home

Friday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:15:10 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Our earlier open thread just filled up. Here's another one, all topics welcome.

< Apple and Other Tech Companies to Notify Users of Records Requests | White House Correspondents Dinner 2014 >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Night Open Thread | 205 comments (205 topical)
    Cubs beat the Cardinals 6-5. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by caseyOR on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:58:03 AM EST
    Not gloating. More like stunned at the score. These days, I will happily take a Cubs win whenever and wherever it occurs, rare though it may be.

    OMG! Cubs win again. Beat Cards 3-0. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by caseyOR on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:25:34 PM EST
    Two, count 'em two, wins in a row. And both against the evil Cards.

    Hey, I know this is just a brief interlude of victory in the midst of a sad season, but please let me have this moment, fleeting though it may be.

    Parent

    Did you see the Blazer's game? (none / 0) (#80)
    by ZtoA on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:18:22 PM EST
    I only watched the last minute when Damian Lillard made that amazing shot. The city went crazy.

    Parent
    I did not see that game. (none / 0) (#109)
    by caseyOR on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:18:04 AM EST
    I am still in the Land O' Lincoln. For some reason the Bulls are the b-ball team of choice here. Go figure. :-)

    I have not paid attention to the NBA playoffs this year. Once baseball season starts other sports fade into the background for me. So, do the Blazers really have a chance this year?

    You know Jack Ramsey, who coached the Blazers to their one and only NBA championship in 1977 (I moved to Oregon in the midst of that winning run), just died, last week I think.

    RIP CITY!!!!!

    Parent

    Hope you are doing well (none / 0) (#136)
    by ZtoA on Sun May 04, 2014 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    I don't follow the Blazers but a good friend of my daughter's (one of my honorary daughters) does in a big way. She says the Blazers are doubtful for the championship, but she is a wild fan anyway. Since my daughter is visiting home this weekend and her friend is here too we have watched this over and over. It's fun to watch the crowd reaction. link

    Parent
    If you missed CaptHowdy's post... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by unitron on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:48:26 AM EST
    ...in the Thursday thread, you have got to go to AutoExec Wheelmate Steering Wheel Attachable Work Surface Tray at Amazon and read the reviews and questions, but engage keyboard protective cover first and refrain from consuming any refreshments while reading.

    Good Thing (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Sat May 03, 2014 at 12:11:09 PM EST
    Makes working while stuck in LA traffic (read parking lot) safer and  more ergonomic.

    The product should do well with a market of 4million plus drivers who can safely do office work in their car because it is not moving for long periods of time.  

    Parent

    LA isn't bad via Amtrak. (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2014 at 02:41:13 PM EST
    Emanuel Ax playing the Brahms #
    4 w/the LA Phil and The Dude last night.

    Parent
    Brahms #4???? (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Sat May 03, 2014 at 02:56:56 PM EST
    He has been busy..

    Parent
    Blam! (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2014 at 03:07:02 PM EST
    LAT

    Parent
    I've taken Amtrak between L.A. and San Diego. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:35:17 PM EST
    It's a great trip along the coast between Solana Beach and San Clemente, especially this time of year. If you've got someone picking you up on the other end, it sure beats driving.

    Parent
    Acyually, the rote is coastal all the way to (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:39:39 PM EST
    Capistrano. Free parking at Solano Beach.

    Parent
    The good doctor who saved my life (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Dadler on Sat May 03, 2014 at 02:44:20 PM EST
    Dr. John Sarno, professor of rehabilitation medicine at NYU Medical Center for decades. I posted this link years ago, then the video disappeared, but I found it again. From a 15 year-old 20/20 story on him, focusing on back pain (though he treats much more than that in his mindbody/psychosomatic practice). DISCLAIMER: I can't STAND John Stossel normally, but he did a decent job with this story, and was actually treated by Sarno, so he has an educated and experienced respect for the subject. Ironies all over life, I suppose.

    Anyway, as a guy who qualified as a fibromyalgia patient at the turn of the century, who had chronic pain that floored him into tears -- back pain, knee, neck, shoulder, you name it -- and who is thankful he never, even if he came close on a few occasions, got hooked on opiate painkillers (though I'd never seek to deny them to anyone), this is the doctor who finally, after I'd suffered since I was an abused little kid, gave me the proper diagnosis. Only then, obviously, with that correct diagnosis, was I able to be cured. My wife can attest to it. When she met me, the litany of physical maladies I had, all the weirdo allergies, pains, headaches, it was absurd.

    There are a few points in the video where the visual freezes but the sound continues. Don't fret, it goes back to normal pretty quickly. Anyway, hope it's worth the look and hope it stirs some thought. That is all. Peace out.

    Dr. John Sarno 20/20 Story Link

    "All in your head" meaning... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Dadler on Sat May 03, 2014 at 02:56:14 PM EST
    ..."emotionally based." A better term for most people, since "all in my head" immediately makes most people thing it's not real. When, in reality, the brain is about as real as you get in human existence. It IS human existence, both physical and emotional, those two things we are.


    Parent
    It's all "all in your head" (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by unitron on Sun May 04, 2014 at 12:12:38 AM EST
    That's where nerve impulses go to get classified.

    To your brain, pain is pain is pain.

    Parent

    Best "dog on the diamond" video ever (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Dadler on Sat May 03, 2014 at 02:58:09 PM EST
    Now THESE are chew toys, this lovely pooch is thinking. (link)

    Speaking (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 03, 2014 at 04:39:36 PM EST
    of fleecing the rubes. Jenny Beth Martin is pulling down almost half a million dollars a year and only spending like 5% of the money she gets actually helping candidates. link

    Man fleecing the rubes has become a very lucrative business. No wonder she was screaming about the IRS writing her a letter. She doesn't want anyone to know what she's doing. But I'm willing to bet that she's going to keep getting money from them. It seems a tea partier and their money is easily parted. I guess getting their money is like taking candy from a baby.

    Yes (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 04:58:29 PM EST
    A group of conservative investors in Tennessee is suing a California businessman for allegedly conning them into investing in Tea Party HD, a TV channel aimed at tea partiers, that they say turned out to be a scam.
    Tea Party HD was founded by Bill Hemrick and Anthony Loiacono in 2010, but Hemrick and the other complainants claim that Loiacono never put in his share into the project and used the rest of the funds as his "personal bank account." The complaint says he used the money "to pay himself, his family members and his business, Heads & Tails Inc., 'exorbitant rates' for the few projects Tea Party HD undertook," according to Brandon Gee of The Tennessean.

    "The alleged purpose of Tea Party HD was to be the 'world's first HD provider of news about the Tea Party,'" the lawsuit states. "In reality it was an investment scheme to defraud politically conservative-minded citizens who support the Tea Party mission."

    Love this part

    Loiacono told the Tennessean, in response to the suit, that he would challenge Hemrick to settle it through a televised "lie detector challenge" -- and if he wins Hemrick would have to drop the suit and cover Loiacono's legal fees.

    Parent

    I found this fascinating. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by ZtoA on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:23:12 PM EST
    I never really paid much attention to the closing of Knoedler & Company. But the issues of fraud and forgery and the whole system that does/can not question it is really interesting.

    Selling a Fake Painting Takes More Than a Good Artist

    Yes, Saw That (none / 0) (#110)
    by squeaky on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:45:51 AM EST
    But only read a quote,, whole article is quite good, imo. I have been following the Knoedler scandal from the beginning, and am a bit shocked that only Rosales and her lover Diaz and his brother, are in hot water to date. Oh, also the artist, who remains in China, who also claims to not have been in on the scam. I do not believe that he is guilty of the conspiracy to defraud buyers as he was making copies for people who could not afford authentic works, a trade that is legitimate.

    The quote I read was about Oliver Wick, authenticator, art expert who cashed in big time, over $450K for his expertise.

    Because of this case and others, not related to forgeries, authentication of art has become difficult for those wanting to have works authenticated. The Warhol Foundation closed its authentication services after many lawsuits by them and against them. The Basquiat, Haring, Calder, and most other estates are no longer authenticating for fear of lawsuits.

    Of course that does not stop the estates from stepping in and claiming works for public sale, or in shows are fake. Which is rather hypocritical because owners of the works cannot get them authenticated because the estates no longer will authenticate.

    So, as stated in the article:

    In March the New York State Legislature took a step toward easing the scholar's dilemma by introducing a bill that would protect art experts who offer opinions on a work's authenticity from "frivolous" lawsuits.

    Which is the type of protection Medical experts enjoy. This is much needed, as getting a work authenticated today is nearly impossible.

    When it comes to the sale of bogus art, it takes a village.

    Today it more difficult as the village is scared to stick their necks out for authentic works. Works that are unsigned and do not already have provenance bequeathed from the "village" are nearly impossible to sell for anything close to market value.

    Parent

    Yes it was the authentication process (none / 0) (#137)
    by ZtoA on Sun May 04, 2014 at 01:23:39 PM EST
    that interested me too. (sigh, even though I love living in Portland, I have to admit to pangs of envy of artists living in NYC)

    I also think independent scholars should authenticate, not artist's foundations - they have too much vested interest in which works are deemed authentic. I did follow (from afar) some of the issues surrounding the Andy Warhol foundation. They did some things that I found head scratching. I think I first read about it in Richard Polsky's books I Bought Andy Warhol and I Sold Andy Warhol. Those were entertaining even to the point of watching Polsky commit career suicide.

    The NYRB says these provide documentary evidence that there were several occasions on which the board authenticated works it had previously denied were by Andy Warhol. In his deposition in July 2010, Fremont admitted that he had sold as authentic works that the Warhol estate had earlier confiscated from the owner on the basis that they were not the work of Andy Warhol. The sales were legitimate, he said, because the authentication board had later declared the works to be genuine after all.
    link

    Can they do that? Can they confiscate works like that?

    Parent

    Sounds like a nice little racket... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by unitron on Sun May 04, 2014 at 02:42:42 PM EST
    ...have works by famous artist declared fakes and seize them, wait a while, and then decide they aren't fakes after all and sell them as the work of said famous artist, in effect causing artist and his estate to get paid for them twice.

    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by ZtoA on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:22:59 PM EST
    Someone(s) is/are making lots of money. Not the artists tho - they are dead and the foundations manage their estates. Nevertheless your summary is rather perfect.

    Parent
    Artist was Dead (Warhol) (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by squeaky on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:23:58 PM EST
    It was work that his assistant (printer) made, who is also dead.

    When they were both alive, the printer made work that Warhol allegedly never blessed.

    The committee called work from the printer's estate fake, while authenticating other collector and dealers works that originated from the printer.

    It is a mess. Power is certainly at play.

    Recently someone who supported Rothko early on had to go to great lengths to get their painting authenticated:

    One man's nearly three-decade quest to authenticate a potential Mark Rothko painting purchased at auction for $319.50 plus tax has turned up convincing evidence in the work's favor, but the experts seem unlikely to issue a ruling, reports the Wall Street Journal.

    artnet

    Parent

    He never blessed (none / 0) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:31:01 PM EST
    Seems an odd  delineation

    Parent
    Artist's Blessed Progeny (none / 0) (#165)
    by squeaky on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:51:32 PM EST
    As Shakespeare said, giving birth and making art is analogous:

    From fairest creatures we desire increase,
    That thereby beauty's rose might never die,
    But as the riper should by time decease,
    His tender heir might bear his memory:
    But thou, contracted to thine own bright eyes,
    Feed'st thy light's flame with self-substantial fuel,
    Making a famine where abundance lies,
    Thyself thy foe, to thy sweet self too cruel.
    Thou that art now the world's fresh ornament
    And only herald to the gaudy spring,
    Within thine own bud buriest thy content
    And, tender churl, makest waste in niggarding.
        Pity the world, or else this glutton be,
        To eat the world's due, by the grave and thee.

