Tuesday Night Open Thread

Time for an open thread. All topics welcome.

< Oklahoma Execution Botched and Halted, Inmate Dies of Heart Attack | Denver Jails to Cease Enforcing Immigration Holds >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It is I ronic (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 08:14:31 PM EST
    Or something like ironic that a republican finally sees the light on climate change as he is going down in flames

    Representative Michael Grimm (R-NY) has become the first GOP member of Congress in recent memory to flip from denying the science of man-made climate change climate to accepting it. He does so on this Sunday evening's broadcast of Episode 3 of Showtime's acclaimed docu-series, "Years of Living Dangerously."


    Or is it (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 08:16:19 PM EST
    BECAUSE he is going down in flames?  Who knows.  

    Many non republicans don't (none / 0) (#3)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 09:52:39 PM EST
    Believe either.

    Too many politicians believe both sides for strictly non scientific reasons.  Many don't even know the chemical makeup of water vapor.

    Ban dihydrogen oxide

    They should be the last people we give any deference to on this subject.

    I will listen to the scientists and even though a "majority" support AGW I have switched to the minority after thouroughly studying the subject.  Mainly because science should be absolute and provable and AGW is not.

    Science should be a factual discussion.  Not a partisan issue.


    71% of Americans also believed that ... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:01:11 AM EST
    ... Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks just prior to the start of the Iraq War in March 2003. Then as now, the actual facts fail to confer any legitimacy to their collective position.

    You guys keep on depending on (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:16:16 AM EST
    "consensus" as if it actually proved anything.

    Do you mean the consensus that had doctors bleeding their patients?

    The consensus that had the earth as the center of the universe?

    The consensus that denied the existence of germs??

    Logic is not your strong suite. And I don't think any of you have any training in science or engineering.

    How about Science Daily?


    American Geophysical Union


    Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase. In contradiction to those studies, new research finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades


    But but but.... CO2 is what causes warming.....



    Whatever, dude. (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 04:13:13 PM EST
    "He is indebted to his memory for his jests, and to his imagination for his facts."
    -- Richard Brinsley Sheridan (1751-1816), Irish tragedian and poet

    You bore me.

    "Talk sense to a fool, and he calls you foolish."
    -- Euripedes (484-406, B.C.), Greek tragedian



    Yes Donald (none / 0) (#185)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:04:56 PM EST

    You wanted science and I gave you science.

    Your problem is that you just snicker and deny.

    Reminds me of middle school kids.


    "Logic is not your strong suite." (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Lora on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:35:49 PM EST

    Allow me to explain to you that a steady airborne fraction of CO2 is NOT the same as a steady amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    What your source is saying is that the proportion of CO2 from human emissions that stays in the atmosphere hasn't changed much, if any.

    The CO2 emissions have increased a great deal.  And the amount in the atmosphere from those emissions have also increased a great deal.

    Your source is not contradicting this fact in any way.


    It's not?? (none / 0) (#170)
    by NYShooter on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:38:32 PM EST
    Then, I'll just keep on looking till I find one that does.

    oops, I forgot...............lol


    No Lora but nice attempt at reframing (none / 0) (#186)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:35:29 PM EST
    In contradiction to those studies, new research finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

    The measured fraction is .0397%. And since the size of the earth's atmosphere has not changed the amount of CO2 remains the same as it was "during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades."

    Stated mathematically: Amount of atmospheric CO2 = Size of earth's atmosphere x fraction of CO2 (.0397%)

    Of course another argument that the hoaxers has made is that the amplification factor is such that the feedback will eventually cause any minute left over (not absorbed) CO2 to burn the earth to a cinder. (sarcasm alert)

    But here there is  another problem. From Science Daily:

    Source: Nature

    Summary: A new estimate of the feedback between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has been derived from a comprehensive comparison of temperature and CO2 records spanning the past millennium. The result, which is based on more than 200,000 individual comparisons, implies that the amplification of current global warming by carbon-cycle feedback will be significantly less than recent work has suggested.

    In this week's Nature, David Frank and colleagues extend this empirical approach by comparing nine global-scale temperature reconstructions with CO2 data from three Antarctic ice cores over the period ad 1050-1800. The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7.

    The researchers conclude that the recent estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius can be excluded with 95% confidence, suggesting significantly less amplification of current warming.


    From 40 to 7.7 is a rather large decrease, don't you think??



    A "majority" - heh (none / 0) (#4)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 10:06:59 PM EST
    97 percent is certainly a majority - no quotation marks needed.

    I've repeatedly (1.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Slado on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 01:59:33 PM EST
    knocked that stat down and given you links.

    Yet you keep repeating it.



    hehe (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 12:03:59 AM EST
    Don't look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

    The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

    According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the "Comply with Kyoto" model. The scientists in this group "express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause."

    The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.



    denialism-from-forbes-courtesy-of-heartland-hack- (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 12:15:54 AM EST

    It's fascinating when you catch the start of a new bogus claim enter the denialsphere, bounce from site to site, and echo about without any evidence of critical analysis or intelligence on the part of the denialists. A good example of this was an article by Heartland Institute's contributor to Forbes, James Taylor, falsely claiming only a minority of scientists endorse the IPCC position on the causes of global warming. This new nonsense meme gets repeated by crank extraordinaire Steve Milloy, bounces the next day to Morano's denialist aggregation site, and before long I'm sure we'll be seeing it on Watt's site, Fox news, and in a couple more weeks, in an argument with our conservative uncles.

    The claim is, of course, a deception (or possibly total incompetence) on the part of Heartland's "senior fellow for environment policy" (I wonder if there is significance to the use of "environment" as opposed to "environmental"). Linking this paper in the journal Organization studies, Taylor makes a false claim that a mere 36% of scientists, when surveyed, hold the consensus view. Anyone want to guess at the deception? Cherry-picking! It was a survey of largely industry engineers and geoloscientists in Alberta, home of the tar sands. In the study authors' words:



    Don't bother, Cap'n. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:47:45 AM EST
    Jim's opinions are fully commensurate with Gertrude Stein's classic opinion of Oakland, from Everybody's Autobiography (1937):

    ""What was the use of my having come from Oakland it was not natural to have come from there yes write about if I like or anything if I like but not there, there is no there there."

    Perfectly consistent for a guy who claimed the other day that Donald Sterling was a Democrat.



    Heehee (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 12:18:54 AM EST
    You might want to hold off ... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 06:26:03 AM EST
    ... on the laughing.  Not sure who wold take a survey of members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) (a professional association for the petroleum industry in Alberta) seriously.  Seriously?  You think a survey of oil engineers/geologists is supposed to be comparable to actual climatologists?

    Denialism From Forbes Courtesy of Heartland Hack James Taylor

    This is pretty classic denialist cherry-picking and and is one of the most common deceptive practices of denialists like Taylor. By suggesting a survey of industry geoscientists can be generalized to scientists as whole, Taylor has demonstrated the intellectual dishonesty inherent in denialist argumentation. You might as well make claims about the consensus that tobacco causes lung cancer by surveying scientists in the Altria corporation headquarters.

    Here I was, thinking you might have some actual evidence from experts in the field of climatology, as opposed to oil company workers.  Guess you can only work with what you've got, huh, Jim?  Desperate times, desperate measures, etc. ...

    Heh, heh, heh ....


    Talking to Jim (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:50:11 AM EST
    about global warming is like talking to Jesse Helms about how cigarettes cause cancer.

    So, why do people keep talking to him? (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:57:44 AM EST
    He's been handed a real gift today - climate change AND Benghazi.  And he's being book-ended by the comedy stylings of Mikado Cat.

    So much for this Open Thread.


    Well, you have to (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:39:37 AM EST
    appreciate anyone who can man the keyboard while wearing a colander on his head equipped with earphones so as to hear Rush Limbaugh--without missing a beat.   However, to me, there is enough diversity of opinion, if not contentiousness on occasion, within center-left thinkers.  And, at this juncture in history, there does not seem to be any sane Republicans, or at least, none with mouths.     Contamination of discussion with tea party-type arguments is not productive, in my view.

    I don't (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:44:15 AM EST
    engage him on global warming. Like I said it would be about the same as trying to talk to Jesse Helms about how cigarettes cause cancer.

