Saturday Open Thread

I'll be at the jail most of the day visiting a client. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Friday Open Thread | Poll: Coloradans Happy With Legalized Marijuana >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Dadler story (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 09:50:08 AM EST
    I'm keeping the link up until tomorrow night, if anyone wants to read this piece of short fiction. If you read and comment, bless you, I appreciate you taking the time. Peace.


    Enterprise AL teahadist Barry (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 04:26:54 PM EST
    Has been arrested on felony perjury.  Chaphuckin Ching.......hell to the yeah!  And there is a videotape.  What a scumbellina!

    You oughta see his wife's twitter feed as she has gone after Obama.  They really are horrible people :). But they are Christians...they say it a few hundred times a month on twitter.

    This is the guy that Delilah growls at on sight.  Awhile back Zorba thought that Delilah might growl at him because I find him offensive BUT....Delilah saw him first that day, and it took me awhile to recognize exactly whose dad she was growling at.  At first I doubted that I knew who she was growling at because I don't expect to know all the dads.  If I make it to knowing 1/3 of them by the time Josh graduates I'll need a ribbon or a cookie or something.

    You made me google. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 07:56:55 PM EST
    It's a conspiracy by who? Don't republicans run the entire state? I mean who are they saying is conspiring against him? It's really pathetic what his supporters are doing. They are wailing and praying and all kinds of stuff when they really should pretty much be cutting the joker lose.

    I wish I understood more (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 11:26:25 AM EST
    I am working hard to learn the lay of the political land here, but it is still pretty foreign to me.  Pipkin was looking to primary Moore.  Moore did finally make it into the State House after several losses for other spots.  He is now up for re-election.  He was going to introduce a school voucher bill that has a lot of support, a lot of folks here would like the American taxpayer to pay for their children to go to private Christian school.

    There is a strange to hippies counter army fighting back though.  This state is deeply impoverished and being a school teacher is one of the few jobs here that comes with health benefits and a pension.  It is a status symbol here to have a "school" job.  Most other states people feel sorry for you though :). But not here.  Anyhow Pipkin decided to try to run against Moore and attempt to fight the destruction of the Alabama public school system here.

    At first I saw all these Moore signs go up though. Really big signs too, expensive signs all over mounted on 2 4x4s (my business brain at work)...he had lots of money behind him.  I saw a few Pipkin signs eventually trickle in when it was official he was primarying Moore.  They were small cheap yard signs, looked sad next to Moore, but then the school teachers and workers took up the cause and are paying for a decent Pipkin ad campaign now thank God.  These are all really Conservatives in this fight though.....to save or destroy the Alabama public school system (quiet chuckle to self).

    Soooooo, after reading the indictments the best speculation I can make is that Moore initially attempted to bribe Pipkin to not run against him in a primary?  Because it's war here man, the war is on :)

    I'm just an observer though, like a UN observer :)

    Oh yeah, and upon closer observation a lot of really expensive Moore signs seem to be in the yards of uninhabited houses, like maybe foreclosures? What is that about?  Did he pay for rights from some bank or something?  You drive past some places though and think, "Oh, there's a family supporting Moore......Hey, wait a minute does anybody even live there right now?"  That Moore, he's a slippery one.


    The people (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 02:56:07 PM EST
    who want vouchers are really being played on that. Here in GA the voters finally figured out the scam because one of the state reps opened his mouth and told people how to "scam" the system. Do these people realize that vouchers only pay a very small percentage of the tuition of one of these private schools? I guess not. They all think they are going to hit the jackpot with a voucher. The truth of the matter is it's just a way to shift the costs of education onto everybody else even these same suckers that are buying into the voucher scheme.

    I have a grandson in a private school. (none / 0) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 09:55:37 PM EST
    I pay most of his tuition. I also pay for the "tuition" of the children going to public school. Plus his absence saves the public school system whatever it would cost if he attended public school.

    So tell you what. Just give me whatever the public school system is SAVING by not having to educate him and I'll call it even.

    But you, and the system, don't want to do that because it removes some control of him and his family.

    And that's why you folks are so opposed to and worried about a voucher system..


    Sorry, Jim ... no more welfare ... (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 10:15:00 PM EST
    ... for you.  The portion of your taxes that goes toward school tuition is not a use tax.  The cost to educate a student goes far beyond the average taxes paid by most parents in a year.  Just like when other taxpayers paid for your education, we all contribute over many years beyond those years when our children are in the school system, because that cost is amortized over a much longer period.  Moreover, we as a society have decided that everyone should contribute to public education - whether they have kids or not - because we all benefit from an educated populace.

    OTOH - those who choose to not avail themselves of the public school system are free to do so ... and free to pay for it.  Just like someone who chooses to hire private security rather than relying on a public police department, they should bear the cost.  If you choose to send your grandchild to a religious school, knock yourself out.

    Just don't expect the rest of us to pay for it.


    Sorry Yman, I never said my property taxes (none / 0) (#196)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 08:42:20 AM EST
    are a use tax.

    All I am asking for is simple fairness. Just give me back the money I am saving the failed system. But you don't want that. Okay.

    Truth be known people are sending their children to private schools in ever larger numbers because the public system has failed. This is especially true in two areas. The urban centers cities and the rural areas.

    Many "fixes" have been tried. None have worked. Yet the cry is always, "more money."

    So let's take the "education money" and divide it up equally and give each student a "voucher" equal to their portion of the district budget. The student can then spend it on any accredited school they want and will accept them.

    Is that not fair?

    Yes. Yes it is. But you and GA will oppose it because it takes control away from the all knowing government and puts it in the hands of the citizens. The parents.


    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 06:08:18 AM EST
    we know it's all about you. You are choosing to do what you want to do but expect everybody else to pay for it. Besides we are supposed to have separation of church and state in this country.

    Look at it this way: my neighbors are retired therefore they pay no school taxes here in GA. So who's paying for their TWO kids to go to school? If it makes you feel better you can say you are.

    Can't you do any better than just some GOP talking points? I guess not.


    Nope, if you will (1.00 / 2) (#200)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 08:53:58 AM EST
    do some research you will see I have long called for vouchers as I describe in my reply to Yman.

    I merely asked for my money back to watch Yman and you jump to the attack.

    You are truly trained.

    But I digress. Let's talk some specifics.

    What is wrong with giving each student their portion of the district budget and letting them spend it on any accredited school that will accept them??

    Are you against an inclusive act that let's the parents have control of how their children's education funds are spent? Yes. Yes you are.

    You are afraid of the common sense and wisdom that they possess. Democracy frightens you despite its demonstrated ability to provide the best government in mankind's history.


    He's a sign-squatter. (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 11:38:56 AM EST
    Something's fishy (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 11:54:58 AM EST
    His advertising funds seem huge though.  For awhile I had fantasies of driving around plastering "Hates Children" onto his signs after his name.  Crank up the printer, a can of spray adhesive.

    I'm a hippy here so no real dog in this fight, only that Josh still needs to finish high school.  I was headed to jail, but Barry beat me :)


    Oops hippie.....hippy hippie (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 11:58:23 AM EST
    I can't even spell hippie right half the time :)

    You are probably going to get rained out (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 05:47:41 PM EST
    On Sunday too.  But you might make it through prime time

    We have Direct (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 12:10:21 PM EST
    And there is an app.  Our internet comes in on cable so maybe we can watch it on cable if rained out.

    I get both from a dish (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:15:04 PM EST
    But not the same dish or the same company.  

    Well if I am able to view it (none / 0) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:35:26 PM EST
    I will not spoil

    It's fine now (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:39:18 PM EST
    If it follows the pattern it will go out at 7:59

    I'm so excited and (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 07:20:46 PM EST
    Just so friggin shallow because I want us all there tonight together.  It is all predestined but I can't go there alone.  It would be so lonely cuz you don't know what the costume designers came up with when I do. The loneliness of that aloneness thought is like being cut with Valyian steel.

    Quite the confession! Your virtual (none / 0) (#165)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 10:52:35 PM EST
    Cable-watching buddies.

    I can't believe you aren't a Thronie yet (none / 0) (#175)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 05:59:57 AM EST
    Here's the Honest Trailer for (none / 0) (#177)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 06:10:45 AM EST
    Game of Thrones.  Josh of course showed it to me.

    Bah aha (none / 0) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 08:04:54 AM EST

    That was awsum.  How have I never seen this.


    Local teahadists (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 11:15:04 AM EST
    in my area convicted of making false statements about the School Superintendant. link

    The elected prosecutor and Chief of (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 11:22:18 AM EST
    Police must not be t-partiers. Felonies except for one charge.

    The police chief (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 01:12:13 PM EST
    is supposed to be non political. It's not an elected office. I don't know about the prosecutor but these crackpots cost the school district 10K. I hope they are made to make restitution for that money.