    Blessed progeny:

    Parent

    I could hardly argue with Shakespeare (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 04:20:01 PM EST
    But it is an interesting choice since not everyone is convinced he wrote the plays bearing his name.
    I was just noticing the strange things that happen trying to authenticate fakes when an artist didn't actually "do" most of their own work in the first place but only blessed them.  Or didn't.


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#173)
    by squeaky on Sun May 04, 2014 at 04:27:26 PM EST
    It gets complex. But I do think that Warhol was very particular about what left his studio bearing his name.

    In the end. it is all about money. When works are inexpensive no one cares about this stuff.

    Parent

    No doubt (none / 0) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 04:34:43 PM EST
    I have a friend in LA who just got burned.  Can't remember the name of the artist he thought he was buying.  But he wasn't

    Parent
    The artist is often stiffed when (none / 0) (#163)
    by ZtoA on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:44:42 PM EST
    works go to auction. There's an interesting story about Robert Rauschenberg's reaction when his work started going for big $ at auction. I originally read it in a book called True Colors: The Real Life of the Art World by Anthony Haden-Guest. Its a very fun read. I can't link to quotes from the book tho.

    The gist of this story is that a collector sold a Rauschenberg for $85,000 who bought it some years earlier on the primary market for $900. He paid $2,300 for a work and the next year sold it at auction for $90,000. Rauschenberg was NOT pleased. The collector's wife said the artist punched the collector in the stomach, resenting that he used his art to speculate, and make huge profits.  

    Evidently I can't link to the quote in the book but it is here at The New York Observer.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#169)
    by squeaky on Sun May 04, 2014 at 04:09:09 PM EST
    I do not feel sorry for Raushenberg as he accumulated over $600million dollars, and that public auction where his work skyrocketed 15 years after being purchased for $900 had a big effect on his market. Raushenberg was a big proponent of Artist Resale Rights.

    After the fight [$90K sale] Rauschenberg then lobbied Congress to pass a bill that would compensate artists when their work is resold. When that didn't happen, the artist supported a state bill in California that did become law. The California Resale Royalty Act of 1976 gives artists a 5% royalty on resales of their works when transactions of $1,000 or above take place in the state or the seller is a resident of California.

    The big problem with Droit de Suite, is that the artists who are already rich (and deservedly so) are the main ones to benefit. The notion appeals to the idea that poor artists, like Raushenberg when he was selling work no one wanted, are going to benefit but that is not how it winds up working. The Artnewspaper story is about recent failed law suite to get the Auction houses to pay california artists. Worth a read, imo.

    artnewspaper
    His friends were f'ed over by his estate, imo... or were they greedy?

    Personally,I think they deserved the sums they asked for.

    Parent

    Confiscated or Burned? (none / 0) (#147)
    by squeaky on Sun May 04, 2014 at 02:13:20 PM EST
    The Warhol's were voluntarily handed over by the executor of the Printer's Estate. Later, it appeared that similar works were authenticated.. 10 years later all hell broke loose..
    When a Yorkshire businessman bought a reclining nude attributed to Marc Chagall for £100,000, he hoped the painting would provide a tidy nest-egg for his family. Instead, 20 years later, he faces the prospect of watching his sizeable investment being burnt in front of a French magistrate.....

    ....After watching last year's series of the BBC art programme Fake or Fortune?, Lang volunteered his "Chagall" to the programme's producers for scrutiny, citing its reproduction in an art book by a Soviet art expert and friend of Chagall.

    It turned out to be a bad move. As research began to cast doubt on the provenance of Lang's painting, complex paint analysis showed that the blue and green pigments were too modern, having been developed only in the 1930s....

    ...An archaic French law provides for the destruction of fakes in front of a magistrate. A proposal that the back of the painting be marked as fake was rejected.

    He added that the Chagall Committee seems "hell-bent" on destroying the painting, even though fakes have their uses in training the eye to what is genuine:

    Guardian

    In the US:

    There are no clear rules for what happens to phony art after it is identified. "It all depends what the facts are, what the art is, how many works are involved and how expensive they are," he said.....

    When it comes to undisputed fakes, law enforcement officials try to halt resales by such practices as stamping works as fake or, in rare cases, destroying them. Each option has drawbacks, including the possibility of mistakenly destroying an authentic work.

    Ultimately, though, both the police and buyers mostly rely on the art market to police itself....

    Artist foundations and estates that find fakes on eBay or at small auction houses can inform the dealer or Web site, but they have no authority to seize or mark the work....

    In France, Switzerland and other countries that recognize the "moral rights" of an artist, heirs or foundations like Lichtenstein's can ask the courts for permission to destroy a fake. But Ronald D. Spencer, a Manhattan lawyer and editor of the art-law handbook "The Expert Versus the Object: Judging Fakes and False Attributions in the Visual Arts," said he was glad that is not done in the United States.

    The notion is "an anathema," he said, noting how frequently opinions about authenticity can change. Just two months ago, for example, three J. M. W. Turner paintings that had been dismissed as fakes were reclassified as genuine.

    NYT

    Parent

    You you ever purchased what you thought was an aut (none / 0) (#138)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2014 at 01:28:40 PM EST
    of a certain artist but later learned it was not?  Any recourse?

    Parent
    "authentic work" (none / 0) (#139)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2014 at 01:29:53 PM EST


    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#148)
    by squeaky on Sun May 04, 2014 at 02:20:28 PM EST
    Some of the works I have bought at Auction (secondary market), may be fake, but as far as I know they had good provenance and added provenance by being sold by top Auction house.

    So no need to check as far as I am concerned. And that really only relates to photography that I have collected on the secondary market. It is not worth that much for anyone to bother with.

    When it comes to works being sold in the millions, that is another story, for both the con artists and the conned.

    But nothing I have collected besides vintage photography could be fake, as it is contemporary. I know the artists and have gotten it directly from the artist or from their primary dealer. Fakes do not really exist on the primary market as the artist is involved and most often it is the first time the work is being shown.

    Parent

    You and this good friend would have (none / 0) (#154)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:01:49 PM EST
    much to discuss:

    Doug

    Parent

    Maybe Not (none / 0) (#170)
    by squeaky on Sun May 04, 2014 at 04:16:34 PM EST
    At least not about art... but then you never know.

    We do not share the same taste.

    Parent

    If you were in sync, what would there (none / 0) (#188)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2014 at 06:18:56 PM EST
    be to discuss?

    Parent
    Condolieza Rice... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by desertswine on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:40:15 PM EST
    cancels Rutgers commencement address.

     

    the university's faculty approved a resolution criticizing Rice's role as secretary of state in the run-up to the Iraq war, accusing her of being part of an "effort to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction.
    Nice! (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:11:07 AM EST
    Go Rutgers!!!

    And the dropbox protest does not appear to be abating:

    The decision by Dropbox this month to appoint Condoleezza Rice, the former secretary of state, to the company's board of directors sparked a heated online debate about her views on Internet surveillance and the role of the National Security Agency.

    And the debate doesn't seem to be going away.

    Protestors set up a website called "Drop Dropbox," which says the appointment of Ms. Rice is "deeply disturbing." The site is encouraging people to switch to competing cloud storage services.

    NYT

    Parent

    Anti gay GOP candidate once a female impersonator (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 09:13:25 AM EST
    The jokes write themselves --

    Steve Wiles, a Republican state Senate candidate who supports North Carolina's constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, once worked as a female impersonator at a gay nightclub in Winston-Salem and was gay at the time, according to a co-owner of the nightclub and a former employee.

    "I have already apologized to the people who matter most to me for the things I did when I was young," Wiles said this week, declining to clarify for what he has apologized. The comment was made in the last of three separate interviews. At first, Wiles denied the claim.

    "That's not me," Wiles said three weeks ago, referring to Mona Sinclair. Wiles responded "no" when asked whether he was gay. This week, Wiles' campaign website, Facebook page and Twitter handle were taken down.

    Wiles, an advocate in 2012 for the constitutional amendment reinforcing the ban on same-sex marriage, said he still strongly supports it.

    "I do not condone the things I did when I was young," Wiles said when asked about the amendment, declining to clarify what he had done.

    LINK

    Will I Am on Meet the Press (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 12:32:41 PM EST
    I absolutely love that the blogosphere is wetting it's pants over this.
    I didn't even know who the guy was until I started reading the freakouts.   As if the ridiculous Sunday network gab fests were some some sacred territory.

    Outrage, I fart in your general direction.

    Can we talk about (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:47:39 PM EST
    People who post pictures of their food on Facebook?
    Seriously?
    I might want to see pictures of your pets.  Maybe your kids.  But your food? Really?

    I honestly think it has to be only a matter of time till I scroll down and see lovely color pic of somebody's BM.

    Look what I did!

    My husband (none / 0) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2014 at 06:36:38 PM EST
    does it when he's dining at a really nice restuarant but his boss does it all the time because he's a big time foodie. He takes a picture of the food and then writes about it like a restaurant critic.

    But I have another friend who puts a picture of everything he eats, what beer he is drinking and I really could care less. Sometimes the beers are kind of unusual so okay but pizza? who cares that you ate pizza someplace. Pizza looks like pizza. There's nothing interesting in that kind of picture and a pizza at a pizza place looks just like the one I got from the grocery store and stuck in the oven.

    Parent

    Pizza, yes (none / 0) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 06:57:33 PM EST
    I just hid an "I'm eating pizza".  If it's something special I get it.  Yesterday I got a pic of bacon wrapped onion rings.   That I understand.  Pizza no.

    Parent
    Bacon wrapped onion rings? I can feel my arteries (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 05, 2014 at 07:05:40 AM EST
    clogging as I read your comment, Capt.

    Don't get me wrong. It sounds delish, but not exactly heart-healthy.

    Let'shave a rerun (2.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 03, 2014 at 05:32:38 PM EST
    new] Of course (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 02, 2014 at 12:49:09 PM CST
    it is never George W. Bush's fault for anything. You will never take responsiblity. Of course, you're also positing that George W. Bush was a moron too stupid to see what was happening and do anything about it just like Katrina come to think of it.

    Uh GA, the attempt by the Bush administration was during... are you ready for this?....while Bush was President....And guess what... Barney Franks was a Democrat!

    Did you read my comment?? I guess not. (I know Donald didn't. But that's Donald being Donald.)

    lol

    BTW - Speaking of Katrina:

    Here's another one: Do you remember the dramatic TV footage of National Guard helicopters landing at the Superdome as soon as Katrina passed, dropping off tens of thousands saved from certain death? The corpsmen running with stretchers, in an echo of M*A*S*H, carrying the survivors to ambulances and the medical center? About how the operation, which also included the Coast Guard, regular military units, and local first responders, continued for more than a week?