    Mostly I like to laugh at Mikado and Jim. But look at it this way: when they start posting you know what is being sent down from central command at GOP headquarters. LOL.


    Kaffee Klatsch (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 12:04:52 PM EST
    So much for this Open Thread

    So much for your Kaffee Klatch...

    Much better, to have other opinions and styles than a group who all shake their heads in agreement, imo


    Squeaky, as I am sure that you must realize, (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:40:33 PM EST
    The whole "Kaffeeklatsch" term, at least the way you use it, is more than a little insulting.
    Those whom you would no doubt characterize as being members of this "klatsch," for the most part (except for two of them), have never met each other.
    While you, and more than a few other commenters on this blog, have not only met each other, but have broken bread together.
    So, should we start referring to you and some others as the "Supper Club"?
    I won't do it, and I would hope that you would think twice, yourself, about your term.

    Last time this came up (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:48:07 PM EST
    there was reference to a "Kaffee Klatch" and a "cabal."  But yes, I agree w/you.

    Or perhaps we could (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 06:42:42 PM EST
    refer to each other as various "Reichstags."  :-(
    I would prefer to just comment to people on individual terms, however, without reference to whomever they agree or disagree with, and without assigning any particular "group" to anyone.
    This would make for a much more civilized discourse.
    (And, BTW, Oc, off topic, if you are ever in the DC area, check out the offerings of the Washington National Opera.)

    I prefer being in a Cabal to a Klatch (none / 0) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 05:16:36 PM EST
    Or a Supper Club.  I could be in a Breakfast Club though :). I think we should kvetch this out and choose one designator in order to end confusion.

    I thought we were also considered a band of roving drunkards as well in one thread :)


    I kind of liked "cabal." Sounds quite (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 05:27:44 PM EST

    That's what I like about it too (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 05:30:17 PM EST

    Scares Jim even more :) (none / 0) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 05:31:35 PM EST
    Throw in a "Shariah cabal" ... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:22:24 PM EST
    ... and now you're really cookin' with gas.

    Cabal definitely sounds more organized. (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 10:12:20 PM EST
    When these threads turn personal I prefer to cue up Dionne Warwick on Youtube, and ... Walk on By.

    Really, who met whom? (none / 0) (#152)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:02:58 PM EST
    Must have missed out....

    Yep (none / 0) (#167)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:49:10 PM EST
    I guess you must have missed it.  If you want to know anything further, you can email me (check my profile).
    I really do not want to get into it on the threads.  I'm done with that.  It is not at all productive.

    Of course he realizes it - that's the (none / 0) (#195)
    by Anne on Thu May 01, 2014 at 06:48:53 AM EST
    whole reason for using it.

    What's so hilarious is the way he seeks opportunities to use it; it would be one thing if there had been a string of comments from those he's deemed "members" of the group, but, no - there was just my one comment, asking why it is people keep feeding jim material for what then becomes a verbal food fight that sucks up these open threads.

    And maybe I'm not as proficient with the English language as I thought I was, because I could swear that KeysDan chimed in to agree with me - and when I called squeaky out on why he didn't include Dan in his criticism, he chose to put a completely different spin on Dan's comment as a way to avoid the truth of his agenda.

    In other words: SSDD in squeaky-land, with a sadly ineffective attempt by oculus to keep the sh!t bubbling, a la:  

    Round about the caldron go;
        In the poison'd entrails throw.--
        Toad, that under cold stone,
        Days and nights has thirty-one;
        Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
        Boil thou first i' the charmed pot!

    Certainly got you stirred up. (none / 0) (#196)
    by oculus on Thu May 01, 2014 at 07:11:03 AM EST
    With the absence of Reggie (none / 0) (#198)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 01, 2014 at 08:02:44 AM EST
    Someone has to be the straw that stirs the drink.

    Oh, bite me... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 12:34:12 PM EST
    That whooshing noise is the sound of the point flying over your head.

    If you didn't have your nose lodged so far up my butt, looking for opportunities to go after me, you'd have lobbed your latest cheap shot at Dan, who expressed the belief that

    Contamination of discussion with tea party-type arguments is not productive, in my view.

    I guess you disagree.  So, where, pray tell, are your contributions to the "discussion" jim wants to have about climate change and Mikado Cat wants to have about Benghazi?  Speaking of "productive," lol.

    Oh, right...you don't actually want to have those discussions, you just wanted a chance to fling "Kaffee Klatsch" one more time.  



    A truly offensive comment. (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 12:47:34 PM EST
    ugh (none / 0) (#158)
    by sj on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:30:49 PM EST
    I notice that you are looking askance at Anne's awareness of squeaky's proximity to her nether regions rather than his choice of positions.

    After really thinking about this, I think I prefer Anne's response (as discomfiting as it is) to the "cryptic" one liners that are intended to prime and fire loose cannons. Or simply to stir the sh!tpot.

    I also prefer it to the "cryptic" and pseudo-learned comments that are the very essence of "let's you and him fight; I'll hold [his] coat". Rather like the comment I'm responding to here.


    Go for it. (none / 0) (#188)
    by oculus on Thu May 01, 2014 at 12:29:36 AM EST
    Why "pseudo-learned"? (none / 0) (#197)
    by oculus on Thu May 01, 2014 at 07:13:45 AM EST
    Mirror? (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 01:22:52 PM EST
    KeysDan comment and sentiment is entirely different from yours.
    Comments that add to productive discussion is not a requirement here. Some just want to state their views, and repeat. If productivity were your goal, you would not continue to post your venomous comments intended to exclude commenters whose style, agenda and comments you do not like or agree with.

    A mirror of a recent classic:

    Can't. Stop. Laughing...
    Hang on, almost there...

    Okay, phew...okay, better now.

    So, this has to be the Unintentionally Hilarious Comment of the Day - at least so far:

    either fully inform yourself about the details, or give them very little weight
    You do realize, don't you, that this is exactly why your comments are treated as so much piffle.

    No, you probably don't get that.  

    Never mind.


    Right (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 05:23:07 PM EST
    on bro.

    Like I said, we can't be misled by some Commie icebergs that melt just to mess with us.


    Re: Commie icebergs (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by unitron on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:41:09 PM EST
    If you didn't steal that line from Colbert, he should have stolen it from you.

    I understand your position (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 10:13:05 PM EST
    But I'm goin with the majority.  You don't really seem like the person who opposes it because it's a "liberal" idea, or maybe you do, anyway I understand principled incredulity.  That is not generally what comes from the right.  
    As far as non republicans not believing, there are also gay republicans in about the same numbers.

    I believed it for a long time (none / 0) (#88)
    by Slado on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:07:13 PM EST
    Then one time I debated my dad on the subject and he raised some excellent points.   He is a physician and a very smart man so I took his points to heart and decided to learn more about it.

    Being an HVAC engineer that deals in heat transfer etc... I'm not a complete moron on the science.   So I've read a lot about it and there are good points both ways.

    My main problem is so much is unknown.   The certainty expressed by so many on the pro AGW side IMHO is based on politics more then science.

    If it weren't we wouldn't need the dire predictions, the alarm-ism and all the rest.   The science would simply stand on it's own and we'd be really doing something about it.

    Instead we use it as a political football and toy with making real changes but keep on polluting and using more energy.

    If the world was serious and the science was clear I'd be a believer.  Instead it's not so I'm not.


    What is the political gain to be had (none / 0) (#199)
    by ruffian on Thu May 01, 2014 at 08:24:11 AM EST
    by accepting the peer reviewed science about climate change? I see no political advantage at all. What politician has gained by anything he has done in the political arena?

    To me it is one of those things that the right came out against simply because it happened to be Al Gore that brought it forward.


    Two hurdles (none / 0) (#15)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 01:53:29 AM EST
    Some consensus among people who understand the science that its happening.

    A working solid model that predicts what actions should be effective.

    How is this for something to do, desalinate ocean water and irrigate every place on earth warm enough to fill with green growing plants and trees.


    Nope! (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:23:37 AM EST
    MC, how dare you suggest that those on the Left actually suggest we do something besides destroy our economy and give the UN power over us.

    They "feel" so therefore it is "done."

    Thank goodness they didn't get carbon black (soot) spread over the poles which was one of the suggestions to combat global cooling back in the 70's!