    Lesson of the day (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 01:33:12 PM EST
    Whenever in the vicinity of any teahadist, have every recording device available on.

    That is the NSA's philosophy. (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 01:45:14 PM EST
    We are all the NSA now :) (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 01:56:20 PM EST
    Wahooooo! (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 01:29:30 PM EST
    Loving it!

    They (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 03:03:16 PM EST
    will do anything apparently lie, cheat, steal to elimate public schools. These people really have a hatred of public schools AND one of these jokers was elected to a school board post. Bye-bye tea party memmber on the school board.

    Now if we can only get rid of more of them. The local state senator seems to be kind of laying low lately. Not sure what is going on there with him. A couple of people are competing for the rep office. The local tea party rep sponsored a bill to eliminate all sex offender laws. Now I'm not saying that they did not needing some altering but darn he was too over the top for the crackpot GOP here in GA.


    Wow....keep us posted (none / 0) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 03:06:45 PM EST
    It beats what any "News" org is covering right now and all can deeply affect children's lives.

    Here (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 03:11:00 PM EST
    Watching Vito Corleone acquire a (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 03:01:34 PM EST
    New rug for his concerned about the toddler wife for about the 100th time.  Will I ever tire of the Godfather trilogy?

    I dunno. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 03:08:54 PM EST
    There's so much stuff there everytime I watch it I see something new.

    The best one though is the first one IMO.

    One cold Sunday my husband I spent the whole day watching all three movies. Of course, this was before kids and owning a house and all kinds of other responsbiities we have now.


    I never (none / 0) (#116)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:28:13 PM EST
    was able to get with N° 3.

    I can watch GF 2, but only really am drawn to some of the scenes.
    The recreation of 1950s Cuba is absolutely amazing.

    GF 1 is my favorite.
    So many memorable moments.

    Take the cannoli.


    Two important Fourth Amendment cases (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 08:50:51 AM EST
    Clippers' D. Sterling is registered as (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 04:38:57 PM EST
    a Republican, as reported by TPM and Mother Jones today.

    Gee whiz, slado, whadda ya know!

    Jason Carter shoots himself in the foot (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 09:10:33 AM EST
    Carter's vote on the gun bill complicates his hope for a surge of popularity among Georgia Democrats, and among the many unregistered Georgians who Democrats would hope to recruit.

    The Rev. Raphael Warnock, of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, has been a leading voice against the gun law.

    "Our politicians, tragically, are owned by the gun lobby," Warnock said this week. "We will remind them in November that they work for the people."

    The vote also has riled national Democrats, who Carter's campaign will depend on for funding. Carter himself alluded to this during his Monday appearance on MSNBC's "The Daily Rundown."

    "I know a lot of national Democrats and others have been upset or angry about this, and I've heard from a lot of them," Carter said.

    My dad lives in Rome GA (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 09:52:03 AM EST
    I am now officially terrified to even so much as give an old lady a smirk on Broad Street. Granny's gonna shoot your ass down. Or Bubba her son will.



    But, the Georgia law (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:28:54 AM EST
    may be a boon to job creation.   Not just emergency medicine and  and  the field of mortuary science, but for enterprising entrepreneurs throughout the state.  Here's a free idea for them:   designer bullet-proof clothing.  Not just vests, but dresses, suits, jackets, hats and ball caps.  A full line.  Of course, bullet-proof clothing may not have a good business ring to it, so the clothing line could be called, "freedom wear."    

    The use of humor. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by christinep on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:40:13 AM EST
    as you demonstrate, has a power beyond being funny. Thanks.

    Yes (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:37:01 AM EST
    And a boon to inventors too..   Next generation of bullet proof clothing.

    Tired of the stiff and heavy maille armor passed off as bullet proof lingerie?

    The Anti Bullet Electro-Magnetron belt, hat, and shoes are now in production. Soon to be available at your nearest Gun Shop.

    Guaranteed to deflect bullets AND boost your immune system!

    Special attachments for titanium and depleted uranium?..  still working on those..


    Yes, and Freedom wear, (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:13:39 PM EST
    is designed for all occasions: appropriate attire for bridal gowns, a day at the mall, hockey, soccer and other sporting events, and for a late Saturday evening at your favorite bar.  

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:17:37 PM EST
    And, not to forget:

    Freedomwhere: keeping you safe at your local Purity Ball.


    Obvious snark (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 09:56:40 AM EST
    But still...once you get outside of Atlanta, IMO, Georgia is still Dixie, baby. Scaled down for 2014, but not as much as most think. Gotta go north all the way to Chattanooga to hit another pocket of Bonaroo cool -- a pocket, mind you, not an entire wardrobe. Or south to Miami. Or west to N'Orleans. I need a Bloody Mary.

    Planning to read you today (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 10:01:37 AM EST
    I enjoyed that (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:57:23 AM EST
    I liked the way you handled dialogue..  That's always the hardest part for me.  I guess not just for me.

    Anyway, well done.


    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 04:39:16 PM EST
    Carter is an Obamacrat. One who worries more about what Republicans think of him than actually the people who would vote for him.

    Rob Wright the Epsicopal Bishop of Atlanta was against this law along with A LOT of other ministers all over the state. They've seen the carnage brought about by stand your ground in Florida and don't want it coming to Georgia.

    Also Carter is saying he's not going to take the Medicaid expansion and Michelle Nunn is FOR it. There is a reason Michelle Nunn is close to beating any of the Republicans and last I read she has something like a 46% chance of winning the senate seat and that's BEFORE the GOP picks a phenomenal crackpot to run against her. A friend of mine was saying that about 78% of the state was against this law. I don't know if that is true but if it is true then somebody is going to get their butt kicked in November over this law.

    It was going to be something that causes a lot of formerly apathetic citizens to register to vote but why would they vote for Carter? No reason there. Maybe Michelle Nunn will motivate them enough. Maybe Carter will get lucky and enough people will be willing to just get rid of Nathan Deal and his massive corruption but he sure isn't motivating anybody to work for him or campaign for him or anything.

    The national Dems should be LIVID with him. He's blowing it in a state where the current governor is unpopular and the GOP has gone completely insane.


    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 338 (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 09:25:54 AM EST
    These cats are bigtime players. (link)

    v. 337
    v. 336

    Have a lovely weekend, my friends.

    Tech Bubble (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:57:04 PM EST
    Their system for producing bubbles onto which images can be projected and which release a scent when burst will be unveiled at a major conference on human-computer interfaces this weekend....

    ... an ambient notification system - for instance, a bubble that would float around your office every now and then with a number showing how many unread emails are in your inbox. "You could go even further. If we encode each category of email with a different scent, the smell would tell you vaguely how many emails you had from family as opposed to work-related ones."...

    ...The technology has already attracted interest from shopping malls. The professor imagines a future where a bakery chain releases bubbles containing the scent of sausage rolls to entice people into their stores - although it sounds to me as though that could turn into an olfactory nightmare, with different scents competing for shoppers' attention.

    Another idea involves an educational use. "There's an iPhone game which involves bursting bubbles to learn maths - we could project numbers onto different bubbles, so the children would have to burst the right bubble."


    Oculus might like this... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ZtoA on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:01:52 PM EST
    About 10 years ago I went to a performance of 'The Love of Three Oranges" by Prokofiev. They handed out scratch 'n sniff cards with a sniff for each act. The first was lovely - fresh oranges. The next was vomit. I never forgot that.

    Who Produced/Directed it? (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:20:20 PM EST
    It must have been a homage to John Waters who was giving homage to Hans Laube and his Odorama, an utter failure, that is Laube's.

    Water's, Polyester used the smell cards that you scratched and sniffed when the signal came on the film.  

    the smells were:

    Roses, Flatulence, Model Building Glue, Pizza, Gasoline, Skunk, Natural Gas, New Car Smell, Smelly Shoes,Air Freshener

    Have you heard Waters'' "Christmas" CD? (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 01:37:22 AM EST
    No (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 07:53:38 AM EST
    But I have seen most or all of his films. Met him a few times in the art world. He is a major collector.

    Actually, (none / 0) (#78)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 02:11:59 PM EST
    Peter Lorre appeared in a film in 1960 called "Scent of Mystery".

    It was in "Smell-O-Vision".
    Smells reportedly included a rose garden and wine.

    It did not enjoy wide distribution.


    I saw a wonderful performance of this opera at (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 01:35:33 AM EST
    Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln Center. Gergiev coducting the Mariinsky aorchestra and soloists. Purportedly a concert version but the singers were hilarious. No scratch and sniff though.

    Surrounded by scents (none / 0) (#14)
    by christinep on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 01:23:02 PM EST
    My dog & I had a lovely spring walk early this morning.  Birds singing, sun shining, flowers abloom.  Both of us smelled the flowers ... wonderful aroma, the scents of spring.