    Me neither. Except that it did happen, and got at best an occasional, parenthetical mention in the national media. The National Guard had its headquarters for Katrina, not just a few peacekeeping troops, in what the media portrayed as the pit of Hell. Hell was one of the safest places to be in New Orleans, smelly as it was. The situation was always under control, not surprisingly because the people in control were always there.

    snip

    Jack Harrison, a spokesman for the National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Virginia, cited "10,244 sorties flown, 88,181 passengers moved, 18,834 cargo tons hauled, 17,411 saves" by air. Unlike the politicians, they had a working chain of command that commandeered more relief aid from other Guard units outside the state. From day one.

    There were problems, true: FEMA melted down. Political leaders, from the Mayor to Governor to the White House, showed "A Failure of Initiative", as a recent House report put it. That report, along with sharply critical studies by the White House and the Senate, delve into the myriad of breakdowns, shortages and miscommunications that hampered relief efforts.

    Still, by focusing on the part of the glass that was half-empty, the national media imposed a near total blackout on the nerve center of what may have been the largest, most successful aerial search and rescue operation in history.

    Link

    The housing market collapse started in 2006 (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 03, 2014 at 05:38:46 PM EST
    when the GOP controlled all levers of government. The whole Barney Frank thing is just a lie you guys tell yourselves.

    Truly I hope you keep up the Bush apologia. Truly I do.

    Parent

    Okie Dokie --- The NY Times lied (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:11:07 PM EST
    WASHINGTON, Sept. 10-- The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

    Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

    snip

    Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

    ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

    Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

    NY Times 9/11/2003

    Parent

    RTFLMAO (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:36:23 PM EST
    You didn't realize it but you just backed up my point. The date is 2003 and I'm going to say this loud and clear IN 2003 the GOP CONTROLLED THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT. Barney Frank was just a minority member of congress then.

    You continue to lie to yourself even though the information you put forth backs up what I'm saying.

    Honestly does Bush Apologia cause some sort of inability to read and understand basic information? I guess it does. ROTFLMAO.

    Parent

    And the Democratic (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:35:28 PM EST
    opposition was so strong that they couldn't get the bill out of committee.

    Barney was the ranking member.

    Look at what was said:

    ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

    Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

    ''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.



    Parent
    Baa waa waa (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2014 at 06:20:35 AM EST
    Keep digging a bigger hole Jim. The GOP could have put it out of committee without one vote from a Democrat. Bush Apologia seems to be twisting yourself into a pretzel. LOL.

    Parent
    GA, you prove again (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 04, 2014 at 11:35:09 AM EST
    that you have no grasp of facts and just make false claims.

    And the issue isn't that some feckless Repubs were buffaloed into not voting to keep poor people from having a way to obtain a mortgage they couldn't afford. The issue is that the Democrats denied that there was a problem and refused to act responsible.

    They refused to "cross the aisle." They refused to act "in a bipartisan manner."

    The Bush administration, Bush himself if you believe that he is responsible for all things while he was President, brought the issue forward and proposed a solution. The Democrats sneered at it and attacked it. (McCain tried again in 2005 with the same results.)

    Now, if you claim that Bush was responsible for all things.... Will you agree that Obama is responsible for the failures of Obamacare? That he lied when he said you can keep your own Doctor? That he lied when he said your premiums will go down??

    Will you agree that he is responsible for the military not being prepared to protect Benghazi? That he is responsible for the military not, at the least, trying to help during the 8 hours of the attack??

    Will you agree that he is responsible for Rice telling lie after lie, blaming a video for the attack when it was known by everyone within hours of the attack that it was terrorists??

    (Have you read the emails obtained by Judicial Watch?)

    The Repubs condemn Obamacare and want to replace it. You condemn them for not having something to replace it with. You condemn them for not helping.

    Know what?? That is the same thing that the Democrats did to Bush's proposal to fix Freddie and Fannie and prevent the housing bubble and the implosion of the market.

    I call that hypocrisy. Take the title and wear it proudly.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2014 at 12:20:50 PM EST
    Jim everything I said based on basic knowledge that even you should know. You apparently don't understand the basics of congressional voting I'm guessing.

    Once again, it DOESN'T matter what the Democrats did because you are promoting this bill as a panacea for the ills of the country from the Bush Administration and apparently even the GOP didn't think it was anything good because they either voted it down or couldn't get it out of a committee controlled by the GOP. You do understand don't you that the party that controls the house also controls the committees you silly? I mean really why would believe that George W. Bush had the solution to anything? Continue to make excuses for Bush. I think they're funny.

    Actually Obama gets credit for the successes and the the problems with Obamacare. When you are president you get the credit and the blame for whatever happens.

    What makes everything so funny is the fact that the GOP wants to scream about Benghazi yet 15 times that many people died under George W. Bush and never a peep came out of the GOP other than to pretty much celebrate them dying by saying it's better to fight them over there than fight them over here. Right?

    Are you going to hold George W. Bush responsible for the collapse of the economy under him? Are you going to hold George W. Bush responsible for Iraq? Are you going to hold George W. Bush responsible for the largest terrorist attack on American soil in the history of the country? I bet you are not going to and are going to blame Bill Clinton for it even though he was out of office. I mean if the buck stops with Obama the buck also stops with Geroge W. Bush. LOL.

    Parent

    The point is (none / 0) (#200)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:11:25 PM EST
    that the Democrats claimed there was no problem.

    They refused to help and attacked the Repubs.

    You can dance around all you want but that is a proven and demonstrated fact.

    lol

    Parent

    It's Barney Frank Jim (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:35:45 PM EST
    Not Barney Franks like franks and beans......sigh

    Parent
    It's the Bush Apologia (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:39:55 PM EST
    Syndrome I guess. It appears it does funny things to the mind.

    Parent
    The mind becomes a flyer from the 99 cent store :) (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:41:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Let be Frank (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:37:36 PM EST
    I do think of beans and franks when ever I see Barney F.

    lol

    But thanks for the correction MT... If it made you feel better..well, I'm just here to serve.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Did you see that Dan Quail ripped off an (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:35:16 AM EST
    Airlines and sank it?  He gave it the Mittens treatment.

    Parent
    Are you asking (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:49:19 AM EST
    for him to come up with yet more 99 cent dollar store apologia for the GOP.

    Parent
    Well, I knew Quails (none / 0) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 04, 2014 at 11:39:39 AM EST
    made good eating and hard to shoot down.

    But I never knew they had control of airlines.

    I tell ya, those birds are getting uppity!

    Parent

    MT, after laughing at your mispelling (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 04, 2014 at 01:34:56 PM EST
     "Quail" I got interested in Dem Beans' claim and did some digging.

    Global Aviation Holdings Inc. (Global) is the parent company of World Airways, Inc. (World), and North American Airlines, Inc. (North American), headquartered in Peachtree City, Georgia.[1] World and North American are Part 121 U.S.-certified air carriers providing customized air transportation services for major international passenger and cargo carriers, international freight forwarders, the U.S. military, international leisure tour operators, and international corporations. The company entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy on February 15, 2012 and emerged from bankruptcy on Feb. 13, 2013. On Nov. 12 2013 the company announced that it is once again filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

    Link

    What all of that means is that MatlinPatterson took control on 2/12/12 and dumped it on 11/12/13.

    World Airways Inc. ceased operations on Thursday after its bankrupt parent was unable to secure necessary funding to keep the charter operator airborne.

    Peachtree City, Ga.-based Global Aviation Holdings Inc., which filed for Chapter 11 protection last November, had attempted for months to raise capital to fund its full reorganization.

    Global, in February, won approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to implement a plan support agreement with postpetition lender Cerberus Business Finance LLC. As part of the deal, Cerberus would enter a credit-bid for the debtor's new equity, with Global to solicit competing offers in hopes of creating an auction. But there appeared to have been little interest in the company.

    Link

    They filed again in 11/13. They couldn't obtain any financing for operation BUT they did, with the approval of the Court, borrow  money from Cerberus.

    When they couldn't find any interest in the company, Cerberus took whatever assets, including cash in accounts. That  would include health care IF it was company funded. Since the claim is they took it then that appears to be the case.

    So let's summarize. They went bankrupt. A hedge fund stepped in and kept'em going for about a year until 11/13. They filed again for Chapter 11 again on 11/12/13. No one would enter into a long term refinancing plan.

    At that point they were out of business and would have went Chapter 7 with all assets, including ALL cash accounts including healthcare, forfeited to the debt holders.

    BUT they found Cerberus who would finance them and allow them to remain in operation and look for financing. That failed. Cerberus enforced the contract.

    So they could have lost everything in 11/2013 but Cerberus gave them one more chance.

    Now I don't know how much money Cerberus loaned them. I don't know what the assets Cerberus took control of are worth. I do note that they are part of "new equity" which would have been created after 11/12/13. It sounds like a bunch of accounts will have long term employment figuring out what was pre and what was post. I assume, and I know the joke, that Cerberus made money.

    But I ask you this. Would you have preferred Cerberus not loaning them money and just letting them go out of business in November 2013??

    Parent

    I have been (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:53:19 PM EST
    Shaving my reruns for years

    Parent
    I suspected as much. (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:15:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Another goodie (none / 0) (#1)
    by lentinel on Sat May 03, 2014 at 04:58:17 AM EST
    from that right-wing machine, "Scandal".

    The plot is involving some terrrists planting what looks like a really ugly nuclear device.

    But - to bring things up to date - the teeerists are not Muslims. Huh uh.

    Glad to say - they're RUSSIANS... with plenty of Roosian dialogue sounding like a Sid Caesar parody of Russian - Boris - abradansky borshstski americanski boomski etc.

    I guess since prospects for war in the mid-East have dimmed, it is good for Shonda and good old ABC, the Disney War network, to promote a nice tasty cold-hot war with Russia.

    That should be fun.

    And the bombs bursting in air.
    (Music from Dr. Stangelove)

    Arabs were getting stale (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:45:04 AM EST
    It was inevitable.  
    Russians: Still the Go-To Bad Guys

    THIS YEAR'S MOST FASHIONABLE SETTING FOR CRAPPY ACTION MOVIES: RUSSIA

    Parent

    Eh (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jbindc on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:21:20 AM EST
    If you watch enough of those shows, they mix up the bad guys between the Russians and Eastern Europeans, the Middle Easterns, South Americans, and Asians.  Still most of the bad guys on the spy, action, and police shows are good old white Americans.

    Parent
    You have a point (2.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:29:56 AM EST
    I mean we all know the perps on 9/11/01 and 9/11/14 were good old white Americans.... (sarcasm alert)

    Parent
    If you'd left out... (none / 0) (#19)
    by unitron on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:33:06 AM EST
    ...Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi! and just gone with 2001, you'd have had a good truther satire going there.  

    Parent
    Glad you brought the (2.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 03, 2014 at 03:09:08 PM EST
    subject up although I would have thought after the
    emails Judicial Watch's FOIA action brought up you would not have.

    We now have proof that the BS put out by Rice on all the Sunday AM news shows was just that BS. The WH knew within hours that the attack was terrorist based and had nothing to do with the video.

    The video was used to protect Obama's reelection campaign and his claims about how great his foreign policy was.

    He lied. He is a liar. Even the Washington Post says so.

    So thanks for playing straight man.

    Parent

    Watergate Envy is bad for the soul (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MKS on Sat May 03, 2014 at 04:00:17 PM EST
    Republicans always trying to even the score over Watergate.