    World Wars I and II (none / 0) (#103)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:43:33 PM EST
    didn't destroy the U.S economy, but seriously reducing greenhouse gas emissions surely will -- because the people who've taken the environmental Norquist Pledge say so..  

    Meanwhile scientific savants like Jim still can't even bring themselves to acknowledge that there exists such a thing as a manmade greenhouse gas. Nothin' about it in Deuteronomy..


    Uh Jondee (none / 0) (#187)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:41:15 PM EST
    in case you don't know, Norquist is a politician.

    And I am just an old wore out guy who use to carry a business card that had "Engineer" on it so I don't claim to be a scientist.

    But the sources I have given you are from scientists.

    So snark away. It just makes you look like the jerk you are.


    You mean like the survey ... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Yman on Thu May 01, 2014 at 06:18:43 AM EST
    ... of geologists and engineers who work for oil companies, as opposed to climatologists?



    The bad news- (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:07:28 AM EST
    I woke up from a long dream about an overflowing toilet.
    The good news, it was only water overflowing.

    Analysis appreciated.

    Perfectly understandable (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:26:47 AM EST
    fear of potentially fatality-producing tornados.

    Or, it could be rooted in ... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:01:51 PM EST
    ... an equally understandable fear of mafioso-type goons suddenly bursting into your house, dragging you to the bathroom, shoving your head in the toilet bowl, and flushing repeatedly while demanding to know the identity of the dirty rat who first set up Noodles and Paulie and then ran off with The Boss's weekly take from the waterfront rackets.

    Ha (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:17:14 PM EST
    That makes as much sense as anything else.  It was definitely one of those wake and go - what the f@&k?? - mornings.

    Donald's scenario made me think of Oscar (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:23:30 PM EST

    I dunno (none / 0) (#159)
    by sj on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:33:12 PM EST
    It sounds preferable to the long dream about searching for a toilet.

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:19:11 AM EST
    Usually I'm not a fan of MoDo, but she lays it out nicely here.  When you've lost MoDo....

    Stop whining, Mr. President.

    And stop whiffing.

    Don't whinge off the record with columnists and definitely don't do it at a press conference with another world leader. It is disorienting to everybody, here at home and around the world.

    I empathize with you about being thin-skinned. When you hate being criticized, it's hard to take a giant steaming plate of "you stink" every day, coming from all sides. But you convey the sense that any difference on substance is lèse-majesté.

    You simply proclaim what you believe as though you know it to be absolutely true, hoping we recognize the truth of it, and, if we don't, then we've disappointed you again.


    It doesn't feel like leadership. It doesn't feel like you're in command of your world.

    How can we accept these reduced expectations and truculent passivity from the man who offered himself up as the moral beacon of the world, even before he was elected?


    Mr. President, don't you know that we're speeched out? It's not what we need right now.

    MoDo has been "lost" by (none / 0) (#48)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:42:19 AM EST
    nearly everyone in the past two decades.  Remember her vituperation toward the Clintons for years?  Whatever is going on with the once-influential and interesting writer has resulted in the usual cynical patois for which she is now well-known.  (But, nice try.)

    Yes, except (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:44:40 AM EST
    She was definitely one of the most vociferous cheerleaders early on.

    So, while you want to downplay it because you are still on the "Everything is wonderful" team, she does actually (for once) speak a little truth to power.

    Nice try on your part, though.


    She also (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 10:17:32 AM EST
    was a massive cheerleader for George W. Bush. Who cares what she says? She's also said some pretty horrible things about Hillary too.

    Yes, MoDo (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:51:00 AM EST
    has been, and continues to be, critical, often to the point of unfairness, of the Clintons, particularly Hillary,   And, she was critical of Al Gore's manner (less so his words) claiming that Gore speaks as if he "teaches a class of backward third graders."  

    Today's column seemed like it was phoned-in, but is mildly interesting and relatively innocuous.  Except, the line that claims that even those in the president's corner now make "derogatory remarks about your manhood."   This 'reporting' is dangerous because this was the tact that was used by warmongers to goad the reluctant George HW Bush into invading Panama.

     But, it is not my recollection that Ms. Dowd was a massive cheerleader for George W. Bush.  Indeed, I carry a soft spot in my heart (some would say a soft spot in my head) for her, in that she was among the few major media voices who was strongly against the Iraq war and the neocons behind it all.  Her book "Bushworld" (2005), for examlpe,  was anything but an exercise in cheerleading.  She does seem to carry a fondness of sorts for Daddy Bush, although, in my view, Daddy B. is certainly the tree from which that poisonous fruit, W., did not fall far from.


    I'm mostly talking about around (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:19:43 PM EST
    2000 when she just kept sending W love notes and talking about Al Gore and earth tones. Ugh.

    Your last sentence seems to be (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 12:06:27 PM EST
    constructed to avoid ending with a preposition. What happened?

    Thanks, (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 12:36:49 PM EST
    yes, there was a grammar fail--please lose that 'from' in your reading.  Sister Mary Rudolph would also not approve.

    She said what you wanted to hear. (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 12:12:10 PM EST
    That's not necessarily the same as "truth to power." In this instance, I'd say even a broken clock can still tell the correct time twice daily. And to travel further down the road of cliché, if MoDo were a tree falling in the Beltway forest, but only people in the Beltway can hear her, does she make a sound in the rest of the country?

    Personally, I no longer pay any attention to that diva, any more than I would the musings of Sally Quinn. And further, I haven't in years because as far as I'm concerned, like her fellow New York Times opinionist Thomas Friedman, MoDo lost any pretense to credibility with me a long time ago for those reasons already well stated by others here.

    So, if the woman is indeed on a "truth to power" trip as you apparently believe, she's also my Cassandra. If MoDo told me it was a lovely day outside, I'd be sure to bring my umbrella.



    Which is why I said (none / 0) (#84)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 01:53:00 PM EST
    I don't usually agree with her or take her seriously.

    But as you point out - even a stopped clock is right twice a day.


    Rein in the "either-or" format, please (none / 0) (#77)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 12:38:14 PM EST
    jbindc:  The fact that I offer a negative opinion about M. Dowd's hatchet jobs over the years means nothing more than that.  It doesn't mean that I cheerlead (a word that you seem to use frequently)for every step the President takes nor that I think that any Administration is perfect, without error, or never mishandles anything.  If you want to conjure up "all or nothing" motifs, do so ... but, lots of people do not subscribe to that approach.  Thanks again.

    Well, if you agreed with them, you (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:22:31 PM EST
    wouldn't consider them "hatchet jobs," would you?  Or feel the need to defend - yes, defend - the object of her axe-wielding.

    What is "cheerleading," really?  Whether it's happening on the sidelines at a high school football game, or in the pages of the NYT or Politico or over the airwaves, isn't it all about drumming up support, making people think positively about something, putting whatever's going on in the best light?  

    Maybe you don't see yourself doing that.  Maybe you prefer seeing yourself as a defender, or a seeker of truth.  Really doesn't much matter to me how you want to describe yourself.

    I read a lot of things, both in the "reporting" category and the "editorial/opinion" category, and some of it I agree with, and a lot of it I don't.  The media's behavior in the run-up to the Iraq war changed forever how I view what is being reported, and it's changed how I view the opinions of those who seem to think their thoughts are more valid or credible than those of the rest of us.  The government's actions have changed forever how I feel about it, too.  The relationship between the media and the government no longer seems as adversarial as I think works best for democracy, having devolved into an orgy of back-scratching and self-servitude.

    Think what you want; believe what you want.  Try, perhaps, just addressing the content of Dowd's column - can you do that?  Or is that too hard after you've puffed yourself up in a snit because MoDo said mean things about Obama?

    Or perhaps this is the point where you get out the giant deflector shield and move the conversation to questioning someone's Democratic bona fides?


    To tell you the truth, Anne, (none / 0) (#128)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 04:33:16 PM EST
    I see no need to respond to Dowd.  The columnist has been playing these games--hatchet, snide, ricochet anger, etc.--for years.  After paying attention until the Clinton trashing columns became over-the-top, I rarely read her columns, sometime scan, and never pay any attention.  That, btw, was and is my point.  As you suggested yourself very recently, when remarking about the constant right-wing yak from the likes of Mikado & Jim, it might be best to ignore them.  Although M. Dowd clearly does not represent the right-wing, the snide & kvetching style is one I ignore ... the exception here stemmed only from jbindc's apparently misplaced reliance on Dowd as a source that liberals should follow or read.