    The forecast you printed, tho ... scents cubed and more.  Might make one pine for a cold or a stuffy nose.  (And, think of the poor dogs.  Mine would seek refuge behind the toilet.)


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 01:34:13 PM EST
    I think the smellorama version of the tech bubble will be a loser.. but the ability of bubbles to carry and transmit text and images sounds cool..

    And for dogs, letting them smell everything on a longish walk, takes patience. But it exhausts them which is good for lowering anxiety.. To inspire patience in myself, when the dog is fixated on sniffing during a long walk, I always think of them as reading the Sunday Times classified and memorizing everything..


    I wonder if (none / 0) (#35)
    by ZtoA on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:19:33 PM EST
    Tony Oursler will get ahold of this.

    hahaha (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:21:09 PM EST
    he needs something new!

    Meet Cliven Bundy's soul brother. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 02:51:04 PM EST
    "It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you're associating with black people. Do you have to? [...] You can sleep with [black people]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want.  The little I ask you is not to promote it on that ... and not to bring them to my games. [...] I'm just saying, in your lousy [phuquing] Instagrams, you don't have to have yourself with, walking with black people."
    -- Donald Sterling, owner of NBA's Los Angeles Clippers and married man, to his girlfriend V. Stiviano (April 9, 2014)

    Sorry, Chief Justice John Roberts, et al., but Sonia Sotomayor nailed it. And for that matter, so did Mel Brooks, some four decades ago. Sadly, they both spoke to a ragingly persistent reality about life in these United States, as it is endured on an almost daily basis by far too many people.

    Anyone who insists otherwise has rocks for brains, gravel for a heart, and coal dust for a conscience.


    No, Donald (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 08:49:45 AM EST
    He's just another rich Democrat showing what he thinks.

    And it isn't about poor people, it is about who his "girl friend" associates with.

    As I noted before, I disagree with what Bundy said, but the issue was an still remains, how many agencies of the Federal do we need to be armed and ready to attack people for what is a violation of a civil law? 10? 11? 12? 13?

    And why is the Dept of Education doing "criminal" investigations?

    A U.S. government official confirmed for News10 Wednesday morning federal agents with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), not local S.W.A.T., served the search warrant. [...]

    He went on to say OIG is a semi-independent branch of the U.S. Department of Education that executes warrants for criminal offenses such as student aid fraud and embezzlement of federal aid. [...]


    Don't we have an FBI?? Come on Donald, haven't you ever complained about how many people we have in prison??


    But you were defending Cliven Bundy ... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 01:51:20 PM EST
    ... wholeheartedly, before he reached into his drawers to fling his poo in public. How very sad that you even feel compelled defend such odious persons in the first place. Even now, you're still offering them qualified support, by (desperately) attempting to change the subject.

    Regarding your pathetic and ham-fisted attempt to label Donald Sterling a Democrat, why you even believe that to be necessary I haven't the slightest idea nor do I even care, because his past political support and affiliations are completely irrelevant in the context of what he actually said. I once voted for Ronald Reagan 30 years ago. Does that make me a Republican today?

    I would note only that most prominent Southern California Democrats very quickly condemned Sterling's recorded remarks once the story broke yesterday, while as of this writing their GOP counterparts have remained ominously silent on the subject.

    That's perfectly understandable, given that the Republican base today is comprised mainly of angry white males who are aging in place and have little or no problem with Sterling's personal views about African Americans and other minority groups. That party's margin of success is now so drawn so narrowly that Republican candidates and office holders can't really afford to bite any one of the hands that feed them, even on a matter of principle such as this.

    I do expect public opinion on this matter to be such that they'll eventually have to cut him loose much as they did the wretched Mr. Bundy, no doubt displaying all the courage and fortitude necessary fore one to be able to shoot the wounded.



    Cliven Bundy's supporters (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by KeysDan on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 02:33:26 PM EST
    just can't give it up.  I am still expecting a "million cow march" on DC by the tea party, to complement their spinning like a top--he is really great except for this one little flaw.   Their motto seems to be ignorance in defense of liberty is no vice.  As a great sage once said: "if you find your head in the toilet, you should stop blowing bubbles."

    I would expect a lot of (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:35:36 PM EST
    Grumbling among the cows.  " what the hell are we marching for?  Whoever wins we still end up as somebody's dinner."

    We really (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 08:11:35 PM EST
    do need to turn this whole drama into lot of funny statments now.

    It's Apocalypse Cow!!

    You know, nobody has interviewed these cows to see exactly what they have to say about the situation? Is the grass tastier when it's stolen or does it taste better if Bundy buys it from someone to feed them?

    Would they rather graze or would they rather be corn fed?


    No Donald (2.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 02:30:26 PM EST
    ...said greeting reminds of what you say to a puppy you're training...

    It was never personal. My defense was then and now over the response of the BLM and the actions of the EPA which put a lot of ranchers out of business.

    Bundy was and is an example of what we have become.

    A SWAT team from the Dept of Education??

    What's next, a called in nuking from the IRS??

    And again and again you avoid the discussion. What a shame. This blog use to specialize in such.

    As for your description of the Repub, how do you know?? I think you are like the storied woman from Manhattan who couldn't believe Reagan was elected because she didn't know anyone who voted for him.

    Dear Donald, how your meandering claims do amuse me. What's next, gonna explain politics to me again because you were an aid... no a Senior Aid to a state politician from one our smaller states?


    Well, per usual, you're wrong again. (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:55:54 PM EST
    jimakappp: "...said greeting reminds of what you say to a puppy you're training..."

    Bad Jim. Bad, bad Jim, peeing on our legs like that while trying to convince us it's raining.


    "Another rich Democrat" - heh (none / 0) (#69)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 12:36:43 PM EST
    Really, Jim.  No link (as usual) - did you read that on some wingnut blog?  Maybe the National Review, who calls him a Democrat because he contributed to Bill Bradley and Gray Davis, both more than 20 years ago?  Not to mention the fact he hasn't contributed to anyone since the early 90s.

    Don't hurt yourself stretching too much ...

    BTW - So I guess we can call you a Democrat, because you voted for Democrats 30+ years ago?



    Here's a link (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Slado on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 09:40:56 PM EST
    Democrat  If not a democrat then not a republican.

    Sorry Yman.  Gonna have to let republicans slide on this one.

    Make sure you check out the guest list on the NCAAP event that was only weeks away.  

    Rev. Al probably already has a hotel room booked so it will be quite convenient for him when he heads to LA to hold the inevitable rally.

    Is it too late to change the invitations?


    Why is the man's party affiliation ... (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 04:26:53 AM EST
    ... evidently so important to you and Jim? What Donald Sterling said deserves condemnation, regardless of who he voted for and supported.

    And that's the difference here. I didn't look first to who's company the man was keeping before deciding what to believe about the stuff he said, because I really didn't think it mattered -- wrong is wrong. But the very first thing Jim apparently tried to determine was not whether Sterling has said similarly outrageous things in the past (he has), but rather what his alleged party affiliation is. Funny how the guys who otherwise claim to be political independents constantly do that, don'tcha think?

    And why is that, Slado? Why does everything have to be reduced by Jim and others on the right to baldly partisan terms, (D) v. (R) or liberal v. conservative? (Yeah, I know and freely admit that some people on the left do it, too, but guess what -- they don't constitute a plurality of the Democratic Party.)

    I mean, why not first look dispassionately at an issue to ascertain the actual facts of the matter, before leaping in with both feet to defend deadbeat idiots like Cliven Bundy, and then compounding the problem by denying any affiliation when the guy turns out to be too cuckoo for cocoa puffs? In this case, it would've saved Jim & Co. a whole lot of potential embarrassment, because everything about Cliven Bundy screamed "Crackpot!" from the get-go, I don't care what political affiliations he had.

    Do Jim and the others really think we should apologize for Sterling? That's patently absurd. Did Republicans apologize for Bundy? No, they ran away from their own previously staked out positions like cowards, and are now trying to deny ever having known or supported him, even in the face of video / audio evidence and Google searches to the contrary.

    As Democrats, we don't have to run away from Sterling, because we've made it quite known from the very outset of this controversy exactly where we stand regarding his horrid remarks. Even if he was or is a Democrat, it doesn't matter to us, because wrong is wrong and unlike some people on the right, we've no need to subsequently qualify or amend our earlier statements because of our prior untenable position. It's simply amazing what having an operational moral compass can do for you in matters such as these.



    Do you actually read ... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 10:04:23 PM EST
    ... a post before you comment?  I never claimed Sterling was a Republican.  I, like you and Jim, haven't the slightest clue whether he's a registered Republican, independent, Democrat, etc., etc.  Not that his party affiliation is even remotely relevant to his comments.

    But I do appreciate your links to wingnut blogs that confirm precisely what I said.