    But Republicans are perennial losers at finding one.

    Pathetic.

    Parent

    Watergate envy (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:39:11 PM EST
    Brilliant, did you come up with that alone?  If that phrase doesn't end up mainstream God is a lying loser :)

    Parent
    I will assert I thought (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Sun May 04, 2014 at 12:39:58 AM EST
    of it a long time ago....But someone said it on t.v. last night.

    Parent
    Milestones in history (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 05:37:22 PM EST
    In what may be the first ever Congressional committee formed exclusively to investigate a hashtag, multiple reports are saying House Speaker John Boehner has decided to create a House Select Committee to investigate Benghazi. According to the reports, the committee will be chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, who, among other things, has the most amazing hair in Congress



    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:25:28 PM EST
    who, among other things, has the most amazing hair in Congress

    And the sharpest tongue and knows how to cross examine.

    This should be fun.

    Parent

    He is a partisan hack (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Sun May 04, 2014 at 12:41:27 AM EST
    And he ain't that good a lawyer....Just mediocre grandstander.....

    Parent
    A White Southerner (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MKS on Sun May 04, 2014 at 12:42:56 AM EST
    from South Carolina with a think Southern accent....Yes, just perfect....

    Parent
    He (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2014 at 06:22:50 AM EST
    graduated from a law school that has the dubious distinction of being one of the worst law schools in the country.

    The GOP could not have picked a better person to be their face to prove to the country that the party has been hijacked by fundamentalist radicals.

    Parent

    GA, trying to shoot the messenger? (2.00 / 1) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 04, 2014 at 01:41:22 PM EST
    That tells me you are scared spit less of what he will do.

    lol

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:58:08 PM EST
    University of South Carolina is known as one of the worst law schools in the country. But then again, that's a fact and since you don't acknowledge facts you project your own wishful thinking onto other people.

    Why would I be afraid of the jihadi tea party crackpots? All they do is make people laugh even more at the GOP. I'm simply amazed that the GOP is either that stupid or that desperate to let Gowdy lead a committe. Talking about putting an ugly face on the GOP. All that post mortem from 2012 is obviously down the drain. Actually I guess the GOP is that desperate. I mean if they were willing to let the tea party attempt to blow up the finances of the country, well...

    Parent

    Ah yes, Watergate (none / 0) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 04, 2014 at 01:46:49 PM EST
    The comparisons yield so many things that are the
    same...

    The President lied to Americans

    The President's people lied to protect him

    It was because they all were scared of its impact on his reelection.

    The act killed 4 Americans. Uh, no. That was Democrats only.

    The President's party demanded he resign. Uh, no. That was Repubs only.

    Parent

    The comparisons to (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by MKS on Sun May 04, 2014 at 06:17:39 PM EST
    Watergate are delusional.  Obama will not resign or be impeached.  Hillary will be President.  Get used to it.

    Parent
    So many "lies" (none / 0) (#176)
    by Yman on Sun May 04, 2014 at 04:56:09 PM EST
    Perhaps it would be best to defer to your expertise in this area.

    OTOH - your silly claims about Benghazi ...

    Parent

    More fairy tales (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Yman on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:20:51 AM EST
    Apart from being yet one more attempt to keep this fake scandal alive, how is Beth Jones's reference to Ansar Al Shariah news?  The State Department security officer Eric Nordstrom already testified that he immediately suspected Ansar Al Shariah, based on their prior attack of the Tunisian embassy over what they perceived as an anti-Islamic video:

       NORDSTROM: The -- the first impression that I had was that it was going to be something similar to one of the brigades that we saw there, specifically the -- the brigade -- and it's been named in the press -- that came to my mind was Ansar al-Sharia.

        It was a -- a unit or a group that Lieutenant Colonel Wood's personnel and I had -- had tracked for quite some time, we were concerned about. That specific group had been involved in a similar but obviously much smaller scale incident at the end of June involving the Tunisian consulate in Benghazi where they stormed that facility and it was in protest to what they claimed was an anti-Islamic film in Tunis. [House Oversight Committee hearing on consulate security in Benghazi, 10/11/12.

    Just to spell it out very clearly for you, what this means is that the two explanations are not mutually exclusive.  Beth Jone's email (and Nordstrom's testimony") are entirely consistent with the CIA's assessment at the time, which was that Ansar Al Shariah was involved in the attack and the attacks were motivated by the video, which were also supported by eyewitness reports at the time:

        According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video.

    Just like the attack in Tunis.

    Your desperation on Benghazi is seriously amusing ...

    Parent

    "Fake scandal" ... an understatement (none / 0) (#120)
    by christinep on Sun May 04, 2014 at 09:58:15 AM EST
    Admittedly, I have tried to avoid debate about the manufactured "scandal" called Benghazi.  Of course, it was very said ... death in the service of our country always brings a unique, deserved sadness. And, of course, we should learn from any human errors made and we should always learn from difficulties, vulnerabilities experienced at foreign postings ... and, make necessary corrections.

    What has been so hard for me to grasp about the dug-in Repub hoopla surrounding this foreign posting is the apparent hypocrisy throughout the many investigations.  We have had other sad, monumental disasters.  Think 1979 Lebanon ... and, the more than 200 US Marines killed in the barracks ... as I remember, wasn't that allowed to happen after warnings that the situation had grown increasingly unsafe for American personnel?  In more recent times, what about the USS Cole ..l what kind of political-hype did we see in the aftermath of that sad happening?  Or the South African embassy bombing ... how was that embassy so vulnerable?  Yes, there are very sad events that happen in the diplomatic service and foreign posting.  Very sad ... and, certainly not cause for besmirching those who have been lost by this continuous manufactured outrage, conspiracy theories, and more.

    Thanks for your role here, yman, in bringing honesty to the issue.

    Parent

    Correction: 1983 (Beirut, Lebanon) (none / 0) (#127)
    by christinep on Sun May 04, 2014 at 11:41:54 AM EST
    Sorry to have stated the incorrect date for the tragedy taking the lives of more than 200 US Marines as they slept in their Beirut, Lebanon barracks.  That date was four years later than stated; the attack on the vulnerable barracks occurred in 1983.

    Perhaps, I have forgotten the later details, but a sustained verbal diatribe about our lack of preparedness did not arise from the Democrats then again that President (Reagan.)  Many lives lost; the country reacted as one.  Just as we did when the USS Cole was sabotaged.  Just as we had always done.  Nope, no continual kangaroo-court hearings framed politically then.  Nor should there be now.  Enough!

    Parent

    If conservatives were honest ... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Yman on Sun May 04, 2014 at 11:42:51 AM EST
    ... in their outrage and motivations, they would have been demanding Congressional investigations into the 64 attacks on American diplomatic targets during the Bush years, including one in which an American diplomat (David Foy) was killed and one in which an American student and her husband were killed.

    But they aren't, and so they didn't ...

    Parent

    Don't have to go back to Bush (none / 0) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 11:47:57 AM EST
    They denied additional funding for security under Obama.

    Parent
    Again, thanks. (none / 0) (#131)
    by christinep on Sun May 04, 2014 at 11:49:43 AM EST
    It would be interesting to see the latest Repub characterization about Benghazi ... in their fund-raising mail.

    Parent
    Wrong on all counts (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Sat May 03, 2014 at 03:35:38 PM EST
    There are reports that the video was a big deal back then.

    The conservatives were all a twitter how the whole Middle East was on fire with demonstrations all across the Muslim world--because of the video.  Our people were concerned that our embassy in Cairo was in jeopardy.

    In any event, the video being a motivating factor and that attack on the mission being a terrorist attach are not mutually exclusive ideas.  Why can you not have a terrorist attack that is motivated by the video?

    Hillary will blast blast-from-past Jeb.  So all your Benghazi b.s. does not matter.  

    Parent

    Linky? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat May 03, 2014 at 04:50:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Try Googly (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by MKS on Sun May 04, 2014 at 12:37:22 AM EST


    Parent
    Because (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:23:19 PM EST
    Why can you not have a terrorist attack that is motivated by the video?

    It was done on 9/11. Does that date ring a bell??

    Plus, unplanned demonstrations don't have RPG's and mortars... and the demonstrators used military styled tactics.

    And the "big deal" is based on the lies that Obama and his cadre told the American people.

    And Jed won't be the candidate. And by the time the Select Committee is done, Hillary won't either.

    But the sad thing is this.

    Four Americans died and Obama played politics.

    And you won't accept the facts.

    Parent

    Only you and Fox cares (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Sun May 04, 2014 at 12:38:47 AM EST
    about this conspiracy nonsense.....

    Jim, get used to it, President Hillary Clinton.....Benghazi won't save you.

    Parent

    Cut the baloney, jim (none / 0) (#152)
    by christinep on Sun May 04, 2014 at 02:46:36 PM EST
    If you are oh-so-concerned about the number of deaths occurring at the foreign posting called Benghazi, what level of concern do you have and display about other tragedies involving American lives?  Did I miss your discussion about Reagan and Lebanon?  Did I miss your discussion about Bush and <fill in the blank ... but that would include the "preparedness" or lack thereof leading to the original NY 9-11 and related? or to the thousands lost for what purpose in Iraq?>

    There was a time when I used to think that you meant what you said.  Yet, your more recent comments gives R. Limbaugh a run for his money at dissembling.  It would be interesting to read a real argument from you ... not the baloney that this represents.  

    Parent

    "We" (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 03:48:17 PM EST
    You and Larry Klaman.  What a team!

    Parent
    Apparently... (none / 0) (#99)
    by unitron on Sun May 04, 2014 at 12:00:22 AM EST
    ...you don't understand the satire to which I refer, despite your having been the author of it.

    If one is a "truther" (rather than just someone of a skeptical nature who has reserved final judgement who still has some questions), then you are indeed convinced that the true perps on 9/11/01 were white Americans.


    Parent

    Well that's not true. (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:28:33 AM EST


    Parent
    All true... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by lentinel on Sat May 03, 2014 at 05:39:25 PM EST
    but what I'm getting at is that there is current trouble abrewin' with Russia over the Ukraine bs.

    Sanctions.
    Putin, only yesterday our sort-of-amigo.

    Now - Putin the Terrible.

    So - the last thing we need, it seems to me, is some half-baked "entertainment" program riling us up - or getting us psychically prepared for a confrontation - specifically a military one - with the Ruskies.

    So - thanks a bunch ABC.

    Parent

    I should admit (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 05:58:25 PM EST
    I have never seen the show. It takes a lot of buzz to lure me to the networks and nothing much I have read about this show is tugging.
    But honestly, I think you are giving them to much credit.  I doubt their goal is to agitate.  More likely they just need a bad guy.   And like the dentist in "Marathon  Man" they realize the Islamophobia nerve is about tapped out so they need a new one.
    I do agree with idea that it seems like a bad idea to make a cartoonish bad guy out of a real life bad guy currently in controll a flexing his authoritarian muscles.

    Parent
    I suppose... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by lentinel on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:41:51 PM EST
    But this isn't championship wrestling.

    They are engaged in dehumanizing a potential enemy - as they always do.

    I'm not giving them credit exactly..

    I'm just attributing to them the very basest of motives.