    Bottom-line:  I'll be happy to discuss many other columnists, including those with whom I disagree from time-to-time.  But, as for Dowd, I'm not into that much cynicism and snide.  Nor am I into playing word games or slogan characterizing.  If we can have a conversation without the usual routine, I'd be glad to try.


    Actually, christine (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 04:45:30 PM EST
    As usual, you (deliberately?) miss the point.

    ...the exception here stemmed only from jbindc's apparently misplaced reliance on Dowd as a source that liberals should follow or read.

    Great laugh, thanks. My point was that when even those columnists who, have in the past, written things proclaiming the hosannas to Mr. Obama (much like you do), and are now saying things like "WTF"? that it's evidence how far his star has really fallen and how wide the blinders are now off (for some).

    It's funny how you never like the columns or links I post to, yet you never want to offer any proof of your own to counter - just how you "feel" about things. Apparently your feelings are much more insightful than writers with whom you disagree.

    It's not just me who just isn't in to Mr. Obama - he's now at a new low in the approval rating department.  As MoDo's column proves, even some of the most ardent syncophants are waking from their slumber of Hope and Change.  

    But not you.  Oh well, there are still people who believe the earth is flat too.


    You are correct in saying (none / 0) (#136)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 05:17:08 PM EST
    that I don't seem to like the articles you reference.  The reason:  You and I come from different positions politically, it appears ... and, you tend to post columns supporting your position.  That's would most people do.  In effect, the sentiments of the authors invariably support your position (or "feelings," as it were.)

    You see, citing columns is usually nothing more than displacing one's own "feelings" or sentiments or position via a columnists/pundit or third party "feelings."  (Oh, as for the falling-or-climbing in the polls:  Today's WSJ/NBC poll shows the President rising--as did last week's CBS/NYTimes poll--both in contrast to the WashPo poll released yesterday.  So, who knows?  But then, you did reference the one that mirrored your "feelings," did you not?


    But have you been keeping up with (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 05:45:58 PM EST
    what the polls are showing about the likelihood of younger voters going to the polls this November?

    That might be a larger concern than where the president's approval ratings are.

    Interest in Midterm Voting Lags Behind 2010 Levels, Conservatives More Enthusiastic

    Despite what seems like growing approval for the president, the Democrats and Republicans in Congress among 18- to 29- year olds, the percentage of young people who are likely to vote in the midterm elections is shrinking relative to the last time we asked the question five months ago, and also compared to four years ago at this time.  Currently, less than one-in-four (23%) young Americans under the age of 30 say that they will  "definitely be voting,"in the upcoming midterm elections for Congress, a sharp decrease of 11 percentage points since the Fall. During a similar time of the year in 2010, 31 percent of 18- to 29- year olds reported that they would definitely vote. According to U.S. Census Bureau estimates summarized by CIRCLE1, 23 percent of 18- to 29- year olds voted in the 2010 elections, a decrease of 1.5 points from 2006 when 25.5 percent participated.


    Currently, there seems to be more enthusiasm for midterm voting among traditional Republican consistencies than Democratic ones. For example, 44 percent of those who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 say they are "definitely voting," which is a statistically significant difference compared to the 35 percent of 2012 Obama voters who say the same. Additionally, self-identified conservatives (32%) are 10 points more likely to vote than liberals (22%), men (28%) are 9 points more likely to vote than women (19%), and young Whites (28%) are more likely to vote than Blacks (19%) and Hispanics (19%).

    Now, I'm not generally all the big on polls, but I know you are, so perhaps you might want to consider what these numbers could mean for the last 2 years of the Obama administration.


    Except (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 01:53:38 PM EST
    It doesn't mean that I cheerlead (a word that you seem to use frequently)for every step the President takes nor that I think that any Administration is perfect, without error, or never mishandles anything.

    You actually do.


    Keep trying .... (2.00 / 1) (#129)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 04:33:57 PM EST
    Yes, except (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:44:44 AM EST
    She was definitely one of the most vociferous cheerleaders early on.

    So, while you want to downplay it because you are still on the "Everything is wonderful" team, she does actually (for once) speak a little truth to power.

    Nice try on your part, though.


    Folly Competition (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:18:49 PM EST
    If you're looking to hide a barn in plain sight, here's a fool-proof way to go about: cover it in mylar. That's what New York City architecture firm stpmj did for a new conceptual project for the Architectural League's Folly Competition.


    Terrific. Perhaps this could be in the woods (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:33:55 PM EST
    near the Phillip Johnson glass house (which I would really like to see).

    *sigh* (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:45:03 PM EST
    the only Bridal Veil I shall ever know

    Just kidding.  I'm fine with that.

    Makes me nostalgic for SE IA. (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:35:50 PM EST
    Spirea and lilacs.

    Judge gets 28 yrs for selling children to prisons (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 04:59:27 PM EST
    way to easy on him IMO

    Accused of perpetrating a "profound evil," former Pennsylvania judge Mark Ciavarella Jr. has been sentenced to 28 years in prison for illegally accepting money from a juvenile-prison developer while he spent years incarcerating thousands of young people.

    Prosecutors said Ciavarella sent juveniles to jail as part of a "kids for cash" scheme involving Robert Mericle, builder of the PA and Western PA Child Care juvenile detention centers. The ex-judge was convicted in February of 12 counts that included racketeering, money laundering, mail fraud and tax evasion.

    In addition to his prison sentence, Ciavarella was ordered to pay nearly $1.2 million in restitution.

    At his sentencing, Ciavarella acknowledged his illegal acceptance of money from Mericle. But he denied ever jailing a juvenile in exchange for money.


    Some kids as young as 10

    wow (none / 0) (#169)
    by DFLer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:37:11 PM EST
    they should release those kids

    I believe they did (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:41:50 PM EST
    Justice Scalia's selfie-- (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:22:34 PM EST
    sort of, thankfully.   Scalia erred in his dissent (joint by Thomas) in a 6-2 decision (Alito did not participate) to uphold the EPA's authority to regulate coal pollution that moves downwind, across state lines.

    In the section of Scalia's dissent entitled Plus Ca Change. EPA's Continuing Quest for Cost Effects Regulation (an apparent cutesy attempt belittling the EPA--the start of the more things change the more they stay the same), Scalia stated that the EPA has sought to convert the Clean Air Act into a mandate for cost-effective regulations, and cited Whitman v American Trucking, a Supreme Court ruling in 200l , that confronted EPA's contention that it could consider costs in setting standards.

    However, the EPA's position in the earlier case cited was just the opposite--the EPA was defending its refusal to consider costs as a counterweight to health benefits when setting air quality standards.  In fact, it was the Trucking Association that wanted EPA to factor in costs. The Court ruled in favor of the EPA unanimously.  

    And, the author of that 9 to 0 ruling was Scalia.  

    The Court has made the correction and the section title has been changed to "Our Precedent", although I think Plus Ca Change is still apt for a Scalia opinion.

    Sorry Jim (@34, 186), you are incorrect (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Lora on Thu May 01, 2014 at 01:10:40 PM EST
    The ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere
    to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere
    due to human activity, the airborne fraction AF, is central to predict changes in earth's surface temperature due to greenhouse gas induced


    NYShooter (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by jbindc on Thu May 01, 2014 at 01:33:38 PM EST
    Your point is well taken, but misguided, I fear; for example you saying that the Japanese surrendered to us aboard the battleship USS Missouri, is a fact. What christine routinely does is put information out there, based on how she perceives something (which is fine for some discussions), but then she claims that it is actual fact (which is not).

    Case in point - she cites random polls, without links - and then claim that those polls are  the only reality, without putting them in context - such as completely disregarding other polls she doesn't like.

    Basically, what she does is if she doesn't like the source, she does the equivalent of putting her fingers in her ears and saying, "Nyah, nyah, I can't hear you."

    So, your example really doesn't agree with christine.

    Oh, Christine...sometimes I have to marvel (5.00 / 4) (#210)
    by Anne on Thu May 01, 2014 at 02:20:24 PM EST
    at your ability to sneak things in without thinking anyone's looking...and the negative connotations you attach to those things.