    Wing nut blogs (none / 0) (#181)
    by Slado on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 07:10:15 AM EST
    When you don't like links you always discredit them.


    Jim was only responding to the comparison to Bundy.  

    I agree it doesn't matter what his party he is but it does deserve comment that he was weeks away from receiving a life time achievement award from the local chapter of the NAACP.  

    Why exactly would they give him award given his past?  


    Hmmm (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 02:42:14 PM EST
    It is just that I have never heard of a Repub getting an award from the CA NAACP....

    I wonder if they will flee as fast as you folks claim Hanity fled from Bundy?



    You might be onto something (none / 0) (#94)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 03:25:01 PM EST
    It is just that I have never heard of a Repub getting an award from the CA NAACP

    So, because you "haven't heard of a Repub getting an award from the CA NAACP", it means he's a Democrat?!?

    Hahahahahahahah ...

    Jim, there's a LOT of simple facts that you remain blissfully unaware of, but just to help you out, here's a Republican who received an award from the CA NAACP.

    Not to mention the fact that - as someone who claims to be an "independent" - you are assuming that Sterling isn't a fellow "independent".

    Glad we now know that there's nothing behind your claim except for your assumptions and ignorance of basic facts.

    OTOH - I can understand why you wouldn't believe that any "Repub" would do anything meriting recognition from the NAACP ...


    They already have. (none / 0) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:00:27 PM EST
    And if you would've only looked, you'd have already known that.

    I am glad but shocked (none / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 10:00:53 PM EST
    but then again they had no choice.

    I wonder when they'll be kicking Al and Jesse out?



    Educate yourself, Jim. (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 04:33:44 AM EST
    If you don't like being treated here like you're a low-hanging piñata at a children's party, then educate yourself and learn the difference between fact and opinion.

    BTW - Re: your "questions" (none / 0) (#70)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 12:54:19 PM EST
    how many agencies of the Federal do we need to be armed and ready to attack people for what is a violation of a civil law? 10? 11? 12? 13?

    And why is the Dept of Education doing "criminal" investigations?

    1.  That's not "the issue".  Conservative wish it was the issue - and are trying to make it the issue - because they want to distract attention and justify their support for their favorite welfare mooch and lawbreaker.

    2.  Why does it matter if the Inspector General's office executes its own warrants or if the FBI executes the warrant for all federal agencies?  The wingnuts would still complain and call them "jack-booted thugs" etc., regardless of the name on their windbreakers.  Just another silly, failed attempt to divert attention.

    3.  The federal law enforcement officers enforcing these court orders absolutely should be armed, especially when you have Bundy and his armed supporters showing up, making threats, pointing a rifle at federal agents, etc., while being prepared to hide behind their wives if violence results.

    Typical behavior for the wingnuts who are usually all talk and no cattle, but you can't ignore their threats.

    Why does it matter?? (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 02:38:03 PM EST
    The FBI is highly professional and very very very visible. So is the BATF and the Secret Service.

    This is why it does matter.

    Because the public does not know how many of these we have, what they cost and who controls them.

    That is important.


    Wouldn't make the SLIGHTEST ... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 03:29:53 PM EST
    ... difference.  They're under the direction of the agency for which they work, which are under the Executive branch (i.e. the POTUS), regardless of the name on their badge.  The costs are the same.

    As far as the "professionalism" of the BATF and the FBI, I would agree - but none of that matters when they do something that the conservative wingnuts don't like.  Suddenly, the wingnuts call them "jack-booted thugs" and even describe how to kill them if they enter their homes.  Or are you not aware of the numerous claims made by your fellow conservatives about the FBI and the BATF?


    They're all trained similarly. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:11:17 PM EST
    I have a friend who works for U.S. State Dept. security. He received his law enforcement training at the FBI national training facility at MCB Quantico, VA.

    Educate yourself about such things, rather than continue regurgitating baseless nonsense from your local white-wing crackpot conspiracy network.



    I assume that the US State Dept (none / 0) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 09:44:39 PM EST
    security is in charge of security OUTSIDE the US.

    My point remains.

    These agencies do not need a presence inside the US.

    The BLM/Bundy kerflunkle just highlights it.


    The Bureau of Diplomatic Security ... (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 04:43:25 AM EST
    ... is responsible for all internal security matters at all overseas posts. The U.S. Marines assigned to our embassies are responsible for monitoring external security and providing a visible physical presence.

    As I said, educate yourself before you speak.


    Wrong (none / 0) (#151)
    by Slado on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 09:42:38 PM EST
    Nothing to do with Clive.

    If anything a hypocritical rich liberal.


    Oh, please. (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 04:52:38 AM EST
    Your statement's so sweepingly absurd on its face, it really doesn't even deserve acknowledgement. Suffice to say that both men are from another era, and made offensive racist comments about African Americans within mere weeks of one another. And you guys on the right don't have any credibility on these issues, anyway.

    So says you (none / 0) (#186)
    by Slado on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 07:54:12 AM EST
    The guy was going to get a "Life Time Achievement " award from the NAACP.

    Al Sharpton was going to be there.   As for credibility I only ask why does anyone ask Al Sharpton anywhere?

    I'll simply discard your absurd comment about credibility.   Racists come in all shapes and sizes and aligning yourself with a certain political party does not make one become non racist.

    It is exactly that attitude that muddies the waters of racial progress.   Are some republicans racist?   Of course.   Are some democrats racist?  You bet.

    It worries me that you'd group people together based on party affiliation and make assumptions.    

    I'm for people being treated fairly based on their abilities.  Nothing more and nothing less.   As are the majority of those who call themselves republicans or libertarians.  


    The difference (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 08:03:52 AM EST
    is that nobody in the D party raced to defend what Sterling said. People in the GOP raced to defend Bundy, politicians, pundits you name it. That's the distinction that you are ignoring.

    Oh woe is me (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 03:54:35 PM EST

    no spoilers please

    Well (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 04:45:56 PM EST
    you guys seem to be getting hammered lately. Are you in the area that gets a lot of tornados?

    Sometimes (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 04:50:00 PM EST
    It really is amazing that this happens every freakin Sunday.  The big day of the week of must see tv.

    It sure seems that way. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:24:47 PM EST
    Every Sunday you talk about how your satelite will probably go out. LOL

    Sounds like more fun (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 04:53:27 PM EST

    Hope you get to see the show (none / 0) (#155)
    by ZtoA on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 09:51:25 PM EST
    It's good. My internet has been out pretty much all weekend. $ucks!!!

    I did (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 09:58:13 PM EST
    But there is a bunch of others.  Salem, years of Living Dangerously, TURN.

    all of which I hope to catch tomorrow morning since I set the DVR to record every single airing of all of them  all night.  Hopefully even if this goes on all night I will be able to piece together full episodes tomorrow.


    Capt., are you okay? I am hoping you do not (none / 0) (#180)
    by caseyOR on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 07:08:19 AM EST
    live near Mayflower, Arkansas. Have you come through the storms in one one piece so far?

    We came thru fine (none / 0) (#198)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 08:50:40 AM EST
    Thanks for asking.  Mayflower is way south of here.  That seems to be where the worst was. We got wind and a little hail (thankfully not the 2" kind they got south) and buckets of rain.  Like 3-4 inches overnight.everything is blindingly green this morning.

    A to Z of Dance (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 04:19:02 PM EST
    How did you know I need to workout? (none / 0) (#29)
    by ZtoA on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 07:52:35 PM EST
    I couldn't see the dance from your link but I love the music.  who is it? Sometimes I like to crank up any music that has a good beat and great drums to get me going. I also like Beethoven for that. I used to listen to Tulku, did not like all their music but when it happened it would get me going. Right now, after lifting/moving large canvases around all day and my back is protesting, I'm just going to spend some time on the couch playing games on my phone.

    It's just kids (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 07:56:43 PM EST
    It's a jeans commercial.  But you really have to see it.

    Just realized (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:00:25 PM EST
    You probably meant the music
    It's. L1f, Wut



    Ha! that's great (none / 0) (#34)
    by ZtoA on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:16:37 PM EST
    And now I don't have to work out tonite! So much better than macho macho man. Nice martial arts moves in the video! I like seeing martial arts moves (by all genders) better than ballet. My nephew (who is now a black belt, encouraged all the way by his aunt, me, who got invited into the inner dojo to watch the presentation of his black belt) turned me onto a movie by Jet Lee - "fearless". It has the most breathtaking kata performed in the middle of the movie. He also made me watch Jackie Chan's "Drunken Master" with him and it was fabulous. We also had a "Matrix Marathon" one summer and watched all three movies one weekend and at the end of it all he had to say was "so much ketchup, so little time".

    Did u watch the YouTube (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:27:26 PM EST
    Or the commercial the commercial has martial arts AND ballet.  And everything else, well, from A to Z.  