    Parent

    Given that Putin and the Russians ... (3.67 / 3) (#167)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:57:03 PM EST
    ... recently waged a war of ethnic cleansing in Chechnya which reduced the population there by 40% and the entire capital city of Groznyy to rubble, I'd offer that they've done a pretty decent job of dehumanizing themselves.

    Save your pathos and angst for people who actually deserve it.

    Parent

    Right Wing? (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:51:43 AM EST
    Looks like it is time to put another layer of tin-foil on your head. May be a good idea to use crazy glue this time as the first layer appears to be slipping off.

    Which puts you in a rather unique position: someone who perceives "Scandal" right wing propaganda.

    ABC's new drama set in Washington D.C. does nothing to encourage bi-partisanship. "Scandal" is another liberal product of the network, and is a blatant platform for lefty views and policies. The fledgling series is supposedly based on true events, and touts ruthless lawyer Olivia Pope, who was previously employed in the White House.
    newsbusters

    "Scandal' Is Crazier Than `House Of Cards'--And Has Much More To Say About Washington" [think progress]

    Scandal`s asked, over and over again, what makes someone a good vessel for the talents and ambitions of other people, not what makes a man a great leader in and of himself. It's a terrific question, and one that exposes the central lie of the presidency, that someone can do it alone and do it well, and that the person who sits in the Oval Office actually has the full capacities to make decisions for the country.

    this review rings true:

    As The West Wing defined the long twilight of the Clinton years, Scandal is the George W. Bush/Barack Obama TV show we didn't know we needed. At its best, it plays like a slightly sci-fi dramatization of Glenn Greenwald's blog, with soap elements added, as well as a hefty dose of romantic tragedy. In Scandal, there are only two things that hold true: No American institution--not governmental or corporate--has your best interests at heart, and human relationships are a kind of beautiful addiction, irresistible in the moment but spiraling outward to infect all they touch.

    a.v.club

    A less than favorable review, but certainly not because of right wing propaganda:

    The fierce leftist politics. Yes, they are. The complex storyline of the black woman in love with the republican president. There was a lot of information being delivered here, and Ms. Shonda Rhimes was not waving any race banner. That made it all the more engaging. Olivia Pope is vulnerable, caring, wise and sharp - these are the black women I know. These characters have reached the upper echelons and are consumed with the things that get us out of bed every morning; love, work and passion...

    The show went off the rails, not quite back to the days of Sally Hemings but close. Perhaps, a friend explained, the ratings weren't great, so the creators put the "white characters" at the center. Not sure. Whatever happened, they have to fix it. Ms. Rhimes has given us great expectations. And we want Olivia Pope to reign supreme.

    indiewire

    Parent

    You've never seen it, have you? (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Anne on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:04:45 PM EST
    Aren't you the one who doesn't have a TV, or always claims not to watch TV?  How would you know, then, if a review "rings true?"

    Scandal is nothing but entertainment, not meant to be any more real than the law practiced on The Good Wife or Suits, the medicine practiced on Grey's Anatomy, etc.

    Scandal is kind of silly, really, and gotten sillier as the season has progressed.  Nothing wrong with silly, and as long as you view it through that lens, it can be fun; trying to make it into some kind of right-wing or left-wing commentary/agenda feels to me like looking for reasons to get one's self worked up.  

    And using the musings of TV critics as the basis for accusing someone of needing to put better glue on their tinfoil hat seems like reaching to me - reaching to find a way to say something nasty about a commenter with whom you don't often agree.

    Parent

    I don't want to wade into this personal feud (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by ZtoA on Sun May 04, 2014 at 01:38:00 PM EST
    Just a quick comment about this:  "Scandal is nothing but entertainment, not meant to be any more real than the law practiced on The Good Wife or Suits, the medicine practiced on Grey's Anatomy, etc."

    You seem to have a bit of condescension for popular entertainment and sometimes for the arts in general. But entertainment directly reflects what societies are interested in a given moment in history. It shows clearly what many people think of law enforcement, law making, hidden governance. I haven't watched Scandal, but I have watched House of Cards. No it is not "real", as in a documentary, but it is "real" in that it accurately reflects how many people see political power structures at this point in time. We are past Perry Mason and Bonanza. Good entertainment must have a good take on the ethos of the moment, and that is real.

    Parent

    Oh, for the love of God... (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Anne on Sun May 04, 2014 at 02:35:46 PM EST
    it's not a "personal feud," it's a difference of opinion.

    And you could not be more wrong in your assessment that I "have a bit of condescension for popular entertainment and sometimes for the arts in general."

    I happen to watch all of the shows I mentioned - I watch probably far too much of that kind of TV; I'd have been happy to tell you that, but you decided to jump to an assumption that proves the old adage.  

    Something else you don't know is that I was an art major in college; my life eventually went in a different direction after college, by choice; I have no regrets about it.  I am somewhat amused, though, at how much pretentiousness and elitism attaches to these discussions about "the arts" - even to the point where discussing a TV show stops being fun.  

    Apparently, the ethos of the moment - actually, it's been many moments - is that everyone tortures, and they do it practically for sport; it's bloody and violent and indulges people's sick fantasies. Everyone's listening, snooping, collecting information - also a sport, now.  What made it sport?  The government.

    What's sad is that while the administration portrayed in the show is Republican, it wouldn't lose a thing if President Grant was a Democrat - because Dems signed on to the torture/invasion of privacy program a long time ago.

    The show did descend into being a caricature of a caricature this season; for me, it was more interesting seeing how they were managing to hide Kerry Washington's pregnancy (apparently, the one plot twist deemed "too much" for the show was that Olivia Pope would end up preggers, but, golly - what with the election fraud, the murder of the VP's husband who was a closeted gay man whom the male chief of staff's husband seduced, Olivia's father being the head of a clandestine organization with more power than the head of state, Olivia's mother turning out to be some kind of agent, the First Lady having been raped by the president's father and so didn't know if her husband was the father of their child - and all the rest of the plot elements - there was hardly room for the president's black mistress to end up pregnant, especially since he wasn't the only one she slept with) so they wouldn't have to shoot around it - probably if you didn't know the actress was pregnant, you'd never have guessed it by watching the show.

    Show like this prove just how how accepting we've become of the torture and killing and invasions of privacy.  I find myself more and more being less entertained and more annoyed - not at Hollywood for putting these shows on the air, but at myself for going along with it this way.

    Parent

    Limits (3.00 / 2) (#155)
    by squeaky on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:08:02 PM EST
    I guess what you get out of a teevee show reflects what you have in the intellectual bank..

    And it is odd that you would both chastise others about being pretentious and elitist to the effect

    that discussing a TV show stops being fun
    , when you yourself go on a long ramble complaining about
    the ethos of the moment
    and how sad it is all is.

    Hard to keep up Anne..  first it is a silly teevee show and now it is a mirror that reflects how dark our society has become.

    Sounds to me like the typical rant of the older generation going on about how all is lost, and times that had true values are now forever lost. The future is grim... bla...bla...bla..

    Parent

    Good Point ZtoA (none / 0) (#149)
    by squeaky on Sun May 04, 2014 at 02:27:41 PM EST
    Many people familiar with Washington D.C., have said that Scandal is a good reflection of the many facets of how power plays out in DC.

    I also find the show interesting because it is unusual for a Black woman to have the lead and be the power player behind the scenes.

    One reviewer noting the welcome representation of a powerful Black Woman on TV, complained that later on in the season Olivia Pope had lost some of the power.

    In any case, I liked the over the top acting, and satire, action, double dealing and story lines.   Another reviewer pointed out that the show accurately reflects that the POTUS does not control the show, by a long shot.

    Parent

    Bored? (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:53:21 PM EST
    I have netflix and have watched the first season of Scandal.

    And using the musings of TV critics as the basis for accusing someone of needing to put better glue on their tinfoil hat seems like reaching to me - reaching to find a way to say something nasty about a commenter with whom you don't often agree.

    I have also given my opinion of the show. For anyone to say:

    Another goodie from that right-wing machine, "Scandal",
    obviously has some problems with cognition. No reviewer, left or right has characterized the show as right wing propaganda. Many on the right have called it leftwing garbage.

    This is a repeated comment by lentil, and s/he is unique that view. Other commenters appear to believe that Scandal is a right wing propaganda show. Using reviews, and my own opinion seems necessary to put the falsehood in check.

    It would appear that his or her tinfoil hat is not working.

    Parent

    If you've only watched... (none / 0) (#135)
    by sj on Sun May 04, 2014 at 12:46:06 PM EST
    ...the first season then you have no idea what lentinel is talking about. Frankly, it's one of my guilty pleasures -- although that is fading. Because of the things that lentinel is talking about although I see them a bit differently.

    Right-wing/Left-wing? I don't look at it that way. I have no idea who these "many on the right" are that look at it as leftwing garbage so a link to support your statement would be appropriate. And more interesting than a link to a reviewer.

    My personal opinion is that political issues are hardly brought into the show at all. Actually, the only political issued discussed is election and re-election.

    Fanatical religion is presented in a personal way, and used only for political (election/re-election) purposes.

    Torture (and it is there) is used more for personal reasons than political ones.

    And the President did kill the Supreme Court justice. Minutes/hours before she would have died anyway, but nevertheless... And the President is still viewed as a sympathetic figure. I don't know that he's presented as White Hat, but my interest is fading. Especially now that we'll never really get the back story on Harrison.

    But your vociferous defense based on season one is pretty laughable. I wish it was like season one. I kind of liked the "scandal of the week" format better than what it has turned into.

    Parent

    I Have Seen Both Seasons (none / 0) (#153)
    by squeaky on Sun May 04, 2014 at 02:53:44 PM EST
    Watched all of it on netflix. All of lentinel's comments (at least 3) that refer to Scandal are about episodes I have seen.

    To call it right wing propaganda, that espouses a pro torture position, or supports assassinations and unfettered criminal action by the elite, is deeply missing the POV of the show, imo.

    Parent

    Stop! (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:31:56 PM EST
    Ya"ll are going to make me have to watch it, and I watch too much crap as it is :)

    Parent
    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by ZtoA on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:47:40 PM EST
    I like scandals - from a distance.

    Parent
    Best to Avoid It (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by squeaky on Sun May 04, 2014 at 04:19:07 PM EST
    Because I think you will like the show... hahahaha

    Parent
    Does it have martinis in it :)? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:09:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Good Question (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by squeaky on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:10:46 PM EST
    Hard to remember, I think maybe nice balloon glasses with pinot noir? I would like to think Rhone, Cornas or Côte-Rôtie, but more likely Pinot..

    Parent
    I luv House of Cards (none / 0) (#181)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:12:46 PM EST
    But it mostly has $h*tty smelly hidden cigarette addiction in it.

    Parent
    If you're talking to me (2.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 03, 2014 at 03:10:49 PM EST
    Haven't seen it. Don't intend to.

    Parent
    That's funny. (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 03:32:10 PM EST


    Parent
    May the Fourth be with you! (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:48:11 AM EST
    The Force is strong again and "Star Wars" fans will celebrate it on May 4.

    With millions looking forward to the film "Star Wars VII", the 4th of May has become an unofficial holiday to celebrate George Lucas' saga,

    €-(

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 344 (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:03:28 AM EST
    It's recess, hide your liberals. (link)

    v. 343
    v. 342
    v. 341

    Have a great Saturday, y'all. Peace.

