Friday Open Thread

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

If anyone has found a site where readers are discussing the details of El Capo 3 episodes -- in English or Spanish -- can you let me know in comments?

< AZ Supreme Court Rejects Presence of THC Metabolite as Proof of Drugged Driving | Saturday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 337 (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 08:36:16 AM EST
    Dadler short fiction (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 08:38:26 AM EST
    Looking for gut reactions to this piece of short fiction. I'll leave the link up until Sunday probably. Anyone who takes the time to read it and comment, thank you beyond measure. Peace out.


    Excellent, D. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:16:56 AM EST
    I figured that the affair would end and she would not leave her husband.
    I wasn't sure about the young guy and his wife, though.
    Tattoos!  What a great way to allow the wife to recover a good body image.  I never would have thought of that.

    Thank you, my friend (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 09:28:56 AM EST
    You seemed to hit all the points I was trying to hit in the story. Namaste.

    Not so short! But such a good story. (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:02:00 PM EST
    A few minor edits I'm sure you'll catch. I was hoping the salesman would find a more hurtful form of revenge though.

    Patrick Cariou v Richard Prince (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:54:01 AM EST
    Party time, Gagosian redux of original Canal Zone Show, this time with Prince's own press release which includes some history regarding the choices he made.

    The heart of the Case:

    After noting Prince's testimony that "he didn't really have a message" and did not attempt to comment on any aspects of the original, the judge ruled that "there is vanishingly little, if any, transformative element."

    The game changer point won on appeal was:

    "The court decided that artwork does not need to comment on previous work to qualify as fair use, and that Prince's testimony is not the dispositive question in determining whether a work is transformative. Rather the issue is how the work may reasonably be perceived. This is the right standard because it takes into account the underlying public purpose of copyright law, which should not be beholden to statements of individual intent but instead consider the value that all of us gain from the creation of new work."

    Background of the case:

    Richard Prince opens at Gagosian with Canal Zone. November 2008.

    Photographer Patrick Cariou sues Prince for copyright violation.

    Judge Debora Batts rules in favor of Cariou., IOW Prince loses copyright lawsuit.. Artists and galleries respond with concerns about well established Fair Use practice.

    Prince files for Appeal.

    Preliminary arguments looking good for Prince.

    Cariou fights Copyright Appeal, Photographers band together to protect works against Fair Use

    Prince wins on appeal mostly. Five out of 30 paintings sent back to Judge Batts to decide on Fair Use.

    Cariou files SCOTUS appeal.  SCOTUS won't hear Cariou appeal.

    Undisclosed settlement over the remaining 5 paintings.

    Very interesting (none / 0) (#20)
    by ZtoA on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    Great compilation of the links too.

    Koons lost with his "Banalities" saying his work was parody but won when he used the words satire and transformative. Disney is a formidable copyright opponent. I wonder if BTD will comment since he knows copyright law.

    As a bit of a cynic it seems obvious that money has a lot to do with these rulings. But for me, personally, I have to come down on the side of no copyright infringement (and not just because I've used Koon's sculptures as side note trinkets in a couple of paintings of mine). Images are a fair part of visual dialog - free speech using visual words and quotes.  All good PR for Prince.


    Koons (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 01:16:55 PM EST
    When the Banality case was decided, I thought that it was correct, as the work was not really transformative. Not so sure now, after this case.

    And, I agree, that money does have something to do with copyright and Fair Use, most egregiously with Disney. They were smart and fought to extend copyright, which, imo, went against the intent of copyright law.


    I thought it was correct too, but... (none / 0) (#30)
    by ZtoA on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 02:11:38 PM EST
    it was because he acted like such an obnoxious buffoon during the trial. My opinion was based on that and not the issues. I freely admit it. I think it was a wrong decision since "parody" and "satire" are so closely related. I just think they made him jump thru a few hoops because of his obvious superior arrogance.  Still, he never let it slow him down and the PR probably did him good and he has been many happy bank deposits since.

    Yes (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 02:32:05 PM EST
    My sentiments exactly, regarding Koon's attitude problem in court.

    But after reading the transcripts in the Prince case, it could have been said that Prince was arrogant in that he did not bother arguing that he had any intent to transform the Cariou photographs, and that he could care less about their value as photographs on their own.

    He skirted the traditional defense for Fair Use, of intent to transform the material used. This wound up not being arrogance but a principled position.

    And it set a new standard which, IMO is correct, that what an artist thinks s/he is doing is irrelevant regarding Fair Use. What is important is how the finished piece compared to the original in the eyes of a reasonable person.

    In retrospect Koons may have been acting on principle as well, even if he is an arrogant jerk.


    In these cases copyright is such a tricky issue (none / 0) (#57)
    by ZtoA on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 05:25:49 PM EST
    One could argue that extreme appropriation is like plagiarism which is not a criminal offense. An artist automatically owns copyright to their own work and it would be so strange to have another artist come along and also have copyright to it, and to profit from it and not cite the original artist. Naturally this winning party is a much better well known and financially lucrative artist with great lawyers. I think Prince comes closer to downright visual plagiarism than Koons.

    The precedent  has been set now, which I do agree with, but Prince came as close to crossing the line as possible. Of course his dealer and collectors and curators have so very much money invested in him.

    I could say this: "Although plagiarism is not a criminal or civil offense, plagiarism is illegal if it infringes an author's intellectual property rights, including copyright or trademark. For example, the owner of a copyright can sue a plagiarizer in federal court for copyright violation. The plagiarist in turn may have to pay the person who owns the copyright  of the plagiarized works the amount he or she actually lost because of the infringement, in addition to paying attorney's fees." but did I 'transform' it even tho I did not cite the source??



    Canal Zone (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 09:18:41 PM EST
    I saw the show when it opened, and was pretty floored by it. I also saw the book by Cariou and, IMO his work was completely transformed by Prince.

    Even in the painting where he did the most minimal adjustments, as well as the other four that were sent back to Judge Batts after appeal.

    Koons, not so much, as the photograph was kitsch and the sculpture was kitsch..   but, as I said above, I had to rethink that opinion after the Prince case, and now tend towards Koons in the Banality sculpture..

    I do like the work of both artists. And find nothing compelling about Carious work, not that it has anything to do with my opinion regarding Fair Use.


    Well I always defer to seeing work in person (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ZtoA on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:16:58 AM EST
    so thank you for your viewpoint. I will definitely consider that.

    Yes, Koons (my auto spell keeps wanting to change that to kooks) is kitsch and his sources are kitsch. He did translate the images to another medium. I suppose Prince did too. I think both are the 1% artists doing what they want. That does not invalidate their work in my eyes. The reason I agree with the ruling is that otherwise it would have been a very chilling ruling - very anti free visual speech.  Actually, I pretty much agree that Prince transformed the photos in that he changed their intent. Koons kept them kitsch.


    rep Michael Grimm (R-Idiot)... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by desertswine on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 08:49:43 PM EST
    Republican U.S. Rep. Michael Grimm, who has been dogged by allegations of campaign violations since his first campaign for Congress in 2009 and 2010, is facing criminal charges from federal prosecutors, his lawyer said Friday.

    This is the jerk who threatened to throw a reporter off of a balcony.

    I guess your comment underscores the (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:28:22 PM EST
    problems that attend to words that one person writes and another person reads - so often how our words are taken are not how they were meant to be understood.

    If there was anger in my comment, it wasn't because I have anger about some people getting to use offensive language that I can't - God, nothing could be further from the truth. I don't even know why anyone would want to use these words, much less need to use them, or be envious of anyone who does.

    My anger was for squeaky's inability to understand that just because one group uses a word that that same word isn't perceived differently when coming out of the mouths of others.  And it was his cavalier dismissal of that fact, and his inability to even pretend that such a phenomenon exists.  I had hoped that by inviting him to test his theory, he would understand how off-base he is.  He talks so breezily about taking the power out of these words by using them more, but I bet he doesn't do that himself.

    I can assure you, there was no intent on my part to deliberately leave out the gay community in providing examples of words that hurt; I could have gone on and listed probably a dozen more examples ("try walking up to someone and saying, 'how's it going, fatso,'"), but felt like the ones I provided made the point.

    And he still didn't get it, is still insisting that the more we use these words, the less power they have to hurt.  I simply just do not agree.  And I suppose that the main reason I don't is that, no matter how hard we try to convince ourselves that when a man calls a woman a b!tch, when a straight person calls a gay person a f@g, when a white person calls a black person a n!gg@, or a n!gger - and so on - it's not meant to insult, to belittle, to hurt, in our heart of hearts, we know differently.  