    Is he (you ) familiar with the films of Yimou Zhang. Hero, house of Flying Daggers, Curse of the Golden Flower and my personal favorite, A Woman, A Gun, and a Noodle Shop.  Seriously that's the title.  And the best part is it is a remake of the Coen brothers first, and arguably best, film Blood Simple.
    Everyone ravishingly beautiful.



    Dance/Martial Arts (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:40:41 PM EST
    I am not particularly a fan of Butoh but this guy is amazing. As for Martial Arts Drunken Master was great.. you may like Shaolin Soccer, it is funny but really good. Stephen Chow has made several good martial art movies that are funny. I tend more toward t'ai chi than the harder style martial arts. A little boring (not flashy) but pretty interesting long term.

    That really was (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:45:33 PM EST
    Pretty amazing.  

    Absolute Control of Every Muscle (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:50:08 PM EST
    And expressive... Really top top top..

    On that YouTube page (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 10:06:49 PM EST
    There is a vid of a TED performance by a group called Pilobolus. They have been around for a long time and do incredible stuff.  In the late 70s early 80s I had a friend who was in the group.  Got to see them many times.  It's obviously not the same people.  But the quality of the work is always jaw dropping.

    Yes I Have Heard of Them (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:06:48 PM EST
    Maybe even seen them some time ago... but for me, usually, dance leaves me scratching my head...  don't get it. I like George Crumb but the merging dance and biology business seems silly to me...

    One dance company I do get though, is Pina Bausch. Her Rite of Spring mixes dance and biology in a very compelling way for me. Sometimes makes me cry...  RIP Pina..

    Very powerful... as good as it gets for me.


    I hope you have seen the recent (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 07:39:18 AM EST
    documentary re Bausch.  It is splendid.

    One of my regrets is not seeing her "Rite of Spring" during the Olympic Arts Festival in L.A.  


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 07:48:30 AM EST
    Not keen on the 3d part and had problems with some of parts of the film.. but that one made me cry..  I met her many times.. Know people in the company, one close friend, and have been to wuppertal several times..  Not a dance fanatic, but loooooove all of her work. One of the very few choreographers that I get and enjoy.

    Didn't they get started... (none / 0) (#50)
    by unitron on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 07:20:28 AM EST
    ...somewhere in the RTP area? I know I used to read about them in the N&O.

    I used to love seeing Pilobolus and Momix. (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 07:36:44 AM EST
    Just so innovative. But they lost some of that. Or just did not surprise me anymore.

    I agree they were better (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 09:36:06 AM EST
    When the original folks were involved.  Martha Clark and Moses Pendalton especially.   Martin Kravitz was, is I guess although I have not seen or spoken to him for many years, a good friend and he knew these two.  He also some times performed with the group.
    Around this time Martin was involved with the Repertory Dance Theater in Salt Lake that did similar work and I assume still does.  I once thought I wanted to do this.  I met Martin at a Summer RDT workshop.
    As a result of knowing these folks I realized I didn't really want to do this because even they were all at he top of their field they were poor as church mice.  I loved it. But I also wanted to make money.

    I'm a total sellout.


    We will have this discussion someday, (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 09:59:52 AM EST
    But probably not here.

    Martha Clark (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 11:43:27 AM EST
    Yes, I saw some of Martha Clarks pieces... really liked her work! A lot.

    A Swiss Butoh dancer. I've only seen Japanese (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 01:47:40 AM EST
    Butoh dancers, totally whitened. It is like watching paint dry.  And fascinating.

    Yes (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 07:51:35 AM EST
    It is like watching paint dry

    That is probably why I have little interest in Butoh.  I sat through one loooooooong performance at BAM and found out why it is about death.

    But this one is different...  


    A to Z of Dance (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 02:07:51 PM EST
    Just walked by a storefront in SoHo and big sign on the door

    A to Z of  Dance... and the music was pumping out..  I was in a rush so I did not stop in..   But I am sure it was the same as your video link.


    Apparently that video (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:12:05 PM EST
    Has become quite the viral thing

    LOL (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 05:02:05 PM EST
    Face book is sometime worth it.  Just checked in and this popped up from my 13yo nephew.

    "I want a top man and a lush shopping spree for my birthday"

    Well, alrighty then!  
    My goodness, they grow up so fast these days.

    I was wise enough to not touch the FB post.

    In case anyone is worried (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 05:13:55 PM EST
    He is quite safe.  I know for a fact his parents are plugged into his FB page.  And I doubt very much he will get either but I think it's wonderful that he is that comfortable with himself, and more that his parents are comfortable with who he is for him to post that.  I can only imagine how my life might have been different if I had been that self aware at 13.

    ... for her 13th birthday. But times were simpler and life less harried back in 2007, and children weren't nearly as sophisticated and worldly.



    Sadly no where near me most likely (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 06:00:09 PM EST
    Monty Python's reunion to hit big screens in live simulcast

    It will be the last time to see them together before they pass on, before they cease to be. Before they kick their buckets, shuffle off their mortal coils, run down their curtains and join their bleeding choirs invisible (metaphorically that is, not literally).

    They will be ex-Pythons, but for fans there is good news. Monty Python's last live reunion show is to be broadcast simultaneously to 450 cinemas in the UK and a further 1,500 across the world, it was announced on Thursday.

    Looks Like a Must See (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:38:50 PM EST
    This is pretty funny about the reunion.

    and this is good too.. live at aspen... part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4


    Ladies, the reports are that George Clooney is (none / 0) (#44)
    by Angel on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 10:14:00 PM EST
    engaged to be married to 36-year-old British lawyer Amal Alamuddin.  She's no bimbo, unlike many of the others he's been publicly linked to.    

    So, who is Amal Alamuddin? Well, the brainy beauty is a 36-year old lawyer, specializing in international law. She was born in Beirut and is fluent in French and Arabic. Amal is also a published author, having written several book chapters and articles on international criminal law published by Oxford University Press.

    Lucky lady!

    I love hockey. (none / 0) (#56)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 08:45:47 AM EST
    And playoff hockey is just incredible.

    Go Avs! (none / 0) (#122)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 06:51:57 PM EST
    Music controls fire (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 09:58:09 AM EST
    this is so cool

    Those speakers in your living room, sitting there, like dull hunks of furniture? What if instead of just playing music, they became a pair of fire-spewing dragons? You'd play a tune, and the pulsing sound waves, usually invisible, would become bursts (or absences) of flame. Walk around the speakers, and not only would you hear the peaks and troughs of the music, you could see them -- like fiery breaths coming at you.

    Your insurance company might not be pleased, but such speakers exist. They're called "Pyro Boards" -- or, if you like, "2D Rubens' tubes." Physics explainer Derek Muller found one in Denmark, built by a team of science demonstrators who call themselves Fysikshow. At the start of this video, project leader Sune Nielsen shows Derek a series of single tones (ewwww... too loud. They hurt my ears). But then, like dragons high on propane, at about 3:40 in, Derek and Sune put some music on -- and get jiggy with it ...

    What a Waste of Good Fire (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 02:14:24 PM EST
    Now if there was a spit turning to the music with four or five ducks and a little pig, maybe a goose too.. that would be awesome..



    Hmmmm. You can just set your (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 02:17:10 PM EST
    computer screen to reflect the music playing. No fire hazard m

    For anyone taking Statins (none / 0) (#82)
    by Dadler on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 02:30:29 PM EST
    Watch these two parts of an ABC News Australia report from last year on the entire cholesterol/heart disease/statin scam, er, issue.

    Part 1 - Dietary Villans
    Part 2 - Cholesterol Drug War

    In a corporate kleptocracy, even medical science is up for auction. I predict Gardasil will have a similar story in the end. Just my opine, and I am by no means an anti-vaccine freak, got my kid all of them. I am just quite wary of the kleptocracy compromising science for profit.

    British Study (none / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 02:43:08 PM EST
    An Apple a Day keeps the Statins Away

    About the same, apple a day was a bit more expensive.


    That was some interesting stuff (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:09:10 PM EST
    I take a statin.  I am now rethinking that.

    Eat an Apple a Day (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:13:13 PM EST
    And you will have the same statistical chances of heart disease as those taking Statins. Just a bit more expensive.

    But it won't cause liver damage (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:16:12 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#102)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:20:39 PM EST
    Oh... well then take Statins.. now that you have health insurance it would be a waste not to get liver disease.

    No (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:31:09 PM EST
    That was a pro not a con

    Two Popes. (none / 0) (#86)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 02:42:51 PM EST
    Popes John XXIII and John Paul II were both elevated to sainthood in a Vatican ceremony the other day.

    John, I can see.

    But John Paul II?

    As I understand it, two miracles are required for someone to be canonized.

    Does anyone know what miracles John Paul II is said to have brought about?