    Hey you (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:08:36 AM EST
    Know that trailer I pointed you too the other day for the doc "The Final Member"?
    THERE IS A NEW CHAPTER

    this is sad IMO.  I really liked the looks of that documentary and this Jonah guy is just creepy.

    Parent

    Can't disagree (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:57:37 AM EST
    The dude who runs the museum seems even more off now, too. But, hey, he has wanking material for years. He's just hoping, somehow, he outlives horse-dick guy, so he can enjoy some time alone with the dick-in-a-jar. Oy.

    Parent
    Suggestion for the curious (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:52:21 AM EST
    Dont watch any videos at that huffpo link except the trailer for the documentary.  The others will just creep you out.  I still think the movie looks awsum.

    Parent
    Cabin in the Woods (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:04:30 AM EST
    Finally saw Cabin in the Woods..  Joss Wheaton never fails to WOW.
    Fantastic on all levels.

    A movie in a movie in a movie..  Spoiler Alert!!

    Takes Tarintino and Rodriquez up another notch, in that our suspension of disbelief gets the kibosh when we witness the movie in real time being fabricated by boorish corporate technocrats, and then WHAMO, Wheaton yanks us back in as the movie gets eaten by itself.

    Mise en abyme.


    You liked it squeak? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:19:10 AM EST
    I thought the opposite.  I am not a big fan of the horror genre though, sometimes I have to watch different items to clear it for Josh to watch.  I did think  Cloverfield had a certain brilliance to it.

    My husband is still home, and Josh had a sleepover last night so we checked out Penny Dreadful.  Now I don't know how to rule on Josh seeing the series, there really wasn't anything there that was over the top, but once you start watching one of these new produced series it can be hard to put down and I fear a future episode that could be too much.

    As most teens, Josh is fascinated by horror right now.

    Parent

    I kind of expect (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:23:52 AM EST
    (And hope) penny dreadful will go over the top.

    Parent
    Did you watch it (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:22:26 AM EST
    On demand?  

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 02:54:53 PM EST
    Searched for it with the search feature.  Wouldn't let us watch it when we clicked on it in the guide.  I don't know why sometimes on Direct the search feature will allow you to watch things you can't find in the On Demand yet but it is a trick I learned from Josh.  Maybe we are catching them in the middle of changing the programs available or something.

    Parent
    That's an interesting trick (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 03:45:26 PM EST
    I remember that feature.  Dish doesn't have that.  I'm almost glad.  I was wondering if I was going to be tempted to watch it on demand before the 11th.  It's not available.
    Good tv coming this month. That on the 11th
    And The Normal Heart on the 25th

    Summary: Ryan Murphy's adaptation of Larry Kramer's Tony-winning play about the early days of the AIDS crisis. After seeing a friend succumb to a new disease killing gay men at the offices of Dr. Emma Brookner (Julia Roberts), Ned Weeks (Mark Ruffalo) seeks to organize more action to combat it, even as his bluntness threatens to alienate people around him including his brother Ben (Alfred Molina), his lover Felix (Matt Bomer), and Bruce Niles (Taylor Kitsch), a closeted investment banker.

    Also a Rosemary's Baby miniseries also on the 11th that may make me watch a network show.   At least to,check it out.

    Parent

    Looking forward to Normal Heart (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:28:44 PM EST
    Rosemary's Baby though, Oh Ma Gerd.  Do I want my Mad Men Rosemary's Baby St Joseph's aspirin images tarnished?

    Parent
    This (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:15:49 PM EST
    TRAILER
    Looks pretty good.
    Interesting story.  The original RsB was filmed in an apartment building called the Dakota.  Lots of famous people have lived there including Lennon.  That's where he was shot.  And it has a sort of dark gothic look.  But the story was actually written about another building a few blocks away called the Ansonia Hotel and the coven that supposedly lived there. I guess they chose the Dakota because from across the street the Ansonia looks like a big white birthday cake. BUT if look close it is covered with really creepy imagery.
    I lived in a sublet apt in that building for a while and directly outside my window right across the way was one of those heads.  They are huge, like 8-10 feet tall and it looked directly at me when I was in bed.

    Parent
    It was also (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:32:34 PM EST
    Used for that tv show 666 Park Ave.  even tho it's on broadway.  And lots of other movies.  There was a famous gay bath house in the basement in the 70s that became the even more famous Platos Retreat.  A straight sex club.


    Parent
    When I was in NYC in Central Park (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:45:02 PM EST
    Oculus pointed in the general direction of the Dakota.  I was short on days, much to do and see, too little time.

    Parent
    The Ansonia is undergoing an exterior renovation. (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:58:52 PM EST
    I could not figure out ehat it was I trudged through slushy puddles of unknown depth to see the recreated Armory show exhibition at the NY Historical Society.

    Parent
    I would love to see it when it's done (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:23:32 PM EST
    It really will look like a big white birthday cake probably.

    Back in the 70s.  I saw Bette Midler in the Continental in the basement wearing a towel.  I was wearing a towel not her.
    Actually I saw her there a few times.  Once with Barry Manilow on piano also wearing a towel.

    Parent

    Tracy (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:42:35 AM EST
    I think you really have to be a hard core horry fan to truly get Cabin in the Woods.  It hits on and then satirizes and the satirizes the satire of pretty much every great horror movie ever made.   I think it's absolutely brilliant.  And my very favorite part is the surprise guest star at the end.  It's  like icing on the cupcake for horror fans.

    I know, I should collect my thoughts.  But I'm ADHD.  That's like herding cats.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 02:56:50 PM EST
    My disbelief was not suspended :). Towards the end I was asking myself if it could get more corny for me.

    Parent
    Not My Favorite Genre Either (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:51:00 AM EST
    Although Cabin in the Woods is about horror as much as it is horror. I would not be surprised if Wheaton included every significant horror movie creation inside the movie.

    For me there were many surprises and brilliant little details.

    At the very least Wheaton pokes fun at the genre at its worst: a vending machine for horror movie hacks. He suggests that many of the worst have been made by computer programs like this.

    Pretty awesome, imo.


    Parent

    Totally agree (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:21:58 AM EST
    That may be my fav horror film of all time.

    Parent
    The great (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:30:44 AM EST
    And unfortunate thing about that movie is you can't really say anything about it without getting into serious spoilers.  Because it looks like a 1000 other brainless slashers movies and it's sooooo much more.

    All you can say is, trust me you will like it.

    Parent

    Early Hillary Endorsement (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Sat May 03, 2014 at 03:17:42 PM EST
    Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, who was an early supporter of Barack Obama in 2008, endorsed Hillary Clinton for president on Saturday, though the former first lady and secretary of state has not said she'll run.

    very early...

    Benghazi a noun and a verb!! (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 03, 2014 at 04:07:30 PM EST
    One of the biggest jihadists in the GOP is going to lead the Benghazi (non) Inevestigation (fleece the rubes) probe. This promises to be great comedy. Trey Gowdy the guy who voted to blow up the country is that guy. He's even worse than Issa. Wow, I can't believe Obama's luck. We're going hear the screeching of jihad over and over from this nut.

    GA, doesn't the emails (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 03, 2014 at 05:17:50 PM EST
    bother you??

    Doesn't the proven lies give you pause??

    Are you such a partisan that you don't care?

    Parent

    I do not care (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by MKS on Sun May 04, 2014 at 06:23:02 PM EST
    The emails do not bother me.

    There are no proven lies...

    And, it appears no Democrats will be a part of this new Gowdy led Select Committee....

    It will be a Republican only circus.......

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 03, 2014 at 05:42:24 PM EST
    but that's rich coming from a Bush apologist. Get back to me about caring about Benghazi when you can finally admit that George W. Bush told some of the worst lies in the history of the country.

    I know you can't do it so there's no use talking about Benghazi. Get ready for the screeching Jihad led by Gowdy. He'll provide the Daily Show with plenty of material. LOL.  

    Parent

    CaptGowdy! (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:00:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Show me the lies. (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:16:45 PM EST
    An you can't. All you can do is say that Bush believed the same agencies that the Democrats, including Hillary, did.

    You want me to fault Bush??

    Okay he didn't go in, tear down the infrastructure, kill Saddam and then leave. Instead he decided to "nation build."

    He was wrong. I was wrong. The thought was that western styled democracy was a shoo in. Not true and has never been true in any Islamic country.

    Parent

    I knew you couldn't do it (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:31:50 PM EST
    I knew you could not do it.

    You have been shown the links numerous times but you won't read them anyway. Maybe when you offer to drop Bush and Cheney off at the Hague for war crimes we can have a discussion. There's really no use discussing it with a Bush apologist.

    Parent

    So you don't have (2.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:41:55 PM EST
    the proof.

    No surprise.

    Parent

    Just like (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:51:08 PM EST
    Global warming. We can show you all the scientific information on it but you won't read it. You know they were lies. Saddam attacked us on 9/11 was one of them. It's easy peasy Jim. But like I said you won't read them and you'll just go into Bush Apologia mode blaming everybody else for what Bush did.

    The guy is probably the worst president in the history of the country but I'm sure he's glad that he's got a few million tea partiers making excuses for him.

    Parent

    You can not show any (1.00 / 2) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:28:15 PM EST
    "scientific" evidence.

    You can show models, all of which have failed.

    Please. Study. "Consensus" is not science.

    And I keep posting what real scientists have to say.

    "The term `climate change' is meaningless. The Earth's climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of `man-made climate change' is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth's surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.

    "The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the `greenhouse gas' causes `global warming' - in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent.

    "There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years.

    "Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything in science, its not significant.

    Link

    Now I know that you, as a good "progressive," think that when you think something it becomes real. But that is not and has never been true.

    And I have never seen anything anywhere that Bush claimed Saddam attacked us.

    The theory was that he had aided and abetted the 9/11 Muslim terrorist, and would do so again and had weapons of mass destruction.

    All the world's major intelligence agencies said that.

    Would you want Obama to ignore all the intelligence agencies??

    But in case you forget, this is about OBAMA. Bush is gone.

    Now tell me again how I can keep my doctor...

    lol

    Parent

    Try, try again (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Lora on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:42:49 PM EST
    Jim,

    Your "real scientist," Professor Les Woodcock, is a chemical engineer, with only one publication from 2006 listed at his U. of Manchester site.

    Color me less-than-impressed.

    Parent

    Gee Lora (2.00 / 1) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 04, 2014 at 01:53:54 PM EST
    I'm sure the world is all a flutter that you are not impressed.

    I'm still impressed that you think that the amount of a per cent of a whole can increase while the whole does not.

    Parent

    I'm still impressed (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Yman on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:00:41 PM EST
    I'm still impressed that you think that the amount of a per cent of a whole can increase while the whole does not...

    ... that you have enough of an overactive belief in fairy tales (and denial of proven science) that you think your links prove your silly premise.

    Parent

    Want a deeper look at the psychology of denial? (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:12:18 PM EST
    Tonight on Years of Living Dangerously --

    Via the Ian Somerhalder Foundation the actor is a laeding conservation activist - and he appears on tonight's installment of the Showtime's Years f Living Dangerously to discuss those efforts and a lot more.

    On "Ice and Brimstone," Somerhalder examines two people at opposing sides of the climate change debate - a father, who doesn't believe in climate change at all; and his daughter, who has made it her life's work to not only educate others ,but actually do something about fixing our world and its crisis in terms of the environment.