    I'm not an angry person, Howdy, but that does not mean that some things don't make me angry.  The sheer stupidity and narrow-mindedness and bigotry that oozes out of Cliven Bundy's pores makes me angry, and it makes me ill, and it infuriates me that I have to see his face and hear his words in the media.  And see how many are lining up on his side.

    I hope that makes my feelings clearer for you, but if not, or if you choose to take the squeaky route and find a way to misinterpret or make them something I've clearly said they are not, I can't stop you.

    Here's the problem (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:37:39 PM EST
    I suppose that the main reason I don't is that, no matter how hard we try to convince ourselves that when a man calls a woman a b!tch, when a straight person calls a gay person a f@g, when a white person calls a black person a n!gg@, or a n!gger - and so on - it's not meant to insult, to belittle, to hurt, in our heart of hearts, we know differently.

    You totally miss the point.  That is precisely NOT what was being discussed.  What was in fact being discussed was black people using the word to each other, women using the word b!itch, and gay people using the words to other gay people.  


    Anne, I always like reading your comments (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by ZtoA on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 01:14:13 PM EST
    You should probably submit that comment again without the n word spelled out. J zaps those comments.

    I agree with you about using derogatory words to hurl at someone else. But those words are slippery and change when claimed by a dissed group.


    FYI. Word is not spelled out (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 02:19:57 PM EST
    What you are interpreting as an ( i ) is actually an exclamation point.

    Still May Not Be Kosher (none / 0) (#186)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 02:25:51 PM EST
    Regarding racial epithets.... seems to me it is best to avoid spelling out even with ! marks.

    Different than other words that need to be misspelled because of filters at law libraries etc.. IMO..


    I submit (none / 0) (#197)
    by sj on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 06:56:39 PM EST
    that Jeralyn has already provided guidance to those who need it.
    Still May Not Be Kosher (none / 0) (#186)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 01:25:51 PM MDT

    Regarding racial epithets.... seems to me it is best to avoid spelling out even with ! marks.

    And exclamation points have the same functions as asterisks. Your conclusion is pretty funny, though, seeing as how you didn't follow your own advice.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#200)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 07:13:28 PM EST
    I had a comment deleted that used the n word using exclamation point for the letter i.

    just giving a heads up here, as I do not believe that Jeralyn wants us spelling out racist words even with substitute letters.


    oops sorry, need new computer glasses (none / 0) (#188)
    by ZtoA on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 03:03:57 PM EST
    Obama (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by lentinel on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 07:21:01 PM EST
    did not call Hillary, "sweetie" to my knowledge.

    He aimed that piece of condescending tripe in the direction of a woman reporter who asked him a specific question about what he proposed to actually do to help workers after he had emitted some hot-air during a campaign visit.

    The link is here.

    It revealed Obama to be the elitist that he was and is.

    It still gives me the creeps when I view it.

    WOW (none / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 09:41:34 PM EST
    I assumed that all the kerfluffle and bandwidth here at TL was because Obama called Hillary sweetie.

    Now I know how rabid the haters are and were. BTW he apologized to the reporter.


    Shows (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by lentinel on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 09:54:33 PM EST
    that you shouldn't go around making assumptions.

    Really? (none / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:38:56 PM EST
    My assumption was trivial compared the torrent of puffed up accusations and character assassination heaped on Obama for making a faux pas. Had he been the slightest bit defensive when confronted that would have been cause for some pummeling but he apologized with sincerity and accepted his failure.

    Amazing to me how much many around here seem to detest Obama. And during the primary when there was no tangible difference in his position versus Hillary's.

    Must have something to do with transference or something psychological.


    You might be right with that last ... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 07:47:21 AM EST
    ... sentence.

    We're talking about how you formed that silly theory in the first, two paragraphs, right?


    Obama never called Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#103)
    by ZtoA on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 01:01:30 AM EST
    Sweetie. It was a female journalist who asked him a question.

    FOX/GOPs gift that keeps on giving (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 09:50:30 AM EST
    The CNN host suggested that Bundy had been abandoned at Fox News, something he said was apparent by the fact that the rancher was appearing on his network and not Fox.

    "I don't think I've been abandoned. I think maybe they misunderstood me a little bit," Bundy said. "But I think Fox and I, I think, Hannity and I are just right on. I have no doubt that he would support me if he understood really what's in my heart. And I think he does understand me.

    Bundy, in commenting on his statements on race, also invoked Martin Luther King Jr. and "Rosa Park," a reference to civil rights icon Rosa Parks. "If I say Negr@, or black boy, or slave -- if those people cannot take those kind of words and not be offensive, then Martin Luther King hasn't got his job done yet," Bundy said.

    He truly (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:03:07 AM EST
    is the gift that keeps on giving. Darn so many conservatives rushed to the rescuse of this guy. Now they are trying to scurry around and move the goal posts saying things like "in princple" he is right but honestly it's too late. This is what happens when you jump the gun and you hate the US government so much that you'll claim any joker out there is a victim.

    But to be fair, ... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 12:04:58 PM EST
    ... it wasn't just the folks at Fox News. We have a few people over here -- and they know who they are -- who are so overly suspicious and / or skeptical of government intentions that they did the exact same thing. And IIRC, at one point they even sought to compare Brother Bundy's Insane Rodeo Clown Revue to the Occupy movement.

    You rang? ;) (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 01:14:53 PM EST
    I don't recall ever calling Bundy anything but a sh*thead...I was questioning the actions of the BLM/US Govt, and even offered praise when they cooled out.

    And there are/were similarities between the Bundy Clown Posse and Occupy...law enforcement came after both groups, did they not?  That's a similarity.  Both practiced civil disobedience.  Of course, the motives and goals of the groups could not be more different.

    Guilty as charged for being suspicious and skeptical...though I might dispute "overly". ;)


    It wasn't just you. (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 02:39:20 AM EST
    And no, I don't see any similarities at all between the Bundy brigades and the Occupy movement.

    Further, I certainly would never equate the former's armed threats of violence against state and federal law enforcement personnel with the latter's acts of civil disobedience. Passive nonviolent resistance as was mostly practiced by Occupy protestors requires an enormous personal reservoir of self-consciousness and self-discipline, and none of that was on display by the Bundy clan and the militia types who rushed to their defense.

    Speaking for myself only, I've always strived to maintain a healthy level of skepticism toward government officials, even when I've worked for them as a senior advisor. But I would offer that when personal suspicions lead one to identify even peripherally with the self-inflicted travails of a deranged crackpot like Cliven Bundy, then it crosses the threshold to become simply another term for "paranoia."



    Bundy did not practice (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:38:53 AM EST
    Civil Disobedience.  He had a militia with rifles pointed at Federal agents.

    When this difference was pointed out before, the response from the Conservatives and Libertarians here was:  Shows you why you need to be armed.  The non violent approach of the Occupiers was rejected as ineffective.  

    I have really thought about that response over the last few days.  The approach of MLK and Gandhi was tossed over in favor of rifles....might makes right....and there is at times much truth in that.  But that is why MLK and Gandhi were so great....From a Christian perspective--going by Jesus of the New Testament--violence is opposed as well, as Jesus rebuked Peter for slicing off the ear of the Roman soldier.

    K-dog, you are dogged in your Libertarianism--applying that idea to its logical conclusion with Bundy.  But that is one of my major concerns with Libertarianism.  It is rigidly dogmatic, ignoring the real world consequences and having no room for compromise or exceptions....A rigid ideology, an abstract ideology can end up hurting real people.

    I do think Rand Paul is the future of the Republican Party.  They will end up going Libertarian to a large degree--going back the Republican Party that was Isolationist and in the permanent minority.

    To all you Libertarians out there, Ayn Rand Paul was being true to his beliefs when he said he opposed the Civil Rights laws because they interfered with private parties' decisions.

    Government protects the weak against the strong.   The strong and wealthy do not need government.


    The point is not that (2.00 / 1) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 10:16:34 AM EST
    they are the same in content.

    The point is they are the same in action. Both were demonstrating against what they see as oppressive organizations.


    Remind me again (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 10:48:20 AM EST
    Which one had the militia members bringing their guns to confront law enforcement members enforcing court order, while hiding behind their wives/female members in order to support the illegal grazing of a racist, freeloading rancher?