    Maureen Dowd wrote one hell of a piece the other day in the Times "A Saint He Ain't" in which she details JP's presiding "over the Catholic Church during nearly three decades of a gruesome pedophilia scandal and grotesque cover-up..." She also mentions John Pauls "giving Vatican sanctuary to Cardinal Bernard Francis Law, a horrendous enabler of child abuse who resigned in disgrace in 2002 as archbishop of Boston."

    And there's more.

    So I don't get it.

    Balancing a liberal and a conservative? Something for everyone?

    So, what exactly is (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Zorba on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:21:43 PM EST
    Saint John Paul II going to be the patron saint of?  Pedophiles?

    The little medallion (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:30:13 PM EST
    Thing should be interesting

    XXIII (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:49:08 PM EST
    From the guardian

    The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.
    The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.

    The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.

    They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'


    Link (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:01:08 PM EST
    If anyone is surprised or curious with a link to a PDF of the document



    I wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:16:55 PM EST
    surprised to see that this letter was signed by Cardinal Ratzinger.

    I was never a fan of that guy and was glad he stepped down and out.

    I have to reserve judgement about John XXIII's possible involvement because I have always seen him as a good person expressing the best qualities of the religion he represented.

    I  would need to have more of a smoking gun about John before being disillusioned.


    The letter you refer to (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 06:04:04 PM EST
    Is from 2001

    The law to which Ratzinger's letter referred was issued by Pope John XXIII 40 years ago (a link to the PDF of the document can be found in Boucher's entry). The law itself is chilling, as it describes a mandatory condition of secrecy for both the perpetrators and victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests.


    I read (none / 0) (#120)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 06:48:12 PM EST
    the letter.

    Is it being said that it was the work of John 23?


    I dont want to talk about this any more (none / 0) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 06:54:07 PM EST
    It's bugging Donald.  But absolutely yes.  Google is your friend

    Google (none / 0) (#125)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 06:55:47 PM EST
    is very very useful.

    But it is not my friend.

    You are my friend.


    Ha (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 07:32:49 PM EST
    Let's try that again (none / 0) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 07:37:37 PM EST
    Are you Roman Catholic? (3.50 / 2) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 06:06:25 PM EST
    Because if you're not, then why does it concern you and Maureen Dowd?

    Neither of you apparently understand the Church's canonization process and the actual criteria for sainthood, which lies in the realm of actual theology and is wholly apart from The Vatican's political and temporal realm. Nor do either of you probably care.

    In fact, given your statement about "[balancing] a liberal and a conservative," I daresay politics and the opportunity to fling a few arrows at the ossified Vatican hierarchy are probably what primarily motivates both you and MoDo to decry St. John Paul II's canonization.

    If you're so concerned about the obvious sex abuse scandals then please, by all means, pressure the secular authorities in Boston and elsewhere throughout the country to go after those people in the Church who've been responsible for having allowed these crimes to perpetuate, often long after the wrongdoing was initially discovered.

    Because last I saw and heard, Cardinal Bernard Law has never been indicted for a crime in this matter, although in my opinion he probably should have. Personally, I don't believe criminal wrongdoing should ever be shielded by the Church hierarchy, and I don't think a lot of my fellow Catholics do, either.

    But the fact that Cardinal Law remains unindicted undercuts your statement about the late Pope John Paul II having offered him sanctuary, since sanctuary can only be offered only to those persons who from the Church's perspective are being unjustly persecuted and / or accused.

    So, if you're not an active and practicing member of the Church, then please don't make derisive comments about Roman Catholicism's internal spiritual affairs. It's neither desired nor appreciated by the faithful.

    Mahalo e Aloha.


    You (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 06:54:52 PM EST
    have an unpleasant tendency to say that people who do not belong to a specific organization have no right to question it.

    Eg: Your oft stated assertion that one cannot criticize democrats if one is not active in party politics.

    Eg: Your assertion that one cannot criticize screenplays if one is not engaged in writing one.

    This is another one.
    Someone who you suspect is not a Catholic, has no business questioning the canonization of a person who, it is alleged, was responsible for covering up, or allowing the covering up, of reprehensible conduct on the part of the clergy.

    To which I reply: Nertz.


    Maureen Dowd Is Catholic (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 08:22:48 PM EST
    Are you Roman Catholic? Because if you're not, then why does it concern you and Maureen Dowd?

    Irish Catholic I believe.

    The Church is hopelessly sexist; the Church is hopelessly sex-obsessed; the Church is cruel to women and gays; the Church is hypocritical. And, of course and most recently, the Church is a global criminal conspiracy of child rapists and their abettors, which "fact" validates the other charges in the standing indictment just cited.

    From the National Review about the scourge of anti-Catholics

    Maureen Dowd's Catholic Problem


    When I was caught up in the anger (none / 0) (#141)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 08:36:36 PM EST
    or resentment or know-it-allness of earlier years, I used to sound like Maureen Dowd.  

    M. Dowd's approach here and to other politicians that she deems imperfect (a tautology, say what) seems to be one of being overwhelmed or betrayed or flabbergasted by any imperfection.  What to say? Well, for me, I'll align with E.J. Dionne.  The difference: Dionne has dealt with those situations in his Church (and, apparently, in himself) where imperfections appear.  He does not appear angry; M. Dowd appears to me to repeat unresolved angers about lack of perfection.  


    Glad You Changed (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 08:41:25 PM EST
    I am not a fan of Dowd, but I did like her op-ed on Saint-Gate.

    Well said, Donald. (none / 0) (#132)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 07:59:50 PM EST
    Well, (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 08:12:07 PM EST
    this was indeed well said by Donald;
    Because last I saw and heard, Cardinal Bernard Law has never been indicted for a crime in this matter, although in my opinion he probably should have.

    So, here is a man who Donald believes should have been indicted for his crime being offered sanctuary by a person now elevated to Sainthood.

    Or is he saying that this man, former Cardinal Law, who he believes should have been indicted, was not offered sanctuary by JP2?

    If the latter is the case, let him say it.
    So far, that part of his reply is not particularly well said.


    You have an agenda here, lentinel (2.00 / 1) (#137)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 08:27:51 PM EST
    If you have bona fides as to the practices and belief system defined by the Catholic Church, there are many reference points that you can pursue.  The case studies for sainthood are accessible via research.  (As for Cardinal Law, the matter of that individual is another matter. Insofar as I know, whether removing the Cardinal from his bishopric and assigning him to prayer in a rather secluded Vatican was appropriate at the time is debatable.  I, like Donald, would have preferred a stronger, more commensurate response.)

    Most importantly, for me, is the recognition and repudiation of the pedophilia cover-ups that occurred.  Pope Francis offers a straightforward institutional and heartfelt personal apology on behalf of the Church.  That is a start. We need to start forward again ... we must not forget; but, in all things, forgiveness is essential for meaningful forward movement.  


    So who is it (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by sj on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 08:54:34 PM EST
    you need to forgive in order to move forward? Because demanding "bona fides" in order to pursue knowledge strikes me as being somewhat pre Vatican II and, moreover, less forward-thinking than Pope Francis himself when he calls for Christian unity. Now granted, limiting the unity to Christians still excludes billions of people, but it's still more inclusive than you and many other traditional Catholics seem to be.

    You are mischaracterizing, sj (none / 0) (#148)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 09:30:20 PM EST
    If I was not clear about the context of "bona fides" earlier, my apology.  For a number of reasons within what lentinel has written, I concur with Donald's summary.

    He violated (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by lentinel on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 02:25:59 AM EST



    Everything ok now?

    Really. It is tiresome dealing with you and Donald sometimes.

    You say I have an agenda - but are unresponsive as to the specifics of what I am questioning - the propriety of elevating to Sainthood a person accused of sheltering pedophiles. Rather than saying, say... JP2 did not shelter pedophiles, you want to deny me the right to ask the question.

    The same with Donald - who, upon occasion, becomes an elitist know-it-all who reserves unto himself the right to decide who has the right to express an opinion.

    So, the matter at hand reminds undiscussed - and we are left turning around in the muck of personal attacks.


    While I am not generally a fan of (none / 0) (#179)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 06:55:32 AM EST
    Maureen Dowd, I read her column on the canonization - but I think perhaps you did not.  Had you done so, perhaps you would take issue with not just Dowd's words, but those of some of the Catholics she quoted.

    You and christine have taken great offense at those who have asked what miracles these men were responsible for, and encouraged people to check out the process for canonization, but neither one of you has had anything to say about this:

    The Vatican had a hard time drumming up the requisite two miracles when Pope Benedict XVI, known as John Paul's Rasputin and enforcer of the orthodoxy, waived the traditional five-year waiting period and rushed to canonize his mentor.


    Perhaps trying to balance the choice of John Paul, who made conservatives jump for joy because he ran a Vatican that tolerated no dissent, the newly christened Pope Francis tried to placate progressives by cutting the miracle requirement from two to one to rush John XXIII's canonization.