    Case in point: "articles that primarily support one's pov" described as "a dodge from taking responsibility personally."

    Not only have you managed to equate/conflate the nature of the links jb has sometimes provided with her support of the conservative agenda, you've managed to call her lazy, too.  But given your preference for pure expressions of opinion, how is it that you can refuse, time and again, to ignore jb's own words, the ones where she is expressing her own views, and keep using the existence of the link or excerpt to more or less call her a liar?  You say you don't like all the linkage, but you sure manage to make use of it - not for purposes of discussing the content, but for attacking someone's character.  

    The bonus is that, since you don't generally provide any links to anything, then by extension - en extension you set up to knock jb - your comments are elevated to being stand-alone marvels of personal responsibility.  Oh, what a truly wonderful person you are!

    The problem is, Christine, that you don't just express opinions; you express what you believe are facts, and never provide any support for them.  Even the polls you referred to - where are the links to those, the links that would let people look under the surface, see the questions, look at the demographics?  I find it interesting that you want others to take personal responsibility for what they post, but don't feel much compunction to hold yourself to the same standard.  Of course, we could all go off to the google and try to find the polls ourselves, but isn't it there a level of laziness or disingenuousness in making others do what should be your work for you?

    I'm sure you're a lovely person, with many admirable qualities, and we could probably enjoy a glass of wine and a sociable chat together, but I don't think you always play fair.  

    Boyhood (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 11:02:43 PM EST
    This movie has a100% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. I'm sure there a couple of others but I can't remember one.  It follows the same actors for 12years.

    Ethan Hawke said in 2013 that Boyhood is

    ...also known as "The Twelve Year Project"; Richard Linklater and I have made a short film every year for the last 11 years, one more to go, that follows the development of a young boy from age 6 to 18. I play the father, and it's Tolstoy-esque in scope. I thought the Before series was the most unique thing I would ever be a part of, but Rick has engaged me in something even more strange. Doing a scene with a young boy at the age of 7 when he talks about why do raccoons die, and at the age of 12 when he talks about video games, and 17 when he asks me about girls, and have it be the same actor -- to watch his voice and body morph -- it's a little bit like timelapse photography of a human being. ... Next year, he will graduate high school and we will finish the film. It will probably come out in two years.

    link to RT and the trailer

    There have been 8 (none / 0) (#7)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 11:11:46 PM EST
    in the last four years. This one however won't be released for another ten weeks so it might be better to wait until then to see if it maintains that standard.

    Really? (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 11:24:41 PM EST
    Are we talking about the same thing?  IMDB says nothing about other releases from Linklater that seem to be part of this.

    In May 2002, film director and screenwriter Richard Linklater announced that he would begin shooting the then unnamed film in his home city of Austin, Texas in the summer of 2002.[7] At that time, Linklater planned to assemble the cast and crew a few weeks out of every year to shoot the story over a 12-year period, reasoning that, "I've long wanted to tell the story of a parent-child relationship that follows a boy from the first through the 12th grade and ends with him going off to college. But the dilemma is that kids change so much that it is impossible to cover that much ground. And I am totally ready to adapt the story to whatever he is going through."[7] Linklater hired the then 7-year-old Ellar Coltrane to play the boy as the centerpiece of the story.[9][8] and continued portraying the role through the film's 12-year shooting period.


    I obviously wasn't clear (none / 0) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:48:19 AM EST
    Rotten Tomatoes lists 8 movies with 100% ratings in the last 4 years. Those 8 have been released. Boyhood is ten weeks from being released. Touting the ratings of a movie not yet released seems premature.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 06:45:42 AM EST
    As I was laying in bed last wondering what you were talking about I realized that must be it.  The the first thing I did this morning was google.  Actually it more than that which surprised me actually.  
    Since I don't remember seeing that rating there except on a fes classics.
    Anyway the buzz about this has been off the charts and his reputation is pretty sterling.
    So I will remain excited.

    Here (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 11:29:12 PM EST
    is his IMDB page

    Only one.  Plus some of my other favorite movies like Waking Life.


    Forites: "Slacker" and (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 12:31:12 AM EST
    "Dazed and Confused."

    Favorites. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 12:34:28 AM EST
    Have you watched "7 & Up" series of documentaries?  Michael Apted  interviews a diverse group of British kids. The last installment the subjects are now 56 yrs. old.

    Yes - I netflixed them all (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 05:30:47 AM EST
    a few years ago and now keep up. They are my age so I find it interesting. Very personal stories, and he does not try to fit in cultural events or anything like that.  Their reactions to being filmed over the years vary - some have dropped out and then back in over the years.  I wonder if any of them would participate again from the start if they knew how it would affect their lives.

    I have seen a bit (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 06:49:00 AM EST
    Interesting but the dramatic approach with an entire cast sort of blows me away

    I recall two of the adult participants (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:24:09 AM EST
    Are now close friends and they discussed this on camera.

    Link: (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:53:22 AM EST
    Didn't (none / 0) (#16)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 01:55:52 AM EST
    the BBC do something like this with annual interviews with a half dozen or so kids starting at age 5?

    FOIA smoking memo (none / 0) (#17)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:04:55 AM EST
    Judicial Watch finally got some Benghazi material released, including as smoking of a smoking gun that could be imagined.

    Ben Rhodes to Susan Rice, "Goal": "To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy."

    Even (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 06:34:44 AM EST
    the GOP concedes now it was all about talking points. LOL. Nothing new there.

    Sorry but I know you're hoping this is going to allow the GOP to scandal their way into the presidency but to the average voter Benghazi is nothing compared to Iraq.


    Uh yes, GA and thanks (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:34:16 AM EST
    It is SOMEWHAT about talking points. Talking points that were lies and existed because the WH changed them to make CANDIDATE Obama look good.


    And we still don't know why the President didn't launch an immediate response.

    I mean you criticized Bush for not acting during the other 9/11 when no one knew what was happening and where it was coming from. We knew what was happening and where Benghazi is.

    And JW may be jokes but their FOIA filing got the email... the one the WH had previously given to Congress so totally redacted it was useless.

    Ah me... what did CANDIDATE Obama say???

    .. I'll have the most transparent administration in history...

    What a liar. What a total liar. He is not only making Carter look good, he's moved ahead of Nixon.



    You are (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:38:33 AM EST

    Surely you still aren't going with the immediate response conspiracy theory but I guess you are. LOL.

    Bush didn't know what was happening apparently because he doesn't read his own PDBs apparently. I guess you are forgetting that Bush launched an entire war based on lies but launching an entire war based on lies is okay with you I guess. I'm really glad you guys continue to apologize for George W. Keep it up. Apologizing for the worst president in the history of the country is going drive you guys into the dustbin of history pretty fast. Go for it!


    Yeah, right, Jim. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 04:17:41 PM EST
    Pssst!! Donald Sterling is a Democrat. Pass it on.

    Shoot the messenger (none / 0) (#97)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:27:16 PM EST
    if it makes you feel better, but Obama lied, lied for political gain. More than likely he let the people in Benghazi die to avoid political risk.

    But that's not important, front page is some old guy who didn't like a black man sitting with his mistress.


    You want to say the talking points were (none / 0) (#99)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:31:21 PM EST
    a lie,I will listen. But you have no evidence whatsoever that anyone let the people die for political gain. That is just not how it happened according to any fact based research I have seen. Where is your evidence of that?

    As if (none / 0) (#100)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:32:08 PM EST
    "letting people die" wouldn't be politically risky.

    The whole (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 04:34:53 PM EST
    let people die conspiracy theory has been debunked by at least General Petraus if not others but don't let facts get in the way of conservatives weaving a little conspiracy theory in their fevered minds in their shrinking bubble.

    Listen to your leader Krauthammer-he says that Benghazi is past it's expiration date.

    Or maybe we'll be hearing Bengahzi, a noun and a verb for quite while from you guys turning more deaths into a punchline for comedians.


    No need to shoot the messenger (none / 0) (#143)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 05:57:51 PM EST
    Just mock him for pushing tin-foil conspiracy theories that have already been debunked numerous times.

    Mock doesn't change truth (none / 0) (#189)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu May 01, 2014 at 12:34:28 AM EST
    Whitehouse knew it was a planned terrorist attack, and abject failure of the Obama foreign policies, and lied saying it was a spontaneous demonstration about about a movie.