    Colbert sings (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 12:07:46 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 12:48:35 PM EST
    you know you have to be careful when jerking that knee because it came snap back up and hit you in the face.

    I'm (none / 0) (#21)
    by lentinel on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 01:08:12 PM EST
    wondering, as I have for quite awhile, about black people referring to each other as "n-ggers".

    I have witnessed it, as well as seeing it on Youtube standups.

    I just don't get it.

    It has been going on for years and years.

    When Redd Foxx did it - that era - it felt different than it does now.

    Can't explain it.

    Just reporting.


    Going back to the black female's (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 02:10:55 PM EST
    testimony in the Zimmerman case, if it said with an "a" it's okay but with an "er" it is bad.

    And yes, that makes no sense to m


    It's a cultural thing. (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 03:29:03 AM EST
    And as someone who did not grow up in that culture, I wouldn't expect you to know and note the difference.

    It's not unlike all those malihini (transplanted white people) over here who constantly take offense at the Native Hawaiian word haole, believing it to be a racist pejorative / ethnic slur directed at them. In reality, haole simply means "foreigner," and the term long predates the arrival of Europeans to the islands.

    Further, according to the late Hawaiian scholar Mother Alice Kaholukuna, Native Hawaiians used the term ha'ole to describe white Christians. It was actually a conjunction of two words -- , which means "breath," and 'ole, which means "without."

    To Hawaiians, the rite of prayer was and is a deeply involved personal ritual to be taken very seriously by the individual. And when they saw missionaries utter a few sentences, say "Amen" and then go on about their business, they termed it ha'ole, in specific reference to those who failed to breathe life into their prayers.

    To gain in knowledge, one simply needs to recognize that one does not necessarily have all the answers, which then opens one's mind to the possibilities.



    Donald (1.00 / 1) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 10:13:50 AM EST
    please stop the nonsense of trying to always position yourself as the all knowing all seeing.

    It isn't working.


    Yes Donald (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 10:16:52 AM EST
    That's his job

    baa waa waa (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 10:19:37 AM EST
    you're right about that. Don't try to educate Jim about history. He already knows it all. LOL

    It's hardly worth noting (2.00 / 1) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 10:44:31 AM EST
    but I see that you didn't catch on that the comment was about Donald's wonderful determination to display his most excellent intellect by splicing comments onto the thinnest branch.

    But hey, he was a "Senor Adviser" to a politician so I guess that makes him an expert in all things.


    You may take issue (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by sj on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 07:43:14 PM EST
    with Donald's history lessons, but they can all be backed up with fact.

    Unlike the lessons given by someone whose name starts and ends with the letter "j"


    Donald's knowledge about history, (none / 0) (#150)
    by christinep on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:47:01 AM EST
    about facts, seems to get to you, imo.  Somehow, the tenor of your comments or irritation reminds me of green eyes.

    Perhaps because, like me... (none / 0) (#181)
    by unitron on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 02:03:41 PM EST
    "Don't try to educate Jim about history. He already knows it all."

    ...he's old enough to have been around for most of it. : - )


    What does that mean? (none / 0) (#159)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:04:57 PM EST
    Haole (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:33:42 AM EST
    That's an amazing story.  I have heard the word but never that story

    Depends on Usage (none / 0) (#121)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 09:17:04 AM EST
    It all depends on usage, like many words. Foreigner can both be pejorative and neutral IOW purely descriptive, depending on context.

    And, the original term to describe christian missionaries sounds very negative to me. Particularly uttered by people who take spirituality very seriously. It means that these foreigners are superficial hypocrites, going through the motions to look spiritual but they have nothing in the bank.

    Maui, Kauai, Big Island is different than Oahu.
    The term Haole will be used in both senses of the word. It does mean foreigner, but is often used as a derogatory remark "Stupid Haole" or "Freakin haole driver".
    I would recommend staying away from the Waianae Coast (West Coast) as "Haoles" are not greeted kindly.

    It is quite common for people to make fun of races, Portuguese, Filipino, Japanese, White, Chinese, etc. so don't be offended too much. I grew up on the mainland as an Asian American, and believe me, the racism there is nothing compared to what you would get here.

    Don't worry too much about it.

    Hawaiians don't have the Right to be mad at you. It is not YOU who did anything. Everyone has had ancestor with questionable history.



    Makes perfect sense... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 02:17:55 PM EST
    to those under 40, it's all in the pronunciation and context as to whether it's a hateful racist term or a simple term of endearment.

    Just heard Chris Cileazy from REPUBLICO (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:33:49 AM EST
    Say he really wished they would stop putting him on tv.  I'm sure he would.
    Personally I hope he gets a reality show.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 12:52:57 PM EST
    MORE MORE MORE of his pontifications on how things were better centuries ago.

    You know (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 02:04:34 PM EST
    he can be totally wrong in his comments about blacks and 100% right about his issue with the BLM.

    But hey, that's just me noting that we don't have to agree on everything to agree on something.


    Of course (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 02:39:21 PM EST
    He is totally wrong on both.  
    There's a point in there someplace.

    They're all (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 02:51:36 PM EST
    trying to move the goal posts now. First Bundy was a "victim" now it's well, he's right on this or that. The truth is Bundy is wrong on everything but they have too much invested in this joker to admit it.

    Agreed. Fox and many others (none / 0) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 03:56:19 PM EST
    lionized Cliven as the patriot's patriot, but would like you now to forget about him, and them,  filing it away like Gilda Radner's character, Emily Litella,  "Nevermind."   Or, rationalize away their misjudgment by noting that he is not all bad, he has a good point, just like finding the good in Il Duce--he was right about those railroads, and made the trains run on time.

    Nope, that isn't a true comparison (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 05:25:46 PM EST
    He hasn't the power to do anything beyond being the explanation point regarding the police powers that way too many government agencies have assumed.

    As Obama said.


    Freed advise: (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:48:01 AM EST
    Get a new hero.  Not wise to put, at best, a cartoonish freeloader character on your pedestal.  

    Now you're posting links to ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 05:47:43 PM EST
    ... wingnut videos titled "Obama's militia.  Waffen SS"?  Don't you ever tire of pushing these silly lies?


    Q: Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like "civilian national security force"?

    A: This false claim is a badly distorted version of Obama's call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service.

    Funny how your links are always so easily destroyed when exposed to the actual facts.


    Yman (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 05:54:05 PM EST
    Don't take the bait

    I know, ... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 05:59:03 PM EST
    Jim (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 06:59:16 PM EST
    apparently thinks like Clive Bundy it would seem. I'm sure Bundy thinks Obama has a secret SS coming to get him and along with the militia fools they were going to line up women.

    I mean if this idiot wasn't stealing from the tax payers of this country it might actually be quite funny.


    Actually (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 07:11:18 PM EST
    Stealing or no, it's funny as hell

    Uproariously funny (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:00:36 AM EST
    We will hippy you to death :). Kale dispersing death squads!  Voter registration assaults.

    INCOMING ENDIVE!!!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:29:35 AM EST
    Lies??? (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 07:50:11 PM EST
    The video clearly shows Obama saying what he said.

    It is what it is.

    And you can twist and turn and parse all you want but that doesn't change his words.


    I'm not twisting anything (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 09:17:33 PM EST
    Just putting to bed the lies in your link.  Hence the reason factcheck didn't just call it "misleading" or a "distortion", but outright false.

    Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.

    People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem - they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

    We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set.

    We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

    So, yeah ...

    ... your lies.


    Lots of words there, yman (2.00 / 1) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:13:24 PM EST
    Doesn't change what Obama said with his very own lips.

    But keep denying. It makes you look so....well... a denier....



    You're right, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 07:37:04 AM EST
    When I see blatant lies, I deny them.  As opposed to, say ...

    ... someone who posts links to them.


    I'm coming for ya Jim (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 10:05:09 AM EST
    I'm comin..........BOO!

    I think it's called the (none / 0) (#54)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 03:59:02 PM EST
    "Mussolini DID make the trains run on time" analogy.

    Or, ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 06:02:03 PM EST
    ... he's just 100% wrong about both.

    Watching tv this afternoon (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 06:11:54 PM EST
    I have seen that most recent interview about 3or4 times.
    The whiny nasal victim tone of it seriously makes me want to barf.

    If you can bear it watch this And you will see what I mean.