    So...there's a process, but it can be tinkered with?  Is it that hard to find candidates for sainthood?

    Also, both of you accused lentinel of having an agenda, framing her questions and comments as if she were the one injecting politics into the conversation.  But neither of you had anything to say about this:

    "This is a political balancing act," said Kenneth Briggs, the noted religion writer. "Unfortunately, the comparisons are invidious. John opened up the church to the world and J.P. II began to close it down again, make it into a more restricted community, putting boundaries up."

    Do you think this might be why lentinel raised the issue?

    The "sanctuary" comment?  Here's where that came in:

    One of John Paul's great shames was giving Vatican sanctuary to Cardinal Bernard Francis Law, a horrendous enabler of child abuse who resigned in disgrace in 2002 as archbishop of Boston. Another unforgivable breach was the pope's stubborn defense of the dastardly Mexican priest Marcial Maciel Degollado, a pedophile, womanizer, embezzler and drug addict.

    As Jason Berry wrote last year in Newsweek, Father Maciel "was the greatest fund-raiser for the postwar Catholic Church and equally its greatest criminal."

    As an aside, Jason Berry is Catholic, and he's done a boatload of investigative work on the sexual abuse scandals, so what new metric are you going to create to render his comments not credible?

    I really do not understand the bristling, defensive, turn-the-tables reaction to people questioning the canonization of these two popes.  Nor do I understand the eyes-wide-shut stance you and christine have taken, to the point that neither one of you bothered - perhaps even avoided - reading Dowd's column.  I kind of expect that from christine, as she just makes pronouncements and declarations, never cites or links to any sources and believes her own life experience is all anyone needs to be armed with in order to form opinions (in that last regard, you and christine have something in common) - but the high standards you set for others require your own to be at the same level - and at that you failed.

    And you've now also set a standard that's going to lock you out of more than a few discussions, I think.  If one has to be a Roman Catholic to comment in any way on anything happening in the church, then you are going to need to be female to comment on issues affecting women, you're going to need to be African-American or Latino or Jewish or Muslim or gay to weigh in on matters affecting any one or all of that group.  

    And no, the fact that you were once married to a woman who happened to be gay, or that your are currently married to someone from the Latino community, doesn't get you in the door you just designed.  Sorry.  Guess you;ll have to be just one more person settin' on Howdy's front porch chewin' the fat over the week's TV offerings instead of participating in discussions about more substantive issues.  Ooh, that should be fun, eh?

    Look, I get that, given your current health issues, you probably are feeling closer to your faith, and perhaps feel like you need to be protective of it - but that doesn't give you the right to summarily dismiss what others are asking, and make such a condescending effort to shut down the conversation.


    Donald (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 07:22:27 AM EST
    You and Christine are welcome one my front porch anytime.

    Seriously? What petty spiteful thing to say.

    The fact is this is Jeralyns front porch and if anyone decides what can be discussed and by whom  it will be her.  Not you.  As much as you would love for it to be or pretend it is otherwise.


    You came through the tornadoes okay? (none / 0) (#187)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 07:57:56 AM EST
    Ha (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 08:15:05 AM EST
    My neighbor just returned my lawn chairs.  They were in her front yard.

    I did (none / 0) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 08:08:33 AM EST
    Thanks for asking.  There was a good deal of damage I guess.  I slept right through it.  I figure dying in your sleep is the way to go.  The good new, I seem to have full episodes of everything.  Woo hoo.

    And here comes the Howdy we remember; (none / 0) (#190)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 08:06:40 AM EST
    I knew you were in there somewhere...

    I wonder, though, why you didn't give Donald a raft of Howdy-sh!t for summarily deciding that only those who are Roman Catholic can weigh in on matters involving the Church - doesn't that fall into the category of deciding what can be discussed and by whom?



    Does this mean you won't be on (none / 0) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 08:09:38 AM EST
    The porch?  I hope.

    What miracles (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 03:39:37 PM EST
    Did John perform?  I don't really keep up.

    For what it's worth, ... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 06:39:05 PM EST
    ... here is the testament of Sister Caterina Capitani of the Daughters of Charity, who credits her personal recovery from mortal illness to the late pontiff's spiritual intercession.

    Look Donald (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 06:51:45 PM EST
    I am not interested in questioning anyone's faith.  I honestly think the whole issue of abuse has nothing to do with the faith of the average observant church member.  I was only pointing out that it makes no sense to point fingers at the most recent guy without looking at the document that could said to be the foundation of the whole mess.  
    The last thing I want to do is question or criticize your faith or it's importance to you.
    As far as the whole miracle thing, it something outsiders have trouble understanding and frankly I'm sorry I mentioned it.  It was a stupid and petty thing to say.  I to often do that and I officially apologize.
    As for the rest, I know my opinion has not been solicited but IMO canonizing these two guys ....
    On second thought I will just STFU

    How (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 07:09:09 PM EST
    asking about the qualifications or lack thereof of a specific individual to be elevated to the status of Sainthood can be considered an assault on anyone's faith escapes me.

    I totally believe in the right of anyone to believe anything. Or in anything. Especially something that gives them comfort.

    Donald believes, I think, that John Paul is innocent of the charges being leveled at him re: pedophiles. I'm open to that being the case.

    There are two issues here, in my opinion.
    One involves the tenets of the religion itself and its relationship to the teachings of Jesus.
    The other issue is the corporate nature of the Church structure. It is the ethics of the latter that has been brought into question by some people.

    So, let's discuss it - or not.


    Your last sentence (none / 0) (#127)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 07:18:42 PM EST
    is the most sensible in your attempted dialogue about matters of the Catholic faith.  To begin with, the two different Popes represent and show outstanding qualities in different areas.  Examples include: Peace, modernizing & expanding the 2000 year old religious institution, freedom of religious expression, deep spirituality through courage and suffering, etc.  Realize that spirituality, together with spiritual practice, does not often fit easily into liberal or conservative or this box or that one.  Like life and the humans who live it, the Catholic faith is vibrant with layers of expression ... in many instances, the institution has acted in charitable support & aid of humanity.  In other areas--such as the wrong, sinful pedophilia stain furthered by some church hierarchy==my Church has much to atone for.

    Look, Howdy, your cynicism about faith (including the Catholic faith) occasionally goes off the edge. Matters of faith are deeply personal; and, I do not ridicule your belief system.  From time to time, your tendency to ridicule others in matters of faith is more than grating.  It is offensive.  And, please know that I write this as one who has had differences over the years with my Church and its representatives.  Kind of like family wherein you are free to criticize your cousins, and I am free to criticize mine ... but, I'll respect your relationship with your family and you should afford the same respect to me.

    In closing:  The Roman Catholic Church (as some have said in the press lately) really is a "big tent" in many ways ... all the peoples, cultures.  Pope Francis understands that; and, imo, the recognition of the exemplary (saintly) behavior found in two different Popes says quite a bit about the breadth and extent of that "tent."


    My cousins do not (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 07:52:09 PM EST
    Systematicly abuse children.  I don't like being lectured.

    The "lecture" as you term it (none / 0) (#133)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 08:09:32 PM EST
    was and is deserved, Howdy.  To get respect, you have to give it.  No one attacked you (or your cousins.)  As for your broad sweep attack in matters of faith, you might want to enlighten yourself about the canonization process and the particulars of the case for sainthood in these two instances.  There is a lot of info out there; a lot of historical reference ... if your interest is to do something other than attack. Please rein it in.

    Ok (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 08:30:27 PM EST
    You want to know what I REALLY think?  I think that canonizing these two guys, in particular these two guys, who could be said to be the two most central cahracters in the abuse scandal -the letter and the law it was based on - is more coverup.  Exceptionally well played IMO.

    Actually, I did not seek to know (none / 0) (#143)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 08:39:48 PM EST
    what you think about the belief system and dogmas and practices of the Catholic Church.

    And for the record (none / 0) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 08:39:43 PM EST
    I wouldn't be surprised if I know as much about the process as you do

    I sincerely doubt it, howdy. (none / 0) (#144)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 08:40:44 PM EST
    Christine (none / 0) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 09:53:23 PM EST
    You may not believe it but I respect your faith.  And I respect your passion and I probably can't imagine how difficult this disgraceful episode must be for you.  I understand faith even I f I don't share it.  I was raised surrounded by almost fanatically religious but sincere and good people.

    But averting your eyes does not seem helpful.

    And I'm done.