    One after another Obama's claimed phony scandals are turning out to be based on a solid core of whitehouse deception and coverup.


    And you base that upon -- what, exactly? (none / 0) (#192)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 01, 2014 at 01:57:59 AM EST
    Speaking for myself only, I'm still waiting for you guys to fully explain Whitewater and account for all the time and effort investigating it.

    A fact-free universe is not a healthy place to reside, Mikado, nor is it a good idea to consume a steady diet of your own bull$H!+.



    Calling something "the truth" ... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Yman on Thu May 01, 2014 at 06:20:11 AM EST
    ... doesn't change it from a debunked, tin-foil conspiracy theory into fact.  Which explains your complete lack of evidence to back up your claims - as usual.

    And Judicial Watch (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 06:36:14 AM EST
    is a laughing stock. They were at some protest at the White House screaming like a bunch of jackals.

    Right (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:11:52 AM EST
    Larry Klayman, the guy who recently said the president should " get up off his knees, put down the Koran, and come out with his hands up".



    Actually (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:13:15 AM EST
    I think he said "come up with his hands out" (seriously) but that was probably just a person of color Freudian slip.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:30:05 AM EST
    I had forgotten what crazy thing he said. Conservatives have been fleeced repeatedly by this conspiracy theorist but I guess it's a good gig for Klayman so he keeps doing it.

    Oh, please! That's not a smoking gun. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 04:20:17 PM EST
    You guys on the far right have instead been beclouded by your own smoking bongs.

    Saying they need (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 04:37:07 PM EST
    to put down the bong is really too nice. They need to put down the crack pipe. They are hallucinating.

    We had (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 06:40:35 AM EST
    a major shooting in my area. The town that conservatives love to talk about Kennesaw Ga where there is a law mandating everyone have a gun. Six people were shot Kennesaw Shooting

    Sorry to hear (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 06:49:47 AM EST
    Keep your head down

    Thankfully (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:15:22 AM EST
    It doesn't seem that anyone besides the gunman died.

    Not so (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:27:58 AM EST
    far but the security guard is in very critical condition. We actually have a mutual friend in common I learned yesterday.

    Best wishes to all of them (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:45:20 AM EST
    RIP Bob Hoskins (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 10:21:13 AM EST
    Signature role imo: (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:26:41 AM EST
    "mona Lisa."

    He will always be... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:59:53 AM EST
    Eddie Valiant to me...RIP Mr. Hoskins.

    Hoskins also played ... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:16:23 PM EST
    ... a pretty mean Nikita Khrushchev in Jean-Jacques Arnnaud's 2001 drama about the Battle of Stalingrad, Enemy at the Gates. He was a great character actor who will be dearly missed.

    Wiki Pearl (none / 0) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 10:28:18 AM EST
    it sort of sound like a good idea at first blush

    WikiFoods, Inc. has developed a revolutionary, plastic-free food and beverage packaging technology that delivers Triple Good. Called WikiPearls<sup>TM</sup>, they're good for you, good for the environment, and just plain good.

    Imagine for a second the skin of a grape or a coconut. WikiPearl skins are inspired by the way nature packages fruits and vegetables. These skins are delicious protective coatings against water loss and contaminant entry, and potential carriers of effective and functional nutrition.

    The WikiFood technology protects the wrapped food or beverage without exposing it to unnatural materials or chemicals while also delivering benefits of health, convenience and a food experience like nothing else.

    I don't see how they could sell it (none / 0) (#54)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 10:51:03 AM EST
    without secondary packaging in grocery stores. Seems like it could be kinda disgusting (and this is from a very non-germ phobic person).

    Cool/fun idea though.


    I vote for no packaging... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:09:29 AM EST
    at all for some items, or at least less packaging for items that require some packaging.  But I'm a guy who eats dirty nuts and pretzels in bars, buys candy from the loose candy bins and pickels from a big barrel, and eats food off the floor;)

    Seriously though it drives me crazy that when you buy a big bag of say Peppermint Patties that each Patty is individually wrapped.  Why why why? M&M's aren't individually wrapped...thank god.  


    That's how you build your immune system! (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:25:32 PM EST
    I took back a piece of fish my dog stole last week - took it out of her mouth, washed it, cooked it, and ate it. So there!

    Impressive (none / 0) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 05:25:16 PM EST
    M & Ms at Petco Park (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:29:51 AM EST
    Are in the usual bag, which is inside a cardboard box. Why?  Who knows.

    That's what I am talking about! (none / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:56:29 AM EST
    Major pet peeve.  Bring the loose candy bins to the ballpark Selig!

    Or maybe not, they'll wanna charge 39.99 a lb;)



    Sounds great, maybe for pet food (none / 0) (#102)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:35:34 PM EST
    But I like my people food in sealed containers.

    Does make me think a little about M&M's, Charshubao, and hard boiled eggs.


    Spherification (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:54:02 PM EST
    Sounded familiar..  this technique came out of Ferran Adrià's experimentation at elBulli.

    Very cool, and practical.

    You can see Ferran Adrià at Harvard lecture series and other talking about spherification and other techniques for molecular gastronomic cooking.


    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 341 (none / 0) (#55)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:08:03 AM EST
    It's not climate change, it's just a fetish. (link)

    v. 340
    v. 339
    v. 338
    v. 337

    Get your humpdays on, my friends. Hotter than hell here on the SF peninsula today, in the uninsulated house with no AC. Gonna be a sauna. All you can do is strip down and sweat it out. And you lose about five pounds in the process. It's really a win-win.


    Peace out, y'all.

    I enjoyed your story of the young salesman (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:33:56 AM EST
    And older female.

    I saw your comment (none / 0) (#63)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:39:50 AM EST
    I thought I replied to it, but if I didn't I apologize. I do remember the comment you made about the younger salesman. I'm stupid sometimes, help me understand how you are using the word revenge there? And thank you again, oculus, I do appreciate the time you took to read it and comment.

    She told himm her husband not only (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:47:13 AM EST
    knew about the affair but also encouraged it. The young man responded to her post-move email by thanking her for the article about tattooing and described the positive effect his wife's new tattoos had on their marriage. That seemed too happy an ending for me after all the build-up.

    got it (none / 0) (#79)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 12:57:01 PM EST
    And a legitimate note. Mostly I've gotten "it's kind of a downer comments." Which, I think, is why I included that sort of "happy" element to the end.

    Thanks for clarifying. Like I said, I'm dumb like that sometimes.



    It starts "happy" from his (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 01:10:49 PM EST
    point of view. Then she starts obsessing about her age and appearance. Gets darker and darker. And then, wham!  Happy ending.

    I never saw it happy... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:04:55 PM EST
    ...from either point of view, and not even at the end. It's sort of, to me anyway, a significant exhalation of mere relief. That what they knew in their hearts would ultimately happen, well, happened. And, at least it was my intention, the age difference alone is enough to make any affair bound very seriously by time. At least in my, admittedly as the writer, prejudiced position. ;-)

    Thank you, once more, for the considerate comments. Always good to roll it around and have things to question. If not, it's stasis.

    Peace, my friend.


    happy now not in quotes (none / 0) (#110)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:06:08 PM EST
    as in "happy" written in the earlier post.

    big difference.


    And last also... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:10:15 PM EST
    ...I really do see his wife, at their age, as part of that, how else to say it, tattoo generation of 20 and 30 somethings. (And, btw, I can already see this generation of elderly folks turned black from tattoo ink.)

    I was surprised (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:14:03 PM EST
    How many of my elderly food recipients were inked.  Male and female.

    Life is always surprising (none / 0) (#123)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:58:19 PM EST
    It it weren't, damn, ain't no drug you could take to make it so. Well, mostly anyway... ;-)

    On the subject of movie "members" (none / 0) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 04:09:39 PM EST
    I was eating when I first saw this and I almost choked.

    ain't no way this was an accident

    I just wish I could have been a fly on the wall at the development meetings


    Dildos, my ass (ahem) (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 04:40:55 PM EST
    Those are jet-powered butt plugs.

    3D Printing Pen (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:14:27 AM EST
    A pen that doesn't need paper!