    Oooooh poor me.   I should be able to say whatever I waaaant.
    Somebody call the waaaaaambulance


    Here's an interview by CNN (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:14:59 PM EST
    Jim, give it up (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:48:15 AM EST
    Even Hannity has abandoned Bundy.   No need to defend him any longer.

    Bundy is a racist. Pure and simple. Even if you find one black person who supports him.  

    Stop defending him.


    Give what up?? (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 10:33:53 AM EST
    Look at the link and then you need to give it up.

    Bundy said what he said and I disagree with him saying it because it opened the door for nitwits like Hannity to run away.

    The black bodyguard said he isn't racist. In the two others they say it doesn't matter because the issue is the BLM and EPA. And that the point he was trying to make was poorly stated.

    Who should I believe? These three blacks or you?

    I see his point as this. The war on poverty has not worked. Period. The number of unwed mothers has exploded and the number of people on welfare has increased. And while the trend has accelerated during the Obama administration it is truly a bipartisan thing.

    Does this mean we don't need a safety net?? No. But it does mean that we must rethink on how to do it. The present program is obviously a failure.

    And to return to Bundy, his rambling disjointed comments about what's has been, is and will be if we don't change things should have never been said because it allows the press to run off and reframe the argument away from "Why should we have X number of federal agencies with weapons and snipers" to... "Anyone who disagrees is a racist."


    Yo Jim: A few remarks about (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by christinep on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:19:38 PM EST
    your comment noting "unwed mothers" and "welfare" in the same paragraph as your asserting that the war on poverty failed....

    While conceding that the war on poverty stopped way short of its goal of eradicating poverty in our country, nonetheless, your implication that any increases in single motherhood or economic deprivation combined with the need for subsidy somehow result from an approach akin to the war on poverty contains a logical fallacy.  The fact that two conditions may exist--e.g., "unwed mothers" and "welfare"--means nothing other than that they may exist; no causal relationship is demonstrated with regard to any conclusions that are made. Perhaps, we are looking at changes in societal values and acceptance of single motherhood?  Perhaps, we are looking at an almost decade of national economic travail and the much-discussed growing gap between the poor and the wealthy?  Perhaps???  

    In any event, my concern beyond the particulars of conclusions stated as fact is that the practice of jumping-to-conclusions, often largely based upon ideological predisposition (say, about the war on poverty), can lead to the type of -- um -- political embarrassment being felt by conservatives who rushed in to defend/champion Mr. Bundy ... jumped in, ideologically, before knowing the facts.  And, of course, one set of facts has to do with a belief system (best characterized as racism) that contradicts all the "freedom" aspirations that his supporters claimed.  As old J. Scarborough mentioned, when the embarrassing reality reared its ugly head: The problem with his own party, at times, can be the rush to embrace whomever is the enemy of one's enemy based upon ideological bent and before the facts are known.

    As I mentioned in another thread, the "smarts" here set the situation where this wealthy rancher and ideologue would talk & talk & talk... and, because the facts indicate that Mr. Bundy had earlier been heard to express similar beliefs, the Administration wisely calculated that he would talk himself and his would-be supporters into the dilemma that you all now face.

    The supporters cut & run, at this point, because they really do not have any practical choice.


    Bundy is a racist (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 04:33:58 PM EST
    It does not matter if he gets one or three African Americans to say differently.

    You are supporting a racist......


    Shorter Bundy (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by sj on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 01:48:01 PM EST
    Bundy, in commenting on his statements on race, also invoked Martin Luther King Jr. and "Rosa Park," a reference to civil rights icon Rosa Parks. "If I say Negr@, or black boy, or slave -- if those people cannot take those kind of words and not be offensive, then Martin Luther King hasn't got his job done yet," Bundy said.
    "If I can't be as offensive as I want to be, it's the fault of those black folks."

    That really the biggest gem yet (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 02:42:23 PM EST
    If I can't say any ignorant racist thing I want without upsetting someone, I am the victim.

    It's the whole insane right wing Christian identity movement in a nutsack.


    Didn't see your comment about (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:57:02 PM EST
    The blooms till the thread closed.  Let us cross our fingers that we are done with snow.  Things are seriously into bloom here.  Way more than when I took those pics.  If it snowed it would be bad.  Fortunately there is nothing close to that int the forecast.

    I read (none / 0) (#88)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:16:07 PM EST
    Bundy's full comments in context, without editing there is nothing there, not newsworthy.

    Slimy speaking out both sides of their mouth politicians never utter a non PC word, normal people use language they grew up with, and it has nothing to do being racist.


    That's awsum (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:44:47 PM EST
    I give you credit for not running for the hills like the rest of his sh!theel supporters when he shows his true colors.  
    Don't be afraid to show your true colors.  It's not like we didn't already know what they were.

    Nothing newsworthy (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 07:42:23 AM EST
    Nothing racist ... according to Mikado.

    David Duke agrees.



    I don't (2.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:02:19 PM EST
    give either of you credit for reading Bundy's unedited words, they have no disparagement, no hate, just an old man's opinion on the chains of dependencies liberals use to shackle the poor.

    What is hateful are the media attacks on Bundy, disgusting work.


    As a matter of fact I did read his comments (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:08:34 PM EST
    But there is this amazing new thing call video.  You can actually see him say it.  There is this other thing called "the google" that you can use to find these things.

    Am I supposed to care? (none / 0) (#162)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:13:49 PM EST
    I've seen his unedited words.  Of course you're not offended by them.  Like most conservatives, you only tax offense when it personally affects you.

    "Tax offense." Is that a modern version (none / 0) (#171)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:41:13 PM EST
    Of the jar into which money must be tossed by the person who cusses?

    Freudian slip, maybe? (none / 0) (#173)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:52:16 PM EST
    Gotta stop trying to comment from my phone.

    Double Sainthood (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:10:59 AM EST
    sounds like a reward in a video game

    Double Header: Vatican Prepares to Canonize Two Popes

    BOGO (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:20:07 AM EST
    In other news (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:46:02 AM EST
    Creationist Debate Stalls South Carolina State Fossil Bill
    by Megan Gannon posted on April 25, 2014

    When 8-year-old Olivia McConnell proposed that her state, South Carolina, adopt a state fossil, she may not have expected her request to prompt a drawn-out fight with creationists in the state legislature.
    In letters to her local representatives, Olivia asked that the woolly mammoth be made the official state fossil, because mammoth teeth dug up by slaves in a South Carolina swamp in 1725 were among the first vertebrate fossils discovered in North America.

    Her senator, Kevin Johnson, told CBS News this week that he thought a bill honoring the request "would just fly through the House and through the Senate." But the bill is currently languishing in the House, months after it was proposed in January, because some lawmakers with creationist beliefs have objected on religious grounds.


    I'm sorry, I have to post the punchline (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:49:26 AM EST
    The original text of the bill simply read: "The woolly mammoth is designated as the official state fossil of South Carolina."

    In its most recent iteration, which was shot down in a vote on April 9, the bill had been amended to read as follows:

    "The Columbian Mammoth, which was created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field, is designated as the official State Fossil of South Carolina and must be officially referred to as the 'Columbian Mammoth', which was created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field."


    I grew up (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 12:55:13 PM EST
    in SC and even in the 70's the state was not this ridiculous. Now they've turned into a national butt of jokes.

    AR must feel like NY compared to SC and GA lately.


    Don't you mean "the national butt that (none / 0) (#24)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 01:22:50 PM EST
    was created the day South Carolina decided to lose its mind?"

    On the bright side, does devolution help prove evolution?

    Honestly, the list of States I Could Never Live In is growing longer by the day.


    It's really sad (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 01:42:51 PM EST
    There are people there who don't think like these nuts but either they don't vote or they are outnumbered or whatever.

    I lived in Greenville, SC, at one point in my life and I have to tell you it is probably the worst place I have ever lived in my entire life. I lived in other places in SC that were not nearly as bad.


    I think they do it (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 02:12:15 PM EST
    just so you can claim to be outraged and then feel superior.



    It's working (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 02:19:27 PM EST
    Well Howdy (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 05:27:28 PM EST
    I think you have the first half covered.



    No (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 02:45:54 PM EST
    these crackpots want a theocracy. They always complain about how everybody looks down on them and they are the bottom of everything but do nothing to change that so all you can do is laugh at them. It's a perfect example of why SC schools are some of the worst in the country.

    They are afraid (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 02:45:04 PM EST
    Afraid of losing their jobs or endangering their kids in school  or worse.