    'Appreciate this comment, howdy (none / 0) (#162)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 10:09:44 PM EST
    At least part of it....  The part with which I disagree is the assertion about "averting ... eyes."  I and many others can and do look straight at the pedophilia scandal that the Church has faced (and, deservedly so) in recent years.  What I do know is that the past cannot be changed, whether with regard to the pedophilia wrongs or any wrongs; we can and must learn from it; atone for it; change; and move forward not by forgetting, but forgiving each other.  That is true throughout life ... think any human personal partnerships, friendships, marriages.  I don't define the Church because of the horrendous actions of some members of the clergy or the hierarchy, just as I do not define my marriage in terms of a wrong committed during the course of the broader deep relationship.  

    It truly has been a stimulating discussion, btw.  These kinds of conversations cause an examination of conscience on my part.


    Woo hoo (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:27:54 PM EST
    LIVE: Particularly Dangerous Situation Unfolding in Arkansas
    By Kevin Byrne, AccuWeather.com Staff Writer

    April 27, 2014; 5:12 PM
    More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on linkedin

    An expert analysis on the severe weather is given in the above AccuWeather.com video.
    Violent thunderstorms and tornadoes will continue to increase across the nation's midsection through Sunday evening as the worst severe weather outbreak so far this year unfolds.
    Places from northeastern Texas and northern Louisiana to southern Iowa and Illinois, as well as Nebraska, will remain at risk for one or two rounds of severe thunderstorms into Sunday night.
    The thunderstorms have and will continue to unleash damaging winds, hail and frequent lightning.
    The strongest thunderstorms will also spawn tornadoes with the danger zone greatest in the vicinity of Arkansas and southern Missouri. Little Rock, Ark., lies within this zone.

    Bulletin-Extra! (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by NYShooter on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 08:28:25 PM EST
    We interrupt this program to bring you this special bulletin from "Wingnut Central."

    I have written here several times about a friend of mine who I've known for over 50 years. He is so far right he would make Ted Cruz look like a Socialist. Anyway, he called me yesterday, breathless, and, asked me look up on Google (he doesn't own a computer) about our Government's "Top Secret" program which is causing all the weather problems, which Obama, and all the other Pinkos are blaming on Global Warming.

    He says he heard on the news (Glenn Beck) that, because Obama is catching so much heat regarding his drone program, he ordered the military to "seed" the atmosphere in such a way as to cause hurricanes, tornadoes, and tsunamis in enemy countries of ours.

    And, now you know that the crazy weather we've been having has been caused by the military's testing the "Cloud Seeding" Program in our Mid-West.

    Gotta run now, Rush is on; maybe I'll learn more.


    OMG (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 08:32:36 PM EST
    I should known. But but why is it hammering red states?

    Jeez, Howdy (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by NYShooter on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 09:24:16 PM EST
    It's punishment for "BENGHAZI!!!!"

    Everyone knows that.


    And (none / 0) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 09:45:55 PM EST
    The gay probably.  But up yours weather controll, in was able to squeeze out an SD signal on the cathode set in the kitchen.

    I heard about this ... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 09:40:04 PM EST
    ... for the first time a few months ago.  It's a variation on the chemtrail conspiracy theory, whereby chemical our biological agents are sprayed from airplanes, as evidenced by what sane people think are just regular, old condensation trails.  The chemicals are being sprayed by the government for weather modification, mind control, population control, chemical warfare, etc.

    Holy jeebuz,  ... Not only well these people believe anything they hear on talk radio, but they're just freakin cuckoo-for-Cocoa Puffs.


    It would be funny (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 09:44:02 PM EST
    If they didn't actually believe it

    Gonna ask a stupid question (none / 0) (#158)
    by Slado on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 09:58:11 PM EST
    Since Donald Sterling made his comments in private isn't he likely to hold out?

    I mean while what he said was pretty bad it was basically pillow talk.

    Seems kind of harsh to take his franchise away from him if he comes out and does the counseling rehabilitation apology tour.

    Worries me that private conversations can be used  by obviously vindictive people to ruin your life.

    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 10:10:30 PM EST
    Know enough about sports or what would be expected in such a situation to have an opinion about if he will hold out or if he should.  In some ways I agree with what you say.

    I just can't get the idea out of my head that this guy "owns" a team of African Americans.  


    And isn't he married (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 11:47:08 PM EST
    but whispered those 'sweet nothings' to his girlfriend?

    At the least, it seems it would be hard to hold any of his players to the standards of conduct their contracts prob have :P

    And yeah, WTF is this guy thinking owning a sports team?


    He was married (none / 0) (#183)
    by Slado on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 07:22:07 AM EST
    His wife works for the team.

    His girlfriend is also mixed race.   Makes it double weird.


    I was wrong (none / 0) (#185)
    by Slado on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 07:36:54 AM EST
    Looks like he's still technically married but she doesn't seem to mind him running around with a girlfriend.

    Maybe they both don't want to bother with an expensive divorce?   Who knows.


    His wife (none / 0) (#195)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 08:41:55 AM EST
    Doesn't just "work for the team" - she runs it (or co-runs it with him).

    Maybe he considers his girlfriend 'exotic' (none / 0) (#197)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 08:44:58 AM EST
    vs mixed race? AKA, thinking with his  . . . .

    At least he's not a hypocrite (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 12:24:58 AM EST
    He thinks "owning" African Americans is fine; it's the "mingling with" he's got a problem with.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#170)
    by lentinel on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 02:41:52 AM EST
    it's OK for him to mingle...
    but when it comes to his old lady...

    It appears (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Slado on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 07:20:39 AM EST
    He can only be forced out through pressure.

    The rules of removing an owner involve financial issues, meaning if he was broke and couldn't run the team, and pay the bills.

    So if he rides out a suspension and there isn't anything the NBA could do.  

    Long term however is players could refuse to come over in free agency and players would leave the team as soon as they could when their contracts ran out.  Even that I'm afraid wouldn't force his hand because for years he didn't put a competitive team on the floor.   Recent success is just that, recent.

    If you remember a similar thing happened to Isiah Thomas in the NBA playoffs when he and Rodman said Bird was only thought of as a good player because he was White.   Keep in mind this was said in a locker room, not in private.


    These comments... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 06:26:18 AM EST
    are just bigotry, not a crime...deserving of serious  public shaming, but I don't think the league has any real recourse.

    What is much more troubling is the racism of his business practices as a slumlord.

    I don't think the league can force him to sell. What would be really cool would be for his players to walk out...if the jerk can't put a team on the floor than the league could probably force him out.


    How (none / 0) (#169)
    by lentinel on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 02:38:35 AM EST
    in bloody hell was this conversation taped? And by whom?

    Whatever it reveals about Sterling's character or lack thereof - is there no privacy left in this world?

    I listened to the tape...but the article in which it was presented did not refer to the manner in which it was recorded - or by whom.

    It seems to me that owners of teams are a flaky bunch anyway. I read that Trump wants to get into the act. The Trumpalo Bills.

    Can you imagine lying in bed with your mate, and having the sh-! you say turn up on Good Morning America?


    For MKS... (none / 0) (#194)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 08:31:50 AM EST
    At best, the government protects the weak from the strong.  At worst, the government gangs up on the weak with the strong.  

    I'm afraid our government is closer to the latter, especially over the last 40 years.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 339 (none / 0) (#201)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 01:37:31 PM EST
    Almost forgot (none / 0) (#203)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 04:57:07 PM EST
    Miscellany:  (1) Don't intend to disappoint Anne, but I had read Maureen Dowd's article when first printed.  No eyes-wide-shut here, Anne; and, no side-blinders here either ... since the totality is a lot more than the acknowledged pedophile situation.  The fact that a small percentage of priests committed horrible wrongs, and were aided via cover-up by higher-ups does not represent the totality of the Church, of any relationship, of life.  Just a restatement on my part.  (2) One of the recognized miracles found to involve Saint John Paul II involves a woman from Costa Rica named (not sure of first name) Florabeth Mora, who is now 50 years old. A few years ago, Mora lay in bed with inoperable brain aneurism when her eyes focused across her room on the cover of a magazine showing the late Pope John Paul II ... even though she had not been able to get up and had been informed by hospital qualified medical doctors that she was dying, she heard from the image of the late Pope to "not be afraid" & to get up right then.  She did; she didn't stop; numerous medical tests showed the aneurism had completely disappeared within the day, etc. etc. From being completely disable to completely cured; she has become an active proponent of the Pope's message, and was a guest of honor (of course) at the canonization  (BTW, I do not provide research links nor fill up the page with long cut & pastes since--for those interested in researching the process followed in this & other situations--it is not difficult to find.  I'm sure you'll understand.)

    SITE VIOLATOR! (none / 0) (#204)
    by caseyOR on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 07:16:41 AM EST
    Spammer 03062343472 is hitting many older threads.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 340 (none / 0) (#205)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 11:32:26 AM EST
    He's a mummy AND a national security advisor. (link)

    v. 339
    v. 338
    v. 337

    Peace to all my TL amigos, of all political stripes, plaids, knits, blends, ad nauseum...