    In explaining his half of the episode (the other half focuses on journalist's Lesley Stahl and how climate change has impacted Greenland), the actor spoke of Rick Joyner, an Evangelical Minister.

    However, despite all the evidence presented during the show, Joyner still didn't believe in global warming and Somerhalder was determined to get through to him.

    "So we go and visit this guy, Bob Inglis, who is like a six-time Congressman representing the most conservative district in the whole country. And even [he] realized climate change is happening. So we sit them down together. We sit [Joyner] down with all these people, and we still can't convince him. But he's just an amazing guy. He's so smart and he's so loving and he's so good."

    That said, Somerhalder was able to explain why he thinks Joyner feels the way he does.

    "Evangelicals, which are a very giant part of this country, believe that it's really just in God's hands. If God wanted to fix it, he would. It is what it is. So if I dump this 20 thousand gallons of toxic waste into this river, and it goes down, and it destroys two towns, and goes in the ocean, and kills an entire coral reef, well, it's Gods will.

    Parent

    More on Woodcock (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Lora on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:02:45 PM EST
    Jim,

    Well, strike me pink.

    Good ole' Woodcock can't even get his own research accepted by his own peers!

    (To see the context for these words from the exalted professor, scroll down on the link above past the reference & appendix pages.)

    (emphasis added)

    An original paper titled "Fluid phases of argon" [A1] was submitted to Physical Review Letters (PRL) for publication. The paper was not recommended for publiccation on the basis of adverse and critical comments of disbelief by three anonymous referees [A2].


    Parent
    And speaking of peer review (none / 0) (#195)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:44:31 PM EST
    the good Doctor Jones had his emails reviewed and it was found that he knew man made global warming was not happening.

    Link

    But there's more:

    Lately Steve has been spearheading an effort to get the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia to release the data that underlie its analysis of global temperature trends. Such a request should not at all be controversial. Indeed the atmospheric sciences community went to great lengths in the 1990s to ensure that such data would be openly available for research purposes, culminating in World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Resolution 40 on the international exchange of meteorological and related data and products. The Resolution states:

    snip

    Obviously, the ability to do good research depends upon good data with known provenance. At the time WMO Resolution 40 was widely hailed in the atmospheric sciences community as a major step forward in data sharing and availability in support of both operations and research.

    Thus it is with some surprise to observe CRU going through bizarre contortions to avoid releasing its climate data to Steve McIntyre. They first told him that he couldn't have it because he was not an academic. I found this to be a petty reason for keeping data out of the hands of someone who clearly wants to examine it for scholarly purposes. So, wanting to test this theory I asked CRU for the data myself, being a "real" academic. I received a letter back from CRU stating that I couldn't have the data because "we do not hold the requested information."

    I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission (emphasis added):

    snip

    We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

     Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).

    The dog ate their homework and I'll respect you in the morning.

    Parent

    "Real scientists" - heh (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Yman on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:32:39 AM EST
    Thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies (actual scientific evidence) versus an opinion piece from a chemical engineer.

    Sometimes I wonder if you're trying to be funny.

    Not to mention your choice of "real scientist" ... sounds like a retired pron star ...

    Parent

    You mean unlike your's? (none / 0) (#145)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 04, 2014 at 01:58:21 PM EST
    Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly, The New Republic, and the Washington Post.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Hey, I'd be more than happy ... (none / 0) (#178)
    by Yman on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:07:18 PM EST
    ... to provide you with links to the thousands of actual climatologists and the studies that acknowledge the existence of MMGW, but I thought I'd give you something that was easy to comprehend.  After all, dictionary may be the most comprehensive source of words in the English language, ...

    ... but you don't teach a chimp learn giving him one.  :)

    Parent

    Hate replying with a phone (none / 0) (#185)
    by Yman on Sun May 04, 2014 at 06:05:25 PM EST
    After all, a dictionary may be the most comprehensive source of words in the English language, ...

    ... but you don't teach a chimp to read by giving him one.  :)

    Parent

    But what you can't do is (none / 0) (#196)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:46:15 PM EST
    provide actual scientific evidence.

    CONSENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE.

    Parent

    Consensus, per se, is not (none / 0) (#201)
    by Yman on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:23:12 PM EST
    But thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies based on scientific data, conducted by actual climatologists, as opposed to your silly opinion pieces written by non-experts?

    Oh, yeah.

    Parent

    BTW - Your "expert"'s claim ... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Yman on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:45:42 AM EST
    ... is also FALSE.

    "There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years." (Les Woodcock).

    Link 1

    That is an extraordinary statement, and a position that cleverer climate deniers tend to avoid. He's not just saying that warming isn't happening, or that warming is happening but humans aren't causing it. He's flatly asserting, with no hedging whatsoever, that carbon dioxide concentrations haven't increased.

    There's just one flaw with his analysis: carbon dioxide concentrations are very easy to measure! All you do is shine a beam of infrared light through an air sample, look at the absorption frequencies of carbon dioxide, and then deduce the concentration using Beer's Law. It's a classic experiment in Chemistry 101...

    Carbon dioxide concentrations are being measured in this manner right now (as well as with more sophisticated techniques). It's being done all the time in fact, in hundreds of places across the globe, organized by the Cooperative Air Sampling Network...

    I literally cannot imagine a statement that would be more scientifically incorrect and humiliating     than the one Professor Woodcock made. It's like saying you don't believe in the existence of cheese. And somehow I doubt such a person would be convinced if you did the scientific equivalent of slapping him across the face with a big round of Stilton.

    BTW - For those unable/unwilling to use Google, here's a chart showing the increase of CO2.

    Oops.

    Your "expert" should really learn to refrain from making statements that are so easily disproved.

    Parent

    If facts mattered (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:52:02 AM EST
    Well ......

    Parent
    Look no further (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:48:05 AM EST
    where Jim tries to blame Barney Frank for stuff when the GOP controlled the house. It's defies reason that one person in the house could control a whole agenda of the opposing party, who happened to be the majority party at the time, and kill legislation.

    All these kinds of things do is lend credence to the fact that the GOP has become an apocalyptic cult beholden to the far right of this county. He's doing a great job backing up what Charlie Crist and Mike Lofgren say about the GOP.

    Parent

    But he is GAY (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 11:27:17 AM EST
    And he doesn't even care if we know. That means he has supernatural magical powers.

    Parent
    Ain't that the projection truth? (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:33:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Not a cloud in the sky (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:36:38 PM EST
    Shhhhhh
    Don't want jinx in.  The power could still go out

    Parent
    Also it's in the dixionary (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:56:39 PM EST
    Fairy
    1.
    one of a class of supernatural beings, generally conceived as having a diminutive human form and possessing magical powers with which they intervene in human affairs.

    Parent
    I so missed you (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:13:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Another chart (none / 0) (#119)
    by Yman on Sun May 04, 2014 at 09:36:10 AM EST
    From 315 ppm in 1958 to 396 ppm today.

    Parent
    Mauna Loa is a volcano (none / 0) (#146)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 04, 2014 at 02:07:17 PM EST
    or did you not know that?

    I go back to what the American Geophysical Union said:


    Welcome | AGU
    sites.agu.org/‎
    American Geophysical Union
    AGU is an international scientific society of over 35000 members. Research includes the Earth, oceans, atmosphere, space, and planets. AGU is dedicated to ...
    Google+ page · Be the first to review
    2000 Florida Ave NW, Washington, DC 20009
    (202) 462-6900

    As published in Science Daily:

    "Source:

    American Geophysical Union

    Summary:

    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.
    Emphasis added.

    Link

    Parent

    It IS a volcano (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Yman on Sun May 04, 2014 at 04:51:07 PM EST
    It is also the longest running station among the hundreds of stations worldwide monitoring CO2 levels and - if you're smart enough to read the very simple graph accompanying the data - you will see that both the Mauna Loa data and the global data show the large increase in CO2 levels.  This is something your "real scientist" (not a climatologist) flatly denied without the slightest qualification or hesitation.  A basic, proven scientific fact that is indisputable, denied by another flat-earther skeptic and promoted by you as a "real scientist".

    Classic.

    Now that your "real scientist"'s position has been revealed as an utterly false/laughable joke, you want to change the subject to the AGU's position on the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide, citing a single study that you think disproves ... well, ... something.  Let's just look at the number of falsities in your latest claim:

    1)  As we've established, airborne fraction of CO2 isn't what your pron star "real scientist" was discussing when he made his claim.  No where in his claim did he even mention it.  He was talking about CO2 levels as a whole, and his claim is completely false.

    Oops.

    2) What does the very author of the single study you cite say about his own study? Hint - not what you and the other deniers claim he's saying:

    Basically, Bristol University scientist Knorr has discovered that the proportion of CO2 being absorbed by natural `sinks' (i.e. the oceans and forests) has stayed roughly the same, despite the amount of carbon being emitted shooting up.  The implication is that we have more time to address climate change than some believe because more carbon has been absorbed than previously thought.

    But Dr Knorr is adamant that we must still adress climate change, and favours mandatory caps on emissions. I ask him if that's what we need to do and he says, "There is no other way".

    But I was aware this story would generate a lot of coverage suggesting the research supports climate change denial, and that's exactly what we're seeing. I think when the nationals get hold of this (probably tomorrow) it'll go into overdrive.

    So here is an interview in which I ask Dr Knorr specifically whether his research backs up climate sceptics. (He says no, if you can't listen to it).

    Oops.

    3)  Let's take a look at what your latest expert (the American Geophysical Union) says about MMGW.

    The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system--including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons--are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

    Better stop shopping for a "real scientist" before you start proving your own, silly theories wrong.

    Oops!   Too late!

    But at least you know that Mauna Loa is a volcano.

    LOL!  :)

    Parent

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:51:20 PM EST
    The implication is that we have more time to address climate change than some believe because more carbon has been absorbed than previously thought.

    And the amplification factor ain't what it use to be:

    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.

    snip

    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.

    Science Daily

    Parent

    Changing the subject again? (none / 0) (#202)
    by Yman on Sun May 04, 2014 at 09:05:40 PM EST
    I would too, if I were citing non-experts or, when that failed to work out, experts who flatly deny what you claim their studies show.

    As for your latest attempt to divert from your previous, obliterated claims, I must admit they are an improvement.  You're citing an actual climatologist (a real expert!) who published an actual study!  So I have to give you kuddos for your newfound respect for actual scientific evidence over wingnut opinion pieces ... at least when you think they're supporting your claims.  Problem is, they're not.  The fact that this single study concludes that the carbon-cycle amplification is less than previously thought is: 1) not, by itself, conclusive on the issue and 2) does not support the conclusion that manmade global warming is not happening.  Rather - even if you assume the authors are 100% correct - it means that one piece of the mechanism of global warming (carbon-cycle amplification) is occurring at a slower rate than was previously assumed based on prior evidence.  In short, MMGW is still occurring, but (maybe) not as fast as some models projected.

    But congrats, Jim - and welcome to the world of real science!

    Parent

    What Yman said. (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:27:54 PM EST
    Yes, Mauna Loa is a volcano. But the greater scientific community maintains a permanent presence atop all three of Hawaii's tallest mountains, as it has for the better part of the past 60 years.