    What they (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 02:48:51 PM EST
    are afraid of is the fact that if the government does not prop up religion that it is going to wither on the vine. The thing is they are actually hurting religion more than helping by doing this kind of stuff. They're pretty much saying that you have to be dumb to be religious which is unfortunate.

    You misunderstand me (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 02:54:49 PM EST
    People who DISAGREE with the bible thumpers are afriaid to say so publicly.  I have had more than one person say this to me.
    Around here you can lose your job or worse.  Fortunately I don't have or need a job.  And I have a locking gas cap so nothing funny goes in my tank late at night.  Which has absolutely happened in this very town.

    Okay (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 02:59:17 PM EST
    I see what you are talking about. They are afraid for their lives. Thought serioulsy I know who Mike Fair is and he's not afraid for his life. He's the one who would be lighting the torch to burn someone at the stake.

    Around here there is a pretty large population of (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 03:09:42 PM EST
    "non denominational" .  They are IMO the armpit of the religious right.  As far as I can tell their outward expressions of "faith" only have to do with women.  They can't cut their hair or wear makeup or jewelry.  But best of all -IMO - is they have to wear long skirts made of bluejeans that have been turned into a skirt.  In spite of really really wanting to I never asked where in the bible it says you need to do this.
    The men seem to be mostly bikers.
    Now I have experience with this because when I worked for the county delivering meals to old folks the entire management of the operation were said women.  Now if you have ever been around really old people you know they tend to say pretty much whatever pops into their heads.  It can be a nightmare or part of their charm depending on the situation.
    So one day the old men were joking with one of these women about the skirt.  As you can imagine if you turn jeans into a skirt you tend to have to take really tiny steps so this old man said " whatta ya do if somebody's chasin ya" and the table of old men laughed.  She did not.  And the next every old man who laughed got sugar in their gas tank in the parking lot.

    I would be surprised if TalkLeft (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 03:26:55 PM EST
    Has any non denominational commenters but if it does please tell me I am wrong.  That the whole movement is not a bunch if Christian identity nut jobs.  I can only relate my own experience. Having trashed them I have to say some of the women seemed very nice and even intelligent.  But also totally beaten down and subjugated.  
    I would  love to be corrected.  Or you can simply consider me the armpit of left wing activism.  

    I can't correct you on that (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 07:40:07 PM EST
    A stepmom here was left with two teens as dad deployed, the teens have gone wild, say the most horrible things to her, have gone mad.  The couple also attends church here, but no church member/s seems to be able to head over to her house and line these little blanks out.  I guess they just feel sorry for her, they pray, but some real help.....something tangible.......nah!  We will have none of those scary village raised children around here I guess.  Being a pagan, I am not friend enough to help line em out....I could say something off color I suppose, and a few things not found in the Bible :). I still don't see how I could out threaten God or step on his toes.

    In this case the father is definitely (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 07:52:33 PM EST
    In the home and IMO a major part if the problem.  I said the men were bikers but not in a good way.  They are Taliban bikers.  I'm sure the father in this case in most of what drove the boys over the edge.
    These boys ran to get away from "church help". One things I know is that they go several times a week.  Maybe not every day but way more than my church of Christ brother who goes twice a week.

    That is (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 07:54:50 PM EST
    unfortunately how a lot of those churches are. The thing is most of those churches operate like a mega corp and who knows? No one at the church may know she is having problems but they tend to impersonal in nature. Instead of sitting in your living room and watching TV you go somewhere and watch it on a stage. If you talk to a great number of these people they will tell you that they know no one at that church but that is the kind of people those churches attract. They basically attract people who want to go somewhere Sunday morning and be entertained. They don't want to get involved in anything.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 09:00:42 PM EST
    I criticize them a lot but the churches my family member go to are nothing like that.  They are exactly the opposite I guess you would say.  Everyone knows everyone and I have to say everyone helps everyone.  Back before the ACA when lots of people were uninsured they were often collecting money for medical bills.  Or collecting furniture for a burnout or food for the ones who needed it.  I have to admit their churches here do a lot of good.  
    That doesn't mean I want to listen to their often politically tinged spiels every Sunday.

    Well (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 06:53:05 AM EST
    that's how they tend to me in my area. There are plenty of churches that do do what you are talking about just not the megachurches here.

    I do Hands on Atlanta once a year where we prepare meals for people who are crtically and terminally ill. Nary an evagelical megachurch shows up any time I have been though a lot of churches do show up. The only evangelical churches that show up are African American ones and I'm not even sure they would be considered "evangelical". Every other church there is what you would consider a "mainline" church.


    That's to bad (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:42:36 AM EST
    Certainly never been to a mega church. Don't think I know anyone who has.  Never lived in an area that had one afaik.  But I guess I assumed that they did the same kind of good things that other churches in my experience did and that - I supposed in my mind - might offset some of the bad they so.  You know, being MEGA and all.   Seems like they could do,a lot do good.  That's actually very sad.
    When I lived I Atlanta I sometimes, with my friends still awake from Saturday night, would go to an AA church that was known to not be bothered by our presence.   Just to hear the music and the choir.

    I have (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 10:10:16 AM EST
    Mostly they are like a theater. You sit in a dark room with an overhead screen. The minister uses a powerpoint for his sermon. IIRC all the words to the songs are on the screen for you to sing along with. You don't kneel or stand or anything. You just sit there. Really nothing is pretty much required of you except your ability to sit there and do what the screen tells you to do. Like i said before it's akin to watching one of those ministers on TV. I guess you could say it's "dumbed down" for the masses. The one I went to that particular time did not discuss politics. Another one I went to when I lived in a different part of Georgia did all the time. I quit going to that one. Even my grandmother's FUNERAL was a political sermon from the preacher. It was disgusting. It was the worst funeral I have ever been to and it made me so sad because I loved her dearly and still miss her to this day.

    There is one of the largest Southern Baptist churches in the country near me. It has 10K members. They do nothing for the community as far as helping the sick the poor or the homeless but by gosh a referendum came up to allow restuarants to serve liquor on Sunday and they came out of the woodwork. Apparently their minister saw this as a worthy cause. I went to a church that had 200 members and we were the TOP giver to the local food bank. A friend of a friend had their house burn down and they went to the Southern Baptist megachurch for help and they told them they only help their own members. It was the perfect chance to make a difference and they dropped the ball. They can't help anybody in the community but they have a restuarant in their church building, they have a gym in their church and other assorted things. They have the same attitudes a lot of Republicans have that this person or that person is "unworthy". Frankly I didn't think it was up to us to decide whether someone was unworthy or not but they are very big into the control thing.


    Is it actually... (none / 0) (#185)
    by unitron on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 02:24:32 PM EST
    ...affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, or just a Baptist church which is Southern by geography?

    I don't know if there (none / 0) (#189)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 04:20:47 PM EST
    is such a thing as Baptist Church that would be is are any called southern Baptist strictly because it's located in the south. Yes, this church is a member of the Southern Baptist convention. The other Baptist churches that are not Southern Baptist usually are called Independent Baptist which can run the gamut from ultra conservatie to liberal. Then there's also the American Baptists which I don't know of many down here but the Southern Baptists broke from the American Baptists IIRC around the Civil War because the American Baptists did not support slavery and the Southern Baptists did. The Southern Baptists finally renounced their support of slavery in the 1990's. Kind of shocking that it took them over 100 years to admit slavery was actually wrong huh?

    One more (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 03:48:44 PM EST
    Googleing about this after I trashed them and learning stuff--

    Among the groups that have benefited from mainline church leakage are nondenominational churches -- independent geographically-based Christian churches that do not espouse a particular denomination affiliation. These churches -- some of which are so big that they are called megachurches -- are most likely evangelical flavored (75 percent), but some are more akin to the mainline tradition (20 percent) and a few are more like the historically black Protestant tradition (5 percent).

    Maybe the locals are not typical of others in other places.  I actually hope so.


    Yeah, (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 03:58:34 PM EST
    they benefitted from leakage of mainline churches but now are losing their youth by the boatload. I call them the "Brave New World" churches. You can read about it here

    Yes (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 04:22:33 PM EST
    My boss (female) had two sons.   One in prison for dealing heroin and one teenager in rehab for meth.

    I honestly really feel for both if them.  I seriously can nor imagine growing up like that.  