    Yes very cool (none / 0) (#62)
    by ZtoA on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:34:45 AM EST
    Can't figure out how to buy one. Loved it even tho the art projects consist mainly of that naked woman arching back. Of course, look at the developers. Nevertheless it looks like a marvelous invention.

    And 3D Printers (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:57:06 AM EST
    Pretty cool..  they make replacement parts for broken appliances and missing hands. And have great prospects for use in the medical field.

    The exhibit at the Columbus Circle museum (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 12:09:42 PM EST
    explained how 3-d printing is currently employed to create art. An eye-opener.

    wow, that's great! (none / 0) (#82)
    by ZtoA on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 01:40:08 PM EST
    Recombinant art.

    Museum of Arts and Design @ (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:26:59 PM EST
    Columbus Circle:

    Out of Hand

    Exhibit is still on.


    I have a friend who has been (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:15:38 PM EST
    Doing this stuff for years.

    Stewart Dixon - Mathart


    Actually (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:43:31 AM EST
    If look closely I'm pretty sure it's not a woman.

    Hmmmm could go either way. (none / 0) (#83)
    by ZtoA on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 01:41:01 PM EST
    but I see your point.

    Click Link at 82 British Pounds (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:50:45 AM EST
    Under " Back this Project" click the link under the 82 BP pledge.

    Unbelievably awful story (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:27:44 AM EST
    Hundreds of kidnapped Nigerian school girls reportedly sold as brides to militants for $12, relatives say

    Samson Dawah was nervous. For two weeks, he had waited for any bit of information regarding his niece, who was among the 234 Nigerian school girls likely kidnapped by the terrorist group Boko Haram. This week, he gathered his extended family. He had news but also an unusual request. He asked that the elderly not attend. He wasn't sure they could bear what he had to say.
    "We have heard from members of the forest community where they took the girls," he told them, adding that there had been a mass marriage. "They said there had been mass marriages and the girls are being shared out as wives among the Boko Haram militants."
    The girl's father fainted, the Guardian reported, and has since been hospitalized. But the news got worse. Village elder Pogo Bitrus told Agence France Presse locals had consulted with "various sources" in the nation's forested northeast. "From the information we received yesterday from Cameroonian border towns our abducted girls were taken... into Chad and Cameroon," he said, adding that each girl was sold as a bride to Islamist militants for 2,000 naira -- $12.

    Terrible stuff (none / 0) (#190)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu May 01, 2014 at 12:43:16 AM EST
    most media wants to ignore. Boko Haram means "Western education is sinful".

    A mess just keeps getting worse.


    Art For Kids or Prison Time? (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:29:33 PM EST
    Prosecutors with the United States attorney's office are recommending that Judge Jesse M. Furman send Mr. Nahmad to prison for a year to 18 months.

    But Mr. Nahmad's lawyers, Benjamin Brafman and Paul L. Shechtman, are asking that their client, a first-time offender, be permitted to avoid prison and instead operate a program that would bring young people living in a Bronx homeless shelter to the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

    Mr. Nahmad would pay $100,000 a year to subsidize that program and would act as a teacher and chaperone for the children, the lawyers wrote in a memorandum to the judge.


    High stakes poker and high end art world dealing, a vortex spinning alleged Russian mobsters, movie stars.. (diCaprio), and other colorful characters.

    Background here, and here.

    Oh, great idea. He is inside the Met (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:33:40 PM EST
    and responsible for minors. What a concept.

    Calling kdog! (none / 0) (#105)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:45:26 PM EST
    Have you ever rented out your pad when you are out of town, such as when you go and visit your lady?
    Sounds like an interesting service, to make a few bucks extra when you're not in your pad, given rents in New York.
    I may forward this to Daughter Zorba and her mister.
    And, no, frankly, even though the article brings it up as a concern, I wouldn't care if other people were having sex in our bed, as long as the sheets were changed.   Geez, we've certainly stayed in many hotels, and who knows what the he!! goes on in those beds?    ;-)


    My sister (none / 0) (#106)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:53:35 PM EST
    worked in a hotel / motel in a college town when she was an undergrad.

    1. They only wash the comforter and blankets about once a month (they wash the sheets after every stay or more, if the guest wants the sheets changed every night).

    2. They did a black-light test of some rooms - found how shall we say, human male secretions all over the place including on the leg of the desk and on the desk chair.

    Yes, I realize that (none / 0) (#114)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:23:23 PM EST
    But, frankly, I don't worry all that much about it.
    We have immune systems for a reason, and you are not going to acquire any sexually transmitted diseases from the blankets and furniture.   ;-)
    The main thing I worry about acquiring in hotel rooms is bedbugs, brought back to our own home.  We have been lucky so far, but that is a concern.

    Nah... (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:56:03 PM EST
    but thanks, I have roomates and my room is mad small, and I'm in the ghetto burbs, and nobody we don't know gets in when I'm not home unless they got a warrant.

    I have looked into booking lodging on Airbnb...it's a cool concept.  

    I don't see what the big deal is about sex...who cares if the renter holds an orgy as long as they clean up and don't leave any stains?  And if they do, that's what a security deposit is for.


    Yes, Daughter Zorba is (none / 0) (#115)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:30:45 PM EST
    in Brooklyn now, not Manhattan, so her pad might not be as desirable for visitors.
    OTOH, she lives in Williamsburg, which is kind of "hipster central."  She says that they get tons of, especially, western European tourists there.
    As I said to jbindc, I don't worry about strangers having sex in my pad.  Think about staying in hotels, for crying in a bucket.  And I'm sure many people have engaged in sex in places where many other people have also had sex.  It's a natural thing.  As long as you clean up and don't cause any damage.

    A good friend began his lecture to a group of (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:40:18 PM EST
    attorneys with a photo of a bedspread in a hotel room. Mucho DNA specimens.

    Well, sure (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:36:36 PM EST
    If you are staying in any hotel, motel, B&B, or wherever others stay on a regular basis, you are going to get a whole lot of various DNA samples.  (And, yes, I would think that this would help any defense attorneys defending anyone who was arrested based on DNA found on or around a bed in a hotel room or other place that had been used by various people, BTW.  And prosecuting attorneys should also take this into account.)
    I don't worry about that.  You are not going to "catch" anything from old, shall I say, "male and female juices."
    May not be the pleasantest thing to contemplate, but we do not live in a sterile world.    ;-)

    Brooklyn... (none / 0) (#122)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:53:05 PM EST
    is the new Manhattan, and Williamsburgh is the new Greenwich Village...your daughter could definitely find takers for her pad on Airbnb.  

    Yes, it appears to be so (none / 0) (#165)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:43:36 PM EST
    When we visited her a few months ago, we enjoyed the diversity and the "happening scene" there.  
    We did feel way older, however, than we felt when she was living in Manhattan.   ;-)
    But it's a vibrant area.

    In Hipsterville Williamsburg... (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by kdog on Thu May 01, 2014 at 08:30:29 AM EST
    I feel old too Z, with my non-skinny jeans and clean-shaven face and 90's cultural references;)

    Also stop using lead based paint (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:34:26 PM EST
    U.S. Tells Users To Stop Using Internet Explorer For Now

    The Department of Homeland Security is warning Americans to stop using the Web browser Internet Explorer because it has a bug that could allow hackers to install malicious software without the user knowing it.

    The vulnerability, the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team says, has already been exploited in the wild. Essentially, all a user has to do to become a victim is view a "specially crafted HTML document," which means a Web page or even a rich email or attachment.

    Suck it DHS... (none / 0) (#201)
    by kdog on Thu May 01, 2014 at 08:32:38 AM EST
    I'm standing my ground on IE right now...bring it on malicous software, I've got malicous hardware aka a hammer if things get hairy.

    Well here's a Congressional first (none / 0) (#144)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 06:15:21 PM EST
    I gotta believe. It's all fun and games until you find out your wife is a bigamist.

    It has been an interesting divorce so far (none / 0) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 06:20:55 PM EST
    Not something I normally would follow cept he blogs at DK and hails from FL.

    He's my very own Rep (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:17:42 PM EST
    so it s front page in these parts.

    Speaking of GOT (none / 0) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:40:01 PM EST
    See this?

