gotten to enjoy a few shows such as "The Good Wife" and "Breaking Bad," which I credit to all the buzz I heard here at TL.

    But other than that, there's not a lot on that I would call compelling television or must-see TV. Of late, I thought that "The Bridge" turned into a complete fizzle at the end, as did "Murder in the First."



    More triumphs. (none / 0) (#9)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 05:12:19 AM EST
    Turkey has agreed to "allow" US troops to use their bases in order to fight ISIS.

    Isn't that nice of them?
    What a triumph for our diplomats.

    This magnificent diplomatic effort by our energetic government is matched only by the coup of getting Afghanistan to allow us to stay there into the indefinite future - just as President McCain had envisioned - unlike the proposal by the unsuccessful democratic candidate, Mr. Obama, who had proposed getting us out of there by the end of 2014 should he have been elected.

    Update... (none / 0) (#33)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 11:20:15 AM EST
    Turkey has not definitively decided to "allow" us to use their air bases for operations against ISIS. Talks - we on bended knee - are continuing.

    Seriously- if they don't give a sh°t about ISIS, why the @#ck should we?

    We're putting our necks in a noose.
    Putting our face on the opposition to ISIS.
    A White White face.

    And here we are, begging these Turkish whatevers to allow us, please please please, to use their air bases to supposedly save their arses.

    This is absolutely insane.

    I would like to follow the money.

    Who is profiting from our plunge into this ill-conceived adventure?
    Which corporations are making how much money off of this stupidity?
    Which floundering candidates are identifying with this madness?


    Turkey (none / 0) (#111)
    by Jack203 on Mon Oct 13, 2014 at 09:57:12 PM EST
    prefers the Sunni ISIS over the Kurds, and doesn't mind the West wasting resources and losing.

    I'm still trying to find an ounce of evidence that Turkey wants to help the Kurds in Kobane.  I'm not sure why anybody would even claim that.


    Turkey has completely different (none / 0) (#135)
    by Slado on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 11:20:13 AM EST
    goals then we do.

    They hate the Kurds, we like them.

    They prioritize getting rid of Assad versus ISIS, we prioritize getting rid of ISIS vs. Assad.

    It's no wonder they want nothing to do with this operation.

    Also why would they have any confidence we're serious about this operation?   We are only halfheartedly going after ISIS if you compare previous air wars in Afghanistan, Libya and Kosovo.  

    Obama is once again non committal.  Better to do nothing at all rather then make this show of being serious.

    He is anything but.


    My question is.... (none / 0) (#152)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 06:49:20 PM EST
    do NATO nations get to pick and choose when they should be "in" or "out?"

    I guess my point would be, what good is a mutual defense pact if individual nations can simply say, "screw you," when called upon to engage a common enemy?


    Your question is the answer (none / 0) (#155)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:50:36 AM EST
    NATO is completely meaningless now.

    Just an excuse for leaders to get together and visit a nice European city for a few days.

    They were completely useless is doing anything about Putin and now the threat of ISIS has shown them equally as feckless.

    One could argue on the other hand that it's a defense pack originally set up to defend against the Soviet Union.   That really doesn't have anything to do with a group of terrorist running around in Syria and Iraq.    

    The other NATO nations would probably get involved if ISIS took on Turkey directly but they aren't interested in that now.   They are more then happy to gobble up territory in Iraq and Syria and NATO is more then happy to look the other way and drop a few bombs.


    Slado (none / 0) (#159)
    by sj on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 12:47:51 PM EST
    You make me tired.

    Walking Dead (none / 0) (#134)
    by Slado on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 11:16:33 AM EST
    Best Episode ever and what a great way to open up what is sure to be a great season.

    If you've read the comics they did a great job of expanding on the cannibal part of the plot which in the comics was just a small subplot.

    I especially liked the effect that the season premiere was really a season finale of last season.   The 2nd half of last season was a build up to this climatic opening.   They were scattered after the loss of the prison and the epic showdown with the Governor and each party eventually found themselves back on the run and then heading toward the hope of Terminus.

    What they found was what we all knew.  There is no hope in this world other then the people you keep close to you.   The show has done a marvelous job unfolding the plot line that you can only trust those that you've known and killed with.  Everyone else is first a potential enemy until they prove otherwise.   Time after time if you take the chance on someone they let you down.   The people in Terminus learned the same lesson and then expanded on the evil that was done to them to be sure that they were never mistreated again.   This led to a sort of "institutional evil" that was more then even our jaded group of central characters had endured.   You can be sure that Rick and the others will learn this lesson and it will be a central theme in upcoming episodes.