    We have (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 03:53:47 PM EST
    a lot of the nondemoninational churches in my area but they are different than that. They are more like women should wear makeup at all times, wear dresses as much as possible, have a ton of children. The women are supposed to have as their main job tending to children and having children. They are like big on promoting the 1950's type of stuff.

    But I know the types of people you are talking about. I went to high school with them. We used to call them the "Church of God" people and they were really fringe back then. The girls could only wear dresses never any pants. They were not supposed to cut their hair and assorted other things that I probably cannot remember. There actaully bible verses about cutting hair.

    These people also tend to be completely humorless too. Dour faced and sad is the general appearance.


    GA and Howdy (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 05:30:22 PM EST
    You crack me up. I swear if you didn't exist the far Right would have to invent you.

    I guess (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 07:39:55 PM EST
    you don't read much outside of the bubble huh? Or experience much outside the bubble?

    You know (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 07:51:57 PM EST
    I can't tell the difference between you, Howdy and people you attack.

    Nuts are nuts.



    Well (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 07:56:27 PM EST
    then I guess if you can't tell that then you've really wandered off into la la land. You and Bundy should have fun in your make believe country somewhere that has fantasy history and fantasy science for you to enjoy.

    Jim (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 07:59:01 PM EST
    the problem is you don't realize you ARE the far right. You vote for people who represent the far right 25% of the country. You're not the only one LOL. Lots of people on the far right have convinced themselves that the majority of Americans are with them despite a lot of facts to the contrary.

    Please see comments 61 and 62 (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 08:05:10 PM EST



    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:16:30 AM EST
    I know you can't reason with a neoconfederate bircher conspiracy theorist lol.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 08:22:09 PM EST
    Not trying to be hall monitor.  But if you really want to get under his skin, that's the way to do it.  You are certainly never going to win an argument.  It's not possible.

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 10:36:56 AM EST
    And you think Bush, Romeny, McCain, Alexander, Corker, etc..... represents the Far Right.


    That just shows you think everyone is a radical because you're one.



    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:14:49 AM EST
    Jim. The primaries turned all of them into nut cases. There is a reason why the GOP wants to limits debates in 2016. They might not have started out as the far right but by the time they got through the primaries and signing onto the radical agenda of the GOP and picking far right VPs yeah, they became the far right. Showing your support for the Bundy rancher pretty much shows you are part of the radical right too. Read some issue polls.

    Yes, they are afraid (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:54:44 AM EST
    religion will fail without governmental approval.

    And, they are right to be concerned about religion in general.  The younger folk are more and more non religious....The trend is accelerating.  

    Even the Evangelicals are increasingly older.  


    But watch out - here comes the Hobby Lobby (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 09:05:27 AM EST
    To replenish the ranks -----

    OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- A high school curriculum supported by Hobby Lobby chain president Steve Green, billed as a way to teach archaeology, history and the arts through Bible stories, also tells students God is always there in times of trouble and that sinners must "suffer the consequences" of disobeying.

    The Associated Press obtained a draft copy of the curriculum from the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma, which got it from the school district. The ACLU and the Freedom From Religion Foundation say using the curriculum raises constitutional issues and want the school district to reconsider.

    The course is promoted by Green, the executive for the crafts store chain who is also a member of the Bible museum's board. Green, who has said he wants the program in thousands of schools by 2017, declined to speak to the Associated Press.


    "A Saint, He Ain't" (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:49:53 AM EST
    Pffftt (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:54:12 AM EST
    The choral director sang "Amazing Grace" to the tune of "Danny Boy."

    The best part is (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 12:00:06 PM EST
    Once you read that it becomes an ear worm

    How very provoking (none / 0) (#27)
    by sj on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 01:56:03 PM EST
    I find myself actually agreeing with MoDo. Although in the interest of family unity I haven't said so out loud. I have some family members who will be in St. Peter's Square for the canonization mass.

    "Commonweal" (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 03:42:59 PM EST
    has a critique of MoDo's column by Mollie O'Reilly.   She says its an awful column, but, in my view, her review is awful.  The nut of Ms. O'Reilly's criticism is "not that she is completely wrong, but that she is not serious."  And, an opinion columnist "has to be more than basically right about the big stuff."    If MoDo is not completely wrong, the argument for that statement seems missing.  Unless, she means that Benedict XVI was not Rasputin to John Paul II, but rottweiler to him--that should fix it.

    That review is truly terrible (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by sj on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 03:57:49 PM EST
    It's awfully reminiscent of all the after-the-fact the criticisms of those who opposed the war in Iraq. Those warmongers who actually were wrong justified their wrongness by declaring the DFHs were right for the wrong reasons.

    It's weird. I agree with much of the criticism of MoDo in that colunmn, but  that doesn't mean that she can't get it right every now then.

    Even if she does it in her Completely Wrong Way.


    Feel I should point out (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 02:26:49 PM EST
    That the gay community embraced the word queer.  To the point that universities are (or were - don't really keep up) offering "queer studies" courses.
    Coopting a derogatory term to disarm and neuter it is not new.

    Yes (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 02:44:31 PM EST
    Great example...

    your comment above this one was deleted for (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 03:09:16 AM EST
    using the "n" word with an "er" at the end and no asterisks in place of letters. That's not allowed here.

    The word ending in "a" is a commonly used term among young African Americans and to a lesser extent other minorities. When used in conversation with each other, it is not offensive or insulting. It's used to greet friends, talk about friends and enemies, etc, much in the same way people greet people with "Hey, Dude, what's up? " or talk to a friend about "that dude" doing this or that.  But it is considered an insult when an outsider (a non-minority person) uses it.

    In drug wiretap cases involving minorities, it can be used in almost every sentence, sometimes ten or more times in one call, that's how common it is. While I've listened to hundreds if not thousands of these calls, right now I can't recall a single instance in which a white person used it when speaking to a non-white person during a telephone call. I have heard Hispanics, Asians and African Americans use it with each other, mostly when they know each other very well, but nowhere near as often as when the speakers belong to the same minority group.

    Neither word should be spelled out here.


    Interesting that this guy (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 06:41:34 PM EST
    Steven Horsford Is Cliven Bundys US representative.  Seems like a thoroughly serious and enlightened politician.

    Chris Hayes (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 07:58:58 PM EST
    Is ending his show with a segment on how great Sunday night tv is.  And he is so right.
    You know what else?  This Sunday for, like, the 10th Sunday in a row a giant storm is supposed to arrive in the late afternoon and last till after midnight.


    Check out this new toy... (none / 0) (#84)
    by desertswine on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 09:39:07 PM EST
    Pretty cool dinosaur toy coming out later this year.

    That's awsum (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:07:03 PM EST
    But I think I will wait for the cheap knockoff version

    No word on how much Boomer will cost when he goes on sale.  But Zoomer retails for between $75 and $100.


    Wow (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:34:01 PM EST
    A bit scary, for it to be the one... imo..   very cool though.

    Please let us know when you intend to (none / 0) (#91)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:45:59 PM EST
    test your theory on the black community; I would seriously like to see how quickly you figure out that that word coming out of the mouth of a white man is not going to be regarded as a term of endearment.

    I'm guessing you might get it before you can utter the second syllable of that word.

    Anne, I hate to disagree with you but (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by ZtoA on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:36:46 AM EST
    these words do not mean what they used to. There is a magazine published in Portland called B!tch Magazine publishes by B!tch media. It's funny to hear the local male PBS (OPB) radio hosts introduce forum voices from B!tch media. They stumbled over the word for years, and some still do, but it has become a respected magazine lasting for nearly 20 years and now the word is said with respect. I know many women who are seriously bothered by the name but this is what Andi Zeisler said about that:

    The writer Rebecca West said, "People call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat." We'd argue that the word "bitch" is usually deployed for the same purpose. When it's being used as an insult, "bitch" is an epithet hurled at women who speak their minds, who have opinions and don't shy away from expressing them, and who don't sit by and smile uncomfortably if they're bothered or offended. If being an outspoken woman means being a bitch, we'll take that as a compliment.

    Bette Davis (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:45:49 AM EST
    "When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a b!tch".

    "Now the word is said with respect?" (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 09:33:31 AM EST
    I beg to differ.

    Perhaps the women at whom it is hurled are choosing to regard it as a term of respect, but I'm pretty sure that the men who are flinging it around are not doing it to convey their respect, they are doing it to insult and convey their anger and contempt.  Being able to say the word because it is the name of a magazine is not the same as using it as a term of respect.