    Here is a LINK for NOAA's Earth Research System Laboratory Global Monitoring Division at Mauna Loa Observatory.

    You know, Jim, you might sound a wee bit more credible, if you actually know what you're talking about before you decide to be snide and condescending. As it stands, you've managed to put together a rather phenomenal display of clueless and fact-free ignorance this week on a wide variety of subjects, surpassing even your usual substandard performances.

    P.S.: And Donald Sterling is still not a liberal Democrat.

    Parent

    Don't let facts get in the way of opinion (5.00 / 4) (#194)
    by Lora on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:26:25 PM EST
    Jim,

    There you go again.  Did you not read my last reply in the last thread?  (Near the bottom).

    You are flat-out wrong about the AF (Airborne Fraction) of CO2.

    When we humans spew gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere, the majority of it is absorbed by our lovely planet.  Mainly, it gets dissolved in the oceans and taken up by plant life.  The rest of it floats around in the air.

    Now, the Airborne Fraction, or AF, is the fraction you get when you divide the amount of CO2 floating around in the air by the total amount of CO2 produced by us humans (the stuff in the air plus the stuff absorbed by the oceans and plant life).

    Link (which, by the way, I found by following your links, and which I verified by reading other definitions of the AF):

    (emphasis added)

    Of the current 10 billion tons of carbon (GtC) emitted annually as CO2 into the atmosphere by human activities [Boden et al., 2009; Houghton, 2008], only around 40% [Jones and Cox, 2005] remain in the atmosphere, while the rest is absorbed by the oceans and the land biota to about equal proportions [Bopp et al., 2002]. This airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 (AF) is known to have stayed remarkably constant over the past five decades...

    It is a fraction, yes, of a part divided by the whole, but the "whole" in this case is total annual human-produced CO2 emissions, NOT the whole atmosphere.

    OK now, Jim?  

    So, please, let's not hear any more about the Air Fraction being the fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere as a whole.  It ain't.  It just ain't.

    Your source is saying that that fraction hasn't changed much if at all.  If correct, that is good news for us, because it has been thought that our wonderful Earth is starting to exhaust its capacity to absorb the nasty gas and then we would warm up even faster.

    Parent

    Hooey (2.00 / 1) (#198)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:05:30 PM EST
    If it is airborne then it is part of the earth's atmosphere.

    What the AGU said:

    "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.

    In detail:

    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. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

    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.

    Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

    To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

    In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades

    Science Daily

    Hope you don't mind me saying but you are wrong.

    Okay???

    Major constituents of dry air, by volume[5]
    ppmv: parts per million by volume (note: volume fraction is equal to mole fraction for ideal gas only, see volume (thermodynamics))
    Gas    Volume
    Nitrogen (N2)    780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
    Oxygen (O2)    209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
    Argon (Ar)    9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
    Carbon dioxide (CO2)    397 ppmv (0.0397%)
    Neon (Ne)    18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
    Helium (He)    5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
    Methane (CH4)    1.79 ppmv (0.000179%)

    Link

    Parent

    Only red flagged (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:37:50 PM EST
    Because of Zoe Saldana.  IMO she has definitely got "it".
    I will BS POed if the muck it up.  Surely them must know the hell that will rain down on them if they do.

    Parent
    Oopsie (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:39:26 PM EST
    That was supposed to be a reply to MTs comment about Rosemary's Baby.

    Parent
    Why should we care ... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:40:10 PM EST
    ... about something that you've ginned up?

    Parent
    Meanwhile (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 04:16:09 PM EST
    Unemployment is approaching 6% ACA has passed 8 million and the stock market is at all time highs.  
    Yeah baby.  "Laisse le Benghazi rouler"

    Parent
    And work force (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 03, 2014 at 05:15:48 PM EST
    participation is at an all time low.

    In case you don't understand that means fewer people are working.

    The U3 will get better as fewer people look.

    Of course that means its a phony number...

    BTW - A friend's daughter was laid off about 6 months ago. Finally got an offer. For less than 30 hours with no benefits.

    Ain't Obamacare great?

    BTW - The U6 is at 12.2%... 92,000,000 don't have jobs.

    Wanna brag some more?

    Parent

    12.2% (none / 0) (#186)
    by Yman on Sun May 04, 2014 at 06:08:02 PM EST
    Huh.

    That's 1.4 to 2 points less than when your boy GW Bush left office after driving the economy off a cliff.

    Go figure.

    Parent

    A113 (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 04:45:04 PM EST
    A mysterious code appears in not just one, but nearly every Pixar movie ever made. What is this mysterious code, A113, and what does it mean? And does it really pop up THAT often?

    Is it the illuminati? Is it a subliminal code to turn your children gay?  Is it Benghazi related?  You will have to click the link to find out.

    LINK

    More 1984 stuff (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 03, 2014 at 05:11:04 PM EST
    It's no secret that police departments around the country are deploying automated license plate readers to build massive databases to identify the location of vehicles. But one company behind this Orwellian tracking system is determined to stay out of the news.

    How determined? Vigilant Solutions, founded in 2009, claims to have the nation's largest repository of license-plate images with nearly 2 billion records stored in its National Vehicle Location Service (NVLS). Despite the enormous implications of the database for the public, any law enforcement agency that signs up for the service is sworn to a vow of silence by the company's terms of service.

    Vigilant is clear about the reason for the secrecy: it's to prevent customers from "cooperating" with media and calling attention to its database.

    That database is used by law enforcement and others to track stolen cars or vehicles used in crimes, as well as to locate illegal immigrants, kidnapping victims and others -- though the vast majority of license plates stored belong to ordinary drivers who aren't suspected of a crime.

    Link

    You know what I think? (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:31:07 PM EST
    I think you should take the license plates off your car before you drive around town doing errands, so that nobody who's monitoring the cameras will know who you are.

    Parent
    Know what I think? (none / 0) (#199)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:07:51 PM EST
    I think you were screaming about Bush's monitoring terrorists phone calls but have no problem when Obama does it.

    Hypocrite.

    Parent

    Obama is "monitoring ... (none / 0) (#203)
    by Yman on Sun May 04, 2014 at 09:18:26 PM EST
    ... terrorist phone calls" with ALPRs?

    So you're comparing someone's expectation of privacy in their private phone calls to their expectation of privacy in their license plate while driving down a public street?

    Heh.

    BTW - Since you think it's hypocritical to object to monitoring of private phone calls while not objecting to ALPRs, what does that make you - someone who objects to ALPRs but not monitoring of phone calls?

    While you're at it, ALPR use was occurring long before Obama took office and expanded greatly under Bush.  Could you show us a link to one of your many posts where you lamented "more 1984 stuff" due to the use of ALPRs when Bush was in office?

    Heh, heh ...

    Parent

    Thinking of getting chickens (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:18:52 PM EST
    My sister has chickens.  I haven't paid for eggs since I lived here.  She loves hatching out a bunch and sharing the yolk.  I am I the process of deciding if I can create a domicile for them where they will be safe from becoming chicken flavored dog treats.  I have plenty of space.  I have been taking care of a goat.  I have been trying to get the neighbor to sell me their two horses because they ignore them and don't take care of them.  And I am considering adopting a Bearded Dragon.

    Just to make sure I can never ever leave home for more than a few hours at a time.

    I have a friend (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:54:51 PM EST
    that lives in the city limits and has chickens. Apparently this is one of the new things around here. Tractor Supply has a ton of housing for them. I have thought about having some myself though they would have to go into the "pet" category probably where i live.

    Parent
    "Pets" (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:56:34 PM EST
    That pay for their room and board.  What a concept.

    Parent
    We met (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:01:30 PM EST
    someone that lived in DeKalb county and said they had chickens. Now I don't know if you know or not but pretty much all of Dekalb County is what you would consider city. So we asked them how on earth they got away with having two chickens there. They said that they had two other animals and the ordinances only allowed for four pets. So they said they put the chickens in the pet category. In case anybody said anything the would just say they were pets and they weren't over the pet limit.

    Parent
    Well two chickens (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:04:01 PM EST
    Won't give you many eggs but why not.

    Parent
    I was thinking the same (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:19:21 PM EST
    thing but she said she only had to buy eggs during the holidays when she did a lot of baking. She said that those two chickens laid enough eggs for her family of four for a week. Maybe she had some breed of super layers or something or they don't eat many eggs.

    Parent
    Could be (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:39:00 PM EST
    My sister only has a few. Less than 10? And she give a dozen eggs to pretty much everyone who comes through the door.

    Parent
    Pets? (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 04, 2014 at 12:15:25 PM EST
    What ya gonna do when they stop  laying eggs?

    (Hint: I'd hate to be your dog!)

    Parent

    Mona Lisa (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:20:49 AM EST
    the worlds first 3d image?

    It's a claim German researchers Claus-Christian Carbon and Vera Hesslinger assert in their study of Leonardo's famous portrait, "Mona Lisa." The pair have been analyzing the well-known version of La Giaconda that hangs at Paris' Louvre, as well as an eerily similar copy known as the "Prado Mona Lisa," housed at the Museo del Prado in Spain, and have concluded that the two artworks -- taken together -- may amount to the first stereoscopic image in the world.

    In other words, our first 3D artwork.

    Not Surprising (none / 0) (#114)
    by squeaky on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:33:25 AM EST
    As Leonardo was very interested in optics and 3D imaging seems  well within his reach. But, if Leonardo did figure out 3D, it seems that it would be simple to turn the two paintings into one stunning 3D image.

    Where is the beef?

    waiting....

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 04, 2014 at 09:17:32 AM EST
    If it is going to be defended I prefer it be defended by someone who doesn't agree with it.

    LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) -- Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel said Saturday he supports allowing same-sex couples to wed but will continue defending his state's 2004 ban on gay marriages in court.

    McDaniel, a Democrat serving his final year as the state's top attorney, became the first statewide official in Arkansas to back same-sex marriage.

    "I want to tell you I do support marriage equality and I do believe Arkansans should have the right to be equal in the eyes of the law," said McDaniel, speaking at the Associated Press Managing Editors convention.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 345 (none / 0) (#129)
    by Dadler on Sun May 04, 2014 at 11:46:44 AM EST
    He started his career by betting on the scorpion races in Nazareth. (link)

    v. 344
    v. 343
    v. 342
    v. 341

    Repent, ye sinners. On second thought...live it up.

    Peace.

    More early predictions (none / 0) (#205)
    by jbindc on Mon May 05, 2014 at 04:01:01 PM EST
    Shows that Republicans have an 82% chance of picking up the Senate this fall.

    Of the two Republican seats seen as potential pickups for Democrats, neither look promising. Republicans have a 94.37 percent chance of holding onto the open Georgia seat and upwards of a 97 percent chance of keeping the Kentucky seat. On the other hand, there are currently eight Democratic-held seats where the Election Lab gives Republicans a better than 50 percent chance of winning. In order, they are:

    1. South Dakota (99.14 percent of GOP takeover)

    2. West Virginia (94.58 percent)

    3. Montana (73.05 percent)

    4. Louisiana (72.48 percent)

    5. Iowa (64.97 percent)

    6. Michigan (57.7 percent)

    7. Arkansas (55.94 percent)

    8. Alaska (50.49 percent)
    Friday Night Open Thread | 205 comments (205 topical)