    I love the development of Carol and her quiet confidence.   When the guy tried to complete the trick of getting her to head towards Terminus she wasn't having any of it.  All she had to hear was the few words about her friends to know that her suspicions were confirmed and she was entering a war zone, not a friendly oasis.

    Just an awesome episode that seemed to take 20 minutes rather then an hour.   I was worried we'd have a long slow moving episode that set up a 1/2 season of Terminus but instead we closed that plot line and now the possibilities are wide open.

    I think they are going to enter into a phase where they adhere to the comics which if they do we have some great episodes coming up.   The priest int he preview is right out of the comics so I expect good things.

    Can't wait.

    It was amazing (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 03:15:06 PM EST
    like 4 episodes in one.  I just sat there for a couple of minutes after it was over with smoke coming out of my ears.

    It was one of those hours (none / 0) (#156)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:51:54 AM EST
    of TV were you worried that it was all happening too quickly and you couldn't believe it was about to be over.

    Simply awesome.


    Seems almost to much to hope (none / 0) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 11:57:35 AM EST
    the rest of the season will live up to that.  It was a ballsey high bar to set.

    A Sixth Amendment claim (none / 0) (#141)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 03:45:37 PM EST
    and the Supreme Court denies review.

    The longstanding question of a judge's power to impose a longer sentence by relying on conduct that the jury rejected as evidence of guilt will linger further.  Over the dissents of three Justices -- one fewer than the number needed to grant review -- the Court on Tuesday turned aside the latest attempt to get that constitutional question answered.  The denied case was Jones v. United States.

    The jury in the case of three Washington, D.C., men found them not guilty of a conspiracy to run an "open air" market for large quantities of illegal drugs on the streets of the nation's capital, but it did find them guilty only of selling small quantities.  If the sentencing had followed those results, the three men would have faced sentences under federal guidelines of between thirty-three and seventy-one months.

    The judge, however, decided that sentencing could also take into account the conduct that had led to the more serious conspiracy charge (the so-called "acquitted conduct") and opted to give the three men sentences ranging from 180 to 225 months.   They argued unsuccessfully, in a federal appeals court, that the longer sentences violated their Sixth Amendment right to have a jury decide the issue of guilt. The judge, in essence, convicted them of the more serious offense, too, despite the jury's contrary verdict.

    Their appeal to the Supreme Court pressed that argument anew, but the Court declined review.  Justice Antonin Scalia, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas, argued that the practice at issue "has gone on long enough."

    Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsberg agree in (none / 0) (#142)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 04:16:42 PM EST
    dissent?  Surprising.

    Cats will be lying down with dogs (none / 0) (#144)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 04:21:18 PM EST
    All hell is breaking loose.

    Maybe Thomas is an opera fan also? (none / 0) (#146)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 04:26:27 PM EST
    Actually, he is (none / 0) (#147)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 04:37:37 PM EST
    And he and RBG (and their families) are besties.  They often go to the opera together, and supposedly their families spend most New Year's Eves together.

    Thomas? I know Ginsberg and (none / 0) (#148)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 04:54:02 PM EST
    Scalia are opera buddies and close friends.

    oops (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 04:57:55 PM EST
    Misread your post.

    But apparently (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 04:59:44 PM EST
    Thomas and Breyer are good buddies, even often seen whispering, laughing, and passing notes.

    No, I am not talking about 7th grade girls.


    MO Blue (none / 0) (#201)
    by ZtoA on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 09:24:59 AM EST
    Yes that was a bad comparison to Wendy Davis. This one is better and more apt. Breitbart gets some facts wrong. Fox News gets more of the facts straight.

    Here's her First Lady page. Here are some of her accomplisments:

    What is often overlooked is that Hayes had become a mover and shaker in her own right well before January 2011, when she and Kitzhaber took up residence in the governor's mansion. By that point, her credentials as an environmental leader were already established and she was known throughout the state as a visionary and an agent of change.

    So this person made mistakes in her younger years one of which was illegal another of which was possibly illegal. So does that negate her other accomplishments? I don't think so but many do. Many consider her earlier actions to be repulsive. She was not charged with a crime and Tom Otterness was not charged with a crime. They both went on with their lives in the best way they could. They are both paying for their mistakes in the court of public opinion.