    What's next?  Want to make the argument that when women call men "d!cks," they are doing it because they respect them?  You might have trouble being heard over the hoots of laughter, but have at it.


    To Differ Here is Silly (none / 0) (#124)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 09:56:11 AM EST
    When someone delivers an insult and it is taken as a compliment, the insulter will stop using the insulting word because it is not inflicting the intended wound. IOW the receiver is not insulted.

    Language is like a river as it changes naturally over a long period of time. You can look up words that were meant to be mean 200 years ago and today have lost their invective spirit.

    Today activists speed up the historical change of pejorative words by taking them as compliments as in the examples above using b!tch and queer.

    Eventually the words lose their bite and haters start using other language meant to inflict insult.  


    What? Sorry - I can't hear you over (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 10:20:45 AM EST
    the laughter.

    And no, it's not the "laughing with you" kind.

    I do look forward to the results of your experiment, though, especially the part where you tell someone the word you just used was a term of endearment.


    I think I understand where you are coming from (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by ZtoA on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 10:42:07 AM EST
    and I felt the same way in the late 90s when the magazine was started. But it was started by strong women and not by name calling men and the results of that experiment are in and the magazine has had a positive effect as a forum for women's voices.

    There are a lot of preconditions for using negative words in a progressive way and often they are not met and then it does not work. Calling someone else a derogatory term is not the same as using it for one's self. I wouldn't mind if a bunch of young dudes started a magazine called "The New Dick Journal", but I don't think it would work if I started it. After a while the words lose power and then new words get charged so that we all can keep insulting each other effectively.


    The New Dick Journal (none / 0) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:12:03 AM EST
    Might bring me out of retirement

    The Old Dick? (none / 0) (#144)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:23:12 AM EST
    Straight up news and commentary by Al Derly Jackov.



    I'm so there (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:27:56 AM EST
    I would love to sit silently in the same room as (none / 0) (#155)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:59:10 AM EST
    you and squeaky and the Steinway and the gigantico Garuda.  

    Feigned Ignorance? (none / 0) (#137)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:04:45 AM EST
    Hard to believe that you are not able to understand a simple concept. Children use the saying "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me".

    So if a child can understand I am sure you can too.

    An insult means nothing unless someone gets insulted. Whatever is intended means little if the recipient of the intended harm is not harmed. If the person trying to insult persists, they are foolish and wasting their breath, not to mention looking like an idiot.

    Maybe this analogy will shed light.

    An american is traveling in Germany. A German person called the tourist a dirty jew. The tourist smiles and nods. The German laughs and continues to insult the tourist who smiles and nods. This goes on for a couple of minutes until the tourist starts speaking German, thanks the german for pointing out that there is a speck of dust on his lapel and compliments the german for his keen eye, because he is only half jewish and the other half German.  The tourist goes on to tell the German that he is glad that his German half was imperceptible because it is by far the inferior part of his genetic makeup.

    The German was immediately insulted and walked off in a huff.


    Anne, I don't like being called names (none / 0) (#147)
    by ZtoA on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:37:20 AM EST
    and believe me I have been called lots of names, and publicly too. In newspapers. I see it as the price one has to pay to be a part of society in general. But, to date, no one has dared to call me bitch. They better not too, -- I know karate.

    Great sentence. Quite poetic. (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:14:36 PM EST
    Language is like a river as it changes naturally over a long period of time.

    It is, that (none / 0) (#196)
    by sj on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 06:47:08 PM EST
    Too bad it was used to justify a very twisted position.

    Twisted Position? (none / 0) (#199)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 07:10:15 PM EST
    You may want to brush up on your history of language and oppression.


    Reappropriation is the cultural process by which a group reclaims--re-appropriates--terms or artifacts that were previously used in a way disparaging of that group.[1] For example, since the early 1970s, much terminology referring to homosexuality--such as gay and (to a lesser extent) queer and poof--has been reappropriated.

    Another example of reappropriation would be an African American collecting lawn jockeys or other artifacts of darky iconography. The term reappropriation can also extend to counter-hegemonic re-purposing, such as citizens with no formal authority seizing unused public or private land for community use.

    Read on you may learn something...  


    I have learned many things (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by sj on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 07:21:04 PM EST
    from reading here. So far not a single one from you. Well, maybe one thing; what I have learned from you is that you will "verbally" paint yourself into a corner while continuing to maintain the rightness of a statement that is clearly ... flawed. Your justifications don't correlate to what it is you actually do.

    I take it back. I have learned another thing from you. I've learned that Koons is a poseur extraordinaire. No, he's not even that. He's just a poser. Although that's an opinion, not a fact.


    Good One (none / 0) (#208)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 07:31:37 PM EST
    Pretty funny, twisting your panties in a knot in order to hone your insults, turns into bragging pridefully about being closed minded.

    Now... (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by sj on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 07:41:05 PM EST
    ...that is truly funny coming from you. Thanks for making my day.
    bragging pridefully about being closed minded.
    Because someone who cannot take in new information in response to his own comments is the very definition of close minded. In fact, you didn't provide any new information to me that you hadn't already splattered all over the thread.

    Oh, also the twisting panties into knots thing? That is what you do with words. I am still guessing that the written (or spoken) word is not your art form.

    Anyway, thanks for the laugh. I mean that. I had an exceptionally busy and exhausting day and I needed to unwind before dinner.


    sj I don't think it's a twisted position (none / 0) (#206)
    by ZtoA on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 07:25:16 PM EST
    but the context is vital. I don't think I was clear enough about the B itch magazine published by B-word media. It was started by women and is staffed by women. The writers are women, and the perspective is very progressive.

    I remember the first time I saw the magazine oh-so casually placed on a bench of an oh-so trendy gallery and I hated it. But that was 15+ years ago and I don't mind it now. Its actually rather brilliant since it does get attention and has allowed then to grow.

    Their mission is stated as this: "Bitch Media's mission is to provide and encourage an empowered, feminist response to mainstream media and popular culture."


    I think you are being generous (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by sj on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 07:37:57 PM EST
    Granted the worst of squeaky's comments has been deleted, but he isn't arguing exactly the same thing that you are. He seems to miss the point you emphasized, that context is vital, and stays with the definition of "Reappropriation". He's good at finding links. Not so good at seeing how they apply to himself.

    But again, that's just my opinion based on more observation than I really care to have.


    Nice idea (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:43:06 PM EST
    I don't think its working. Lenny Bruce used something like that in his act, claiming everyday use takes out the sting.

    I don't know, we don't have everyday use, we have very selective use, and sensitivity about who uses a word and not about their intent, but solely about who they are, their race etc.

    Kids among themselves use all sorts of what most adults see as "bad language", but it varies from friendly to insulting by intent.

    I don't care for the thoughtless evolution in media of attacking people for failing to adhere to politically correct language.

    I don't care for anyone using names to dehumanize other people, and I see that as the heart of many verbal attacks, a howl like Donald Sutherland's in invasion of the body snatchers, not one of us.

    For myself, I try to be polite.


    Are you seriously going to pretend (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:50:40 PM EST
    You don't know that blacks call each other the n word all the time as a term of familiarity if not endearment?

    The reply to this comment was deleted (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 03:14:23 AM EST
    for spelling out a number of racial insults. Do not use those words here, regardless of context. I don't want this site coming up in a google search for offensive terms.

    And again, there are two words, one ending in "a" one ending in "er."


    Or were you pointing out the (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:02:10 PM EST
    Obvious fact that it's not cool for a white person to use the word.  Just as i would react in an entirely different if some straight stranger called me queer that if one of my sisters did?

    You Are FOS as Usual (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:35:53 PM EST
    Not sure what your point is or what you are responding to but I do not see it as relating to anything I wrote.

    Re Capo (none / 0) (#143)
    by DFLer on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:19:00 AM EST
    Did you see this post?

    Episode descriptions, place for commentaries, en Espanol

    yes I saw it (none / 0) (#187)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 02:37:54 PM EST
    but they only provide a one sentence description of the episodes and the comments are mostly about people not being able to view the video or saying things like "I like the show" or "thanks."

    For example, for last night's episode, I have these questions:

    Capitulo 23: Who did Bruna meet with in the cemetery?

    What is happening with the sick guy? Why is Kiara so attached to him?

    What did Velandia and his associate talk about in Velandia's office?

    Who is the guy that joined Nino Malo and threatened the DEA agent? Why was he going to kill the DEA agent? Did he just find out he's an agent or does he think he's a double agent?