    Chris, you and others have written about the disturbing tendency of Benioff and Weiss to turn consensual or ambiguous sex scenes from the book into forced sex onscreen. What was more upsetting about this scene is that the director, the actor playing Jaime, and the show-runners all thought they had created a scene that portrayed consensual sex. (To my knowledge, the actress playing Cersei--Lena Headey--hasn't publicly shared her take on the scene.) If that's the going understanding of consent these days, I'm not letting my daughter out of the house, ever.


    Oops (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:44:36 PM EST

    But what upsets me as a viewer is that in one scene, the show screwed up what had been a really fascinating character arc with Jaime Lannister. Ser Jaime was seemingly everywhere on the show tonight--Jaime and Bronn! Jaime and Tyrion! Jaime and Cersei! Jaime and Brienne!--to enjoyable effect. Is there anyone Nikolaj Coster-Waldau doesn't have amazing chemistry with? He totally made me tear up as he watched Brienne ride off to keep the oath they both made to Catelyn Stark.

    It was only possible to watch these scenes of Jaime doing the right thing, however, by pretending that last week never happened. I'll do that, of course, but I'm annoyed that I even have to.


    Yep, I am going to forget I ever saw (none / 0) (#174)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:47:56 PM EST
    that scene last week. I hope it is never mentioned again. As much as I hated him as a villain the first  season of the show, I love him as a tragic hero now.  Maybe they can write it off as a.Cersei wine induced nightmare.

    I prefer to think of all the scenes with Brienne and Tyrion instead.


    And I continue to be bored with the stuff (none / 0) (#177)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:57:43 PM EST
    north of the wall, baby snatching white walkers included.  Maybe when some of the characters meet up again it will get better.

    I'd much rather see Tyrion get out of jail and go save his wife!


    I just read they plan (none / 0) (#179)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:58:37 PM EST
    To do 8 seasons.

    *OMG* (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:44:34 PM EST
    Who knew??? (none / 0) (#173)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:08:13 PM EST
    My second-favorite GOT character ...

    ... next to Tyrion, of course.


    Holy hell, please tell me that was a joke (none / 0) (#175)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:52:44 PM EST
    Had to turn it off when the dancing started. #ihatethe80s

    Might have to replay Bronn fencing Jaime to wipe out that image.


    I know, sorry. (none / 0) (#176)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:57:00 PM EST
    I so hate the person who showed me that.  Definitely not a joke.  Well intentional anyway.  There are several videos.

    And may I say they strike me as, ahem, gay.  And not in the pejorative but the literal.   Maybe not.  The whole experience was so disorienting I don't trust my gaydar


    LOL, well I have the worst gaydar in the world (none / 0) (#180)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 10:02:52 PM EST
    but it didn't strike me as gay, just 80s icky.

    Bad seque- did you see the stories about Shep Smith and Fox? Supposedly he told Robert Ailes he wanted to come out, then got demoted to weekends.


    Time to go to MSNBC (none / 0) (#183)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 10:09:24 PM EST
    Some how it makes sense.  He always was as close as they got to sane.

    Oh and it turns out it's (none / 0) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:57:47 PM EST
    Actually the 90s if that helps at all.

    I'm glad he redeemed himself with a more noble (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 10:09:11 PM EST
    calling, playing a lecherous dwarf's hit man. And I say that with all affection for dwarf and hit man.

    Not much! It is so bad it is timeless! (none / 0) (#181)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 10:05:47 PM EST
    She seems nice (none / 0) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 06:26:12 PM EST
    Maybe "Lolita" should been a red flag.

    Cuz that stops testosterone anything :) (none / 0) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 06:27:22 PM EST
    Also (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 06:41:24 PM EST
    The two have five children -- Skye, Star, Sage, Storm and Stone



    Hmmm....sounds like last names (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:16:05 PM EST
    for illegitimate kids on Game of Thrones

    Just what I was thinking (none / 0) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:28:49 PM EST
    Or maybe The Grayson Bunch of Portlandia

    ... to her two children from her other marriage, Sapphire and Sterling.

    Let's hope (none / 0) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:41:18 PM EST
    None of them stutter

    But (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 06:38:02 PM EST
    It took him 24 years??

    Good things still happen (none / 0) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 06:57:41 PM EST
    Judge finds Wisconsin voter ID law unconstitutional

    The ruling continues a string of wins for voting rights advocates across the country. Last week, a state court struck down Arkansas's voter ID law. And in January, a state judge in Pennsylvania struck down that state's voter ID law.

    But this one could have even bigger implications if it stands. Never before has Section 2 of the VRA, which bars racial discrimination in voting, been used to strike down a voter ID law. Similar challenges, filed by the U.S. Justice Department, are currently pending against Texas's voter ID law and North Carolina's sweeping voting law, which includes a voter ID component.


    Biden or Kerry? (none / 0) (#191)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu May 01, 2014 at 12:58:42 AM EST
    I don't think Hillary is going to run.

    Biden or Kerry? (none / 0) (#202)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 01, 2014 at 08:45:37 AM EST
    I think you are wrong but even if you are not how about Klobuchar Warren or Jillibrand?

    Oh, christine (none / 0) (#203)
    by jbindc on Thu May 01, 2014 at 09:50:59 AM EST
    Being deliberatly obtuse again.

    Sometimes I link to columnists - sometimes to news stories, sometimes to polling outfits. I form an argument based on not just the articles or columns I post (I always double check those before I post - especially when a columnist is throwing in facts, in addition to spin, or when the source is one which is not favored around here).

    But here's the thing about that - you don't.  For example - in your latest response, you throw out:

    Today's WSJ/NBC poll shows the President rising--as did last week's CBS/NYTimes poll--both in contrast to the WashPo poll released yesterday.

    Again - with no links, so I had to go and look.  You are correct - WSJ shows that he is "rising" since October.  

    But not really.

    Yes, I guess you could say he is "climbing" in the polls - from the very worst during the botched ACA rollout of double digit negatives, to now high single digit negative ratings. He has not been consisently "above water" (above 50%) and across polls in his approval rating since February of 2013. That is called "a trend".

    But if you would link to sources, you would know that (and so would the rest of us).

    jbindc: When one links to columns (none / 0) (#204)
    by christinep on Thu May 01, 2014 at 10:08:48 AM EST
    or articles that primarily support one's pov, what is that other than a dodge from taking responsibility personally.  In many cases, links are overdone ... especially ones involving columns/articles in the public domain and rather well-known.  People have different preferences, of course; but, as for me and except in the case of obscure or arcane or other little-known matters, I'd much rather read an individual's own analysis, argument, position with minimal cites, as needed, to supporting documents   After all, we are not writing law reviews or throwing out footnote shields to persuade others, since--I'm guessing--many have "been there, done that."

    Christine, I agree with you (none / 0) (#206)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 01, 2014 at 01:22:58 PM EST
    the part about the links, I mean.

    I can understand that if you have a good faith discussion/debate going on with another commenter requesting a link may, sometimes, be helpful. But, I, like you, feel that if you're fairly well educated, and, reasonably well read regarding a particular subject the body of retained knowledge from your own mind should usually be sufficient.

    For example, if we're having a discussion about WW 2, and, as part of the narrative I'm relaying to you, I state that the Japanese surrendered to us aboard the battleship USS Missouri, should I have included a link?

    The only reason for the answer to be, "yes," is if you dispute my statement regarding the Missouri. And, even then, I think it would be more appropriate for you to "google" the answer as to which ship it was.

    I know this post is a little bit garbled, but, I hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to say here. In other words "links" have their place, but, their use shouldn't, automatically, be mandatory. And, way too often, the demand for links is not done in "good faith," but, simply a way to prolong a needless scuffle.

    Guess what? (none / 0) (#208)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 01, 2014 at 01:51:44 PM EST
    I agree with you, too, jbindc.

     My argument regarding links was a general statement. Of course, when items of fact are in dispute, links can be useful. But, my position that requiring links are way overdone, often unnecessary, and, should be required only when facts are in dispute, remains in place.
    I don't think you and I are in disagreement, and, unless one looks into every nook and cranny of this discussion to try and find some tiny morsel that appears at odds with my general statement, as grown-ups, we're in accord.

    Bottom Line
    "Use, and/or, request, links only when necessary to further a good faith discussion. Use them sparingly, and, never demand them if you have no intention of following them up when they're provided."

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 342 (none / 0) (#209)
    by Dadler on Thu May 01, 2014 at 01:57:01 PM EST