    The doctor says Bruna's  baby is very strong. Will she keep it?

    Is the DEA planning to arrest the traffickers when they show up to kill Nino Malo?

    What did Bruna tell El Capo on the phone when she didn't know Velandia was listening? I think I heard her say she respected Velandia and she loved El Capo. What did Velandia and  Bruna say to each other after the phone call? Does Velandia know El Capo is alive?

    I set up forums for El Capo 3 to put my questions hoping someone who is bilingual will answer them. So far, there have been about 150 attempted spam registrations (all rejected.)

    MundoFox on You Tube has the full episodes 1 to 18 up as of today, and 6 or 7 minute recaps of episodes 18 to 24. Same for its website.

    I'm not looking for a word by word translation, just a more detailed version of what occurs, particularly in the dialogue-intense scenes.


    Well I didn't like when he said that (none / 0) (#148)
    by ZtoA on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:40:51 AM EST
    almost as much as I didn't like his comment about art history being a useless college major. I didn't like that either.

    But people sometimes say stupid things, even politicians. And I don't have to like every last thing a politician says or does to see a larger picture.

    You're no fun at all. Where's the outrage, (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:53:53 AM EST
    the passion?

    He Apologized (none / 0) (#152)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:49:34 AM EST
    On the air later Wednesday, the station played a voice mail message Obama left for Agar. In it, Obama apologized for not getting back to her. He also told her he has a bad habit of calling people "sweetie."

    Obama then said: "I mean no disrespect, so I am duly chastened on that front."

    The New York Times reported Thursday that the senator had used the word "sweetie" once before when addressing a female factory worker in Allentown, Pa.

    Seems sincere and more, to me.

    Clearly he did not mean to offend. Had he meant to offend her, he would have called her a b!tch..  hahahaha


    And if he had, you'd be defending him (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 05:27:28 PM EST
    for working to take power out of the word.

    So, did you ever wonder what it is he calls men whose names he can't remember?  What would you guess?  Fella?  Bro?  Dude?  Big guy?  

    I wonder what would have been wrong with the old-fashioned "ma'am?"  That at least carries some respect with it - "sweetie" sounds like something that is accompanied with winking and lip-smacking and leering.

    Oh, but he apologized.  So we're good.

    Next up: when being called a word for a private body part is a good thing.

    ::rolling eyes::  


    You know, last time I (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Zorba on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 07:06:32 PM EST
    flew, I was sitting next to a man, about in his early 40's, I would guess.  When the flight attendant (a female), came by to get our preferences for something to drink, she called him "Sir" and me "Sweetie."  I am 65 years old.  Nearly 66.
    After she went down the aisle, I turned to the man and said, "So, you're sir and I'm sweetie.  And I'm old enough to be her mother, and very probably her grandmother."
    And he said "Rank sexism.  It exists, even among women."

    There is a tendency of people of a certain (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 07:19:07 PM EST
    Age (young)to treat people of a certain age ( you an me)  like we are 5 years old or slightly dim.  I saw this constantly when I worked for the county delivering meals to the elderly.  I would watch the in home care givers treat these old folks like children and you could just see how much they hated it.  And who can blame them.  When I told all the old folks I was leaving it was heartbreaking.   Lots of them cried.  One said " you don't talk to me like I'm an idiot".  Which is true.  I was always careful to not talk down to them, to make them laugh, to treat them the way I would want to be treated.  
    From what I can tell that's pretty unusual in the old folks industry.

    Reading up on the Topic (none / 0) (#204)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 07:22:08 PM EST
    I have noticed that some women do not mind being called sweetie by a waitress...  and some do.. Most do if called sweetie by a man.

    I have been called hon by waitresses.. never sir.  

    Service people tend to want to use terms of endearment, and for suits sir seems right, I guess.

    Sexism is imbedded in our language, best to become aware and change it.

    Sometimes terms of endearment are ok, even by strangers. Mostly not though.


    But to your point (none / 0) (#205)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 07:22:34 PM EST
    It's  was always sweetie and honey yadda yadda.  Men and women.  I don't think I heard a sir or a ma'am to whole time I did that job.

    Oh, also (none / 0) (#207)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 07:30:16 PM EST
    I was going to point out that you said the guy was 40s ish.  That, in my experience,  is the sir or ma'am age group.  Then there is a grey area then you arrive at the sweetie honey sugar pie age group.

    You Have Lost The Plot (none / 0) (#194)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 05:47:00 PM EST
    Get a grip..

    And if he had, you'd be defending him for working to take power out of the word.

    If Obama had meant to be insulting? Really Anne you do not have a clue. You appear to be inventing a narrative that does not exist, or at least only exists in your mind.

    And as regards his faux pas and apology, you may want to focus on people who defend sexist language. Those who apologize and say that they are aware that their language was sexist and are working on becoming more conscious are your friends.


    I bet Pres. Obama calls his wife (none / 0) (#178)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 01:45:05 PM EST
    and daughters "sweetie."

    Yes (none / 0) (#179)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 01:48:58 PM EST
    I wonder if they are insulted? BTW is sweetheart insulting?

    Depends on the tone of voice and the (none / 0) (#180)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 01:50:17 PM EST
    speaker's intent. Can be snarled.

    OK (none / 0) (#183)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 02:15:54 PM EST
    I think sweetie is short for sweetheart.

    And if he was married to ... (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 04:47:57 PM EST
    ... the reporter, you might have a point.

    Forget it Yman - he's not getting it. (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 05:30:14 PM EST
    We're wasting our time.

    I'm hrg. Humphrey Bogart. (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 06:35:18 PM EST
    Exactly.. (none / 0) (#201)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 07:15:25 PM EST
    Apology (none / 0) (#154)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:54:57 AM EST
    "I promise you folks can make a lot more, potentially, with skilled manufacturing or the trades than they might with an art history degree," Obama said in his speech Jan. 30, which was focused on better aligning job training programs with employer needs. "Now, nothing wrong with an art history degree -- I love art history. So I don't want to get a bunch of e-mails from everybody."

    Yes, I can see why you would be insulted ZtoA, But he apologized for that one too:

    "Let me apologize for my off-the-cuff remarks," Obama wrote. "I was making a point about the jobs market, not the value of art history. As it so happens, art history was one of my favorite subjects in high school, and it has helped me take in a great deal of joy in my life that I might otherwise have missed."

    I know he apologized (none / 0) (#166)
    by ZtoA on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:23:31 PM EST
    And that was good. And expected.

    Strange tho, I never feel personally insulted by a politician's words. I reserve the right to tho, if one ever insults me by name personally.


    Smart (none / 0) (#170)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:39:36 PM EST
    Politicians are basically actors playing a role. Smart not to take what they say personally... but yes if it is directed at you.. that is another story!

    Yes Faux Pas (none / 0) (#149)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:44:50 AM EST
    What would you call it?

    An indication of his mindset (none / 0) (#157)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:02:06 PM EST
    A "faux pas" is a breach of etiquette or (literally) a "misstep".  IMO, the use of that term is an attempt to minimize his use of the word.  The apology was a good thing to do (particularly for a politician in the middle of an election), but it doesn't negate the fact that he used it in the first place.

    Assumption (none / 0) (#160)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:08:01 PM EST
    Assuming what people are thinking, assuming you can divine their real meaning by trying to read between the lines, assuming their words mean something you want them to mean rather than what they're actually saying, etc.

    Hmmm, seems to me that is exactly what you are doing here:

    An indication of his mindset

    Oh wait.... what does it indicate about Obama's mindset?

    And regarding faux pas... IMO faux pas describes Obama's comment pretty exactly:

    faux pas |fō ˈpä, ˈfō ˌpä| noun (pl. same)
    an embarrassing or tactless act or remark in a social situation.

    Listening to (none / 0) (#175)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 01:10:50 PM EST
    Larry Coryell organ trio, putting me in too good of a mood to make properly surely commentary.

    Ok (none / 0) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 01:23:41 PM EST
    That's actually funny

    please move on from (none / 0) (#182)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 02:11:38 PM EST
    discussing racial and ethnic insults. I don't want objectionable words repeated on the this site for any reason. Comments that repeat them or turn the thread into sniping or insults between two commenters will be deleted. Same for name-calling.

    Another (none / 0) (#212)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:29:04 AM EST
    recording new to me I am liking a lot, Barb Jungr, and her covers of Dylan. A different and nice take on the works.