home

Monday Night Open Thread

I'm just getting home from work and haven't yet seen the news. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome

< Oscar Pistorius Trial Resumes, Estate Manager Testifies | Monica's Back, Did You Miss Her? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • This is a great idea (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 05, 2014 at 09:19:53 PM EST
    You want a physicist to speak at your funeral. You want the physicist to talk to your grieving family about the conservation of energy, so they will understand that your energy has not died. You want the physicist to remind your sobbing mother about the first law of thermodynamics; that no energy is created in the universe and none is destroyed.

    And at one point, you'd hope that the physicist would step down from the pulpit and walk to your brokenhearted spouse there in the pew and tell him that all the photons that ever bounced off your face, all the particles whose paths were interrupted by your smile, by the touch of your hair, hundreds of trillions of particles, have raced off you like children, their ways forever changed by you.

    hear the whole speech

    Can totally see myself doing this.


    Maybe I'll have this engraved on my urn (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by ruffian on Mon May 05, 2014 at 09:46:50 PM EST
    "According to the law of the conservation of energy, not a bit of you is gone; you're just less orderly."

    I could stand a little disorder, actually.

    Parent

    Last night's Mad Men (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ruffian on Mon May 05, 2014 at 09:50:28 PM EST
    had some amusing moments, as SCDP, or whatever initials they arrived at, got their first computer - an IBM 360 mainframe that had to displace the 'creatives lounge'.  Even the characters referenced the heavy-handed symbolism there.

    My first programming job was on an IBM 360, so it hit several of my nostalgia buttons.

    That episode (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:22:36 AM EST
    seemed to be like the first one in that it was more setting things up for the next episode. Them getting the computer was kind of the highlight of the whole story. Well, that and Don refusing to do what Peggy told him to do.

    Parent
    I had a lot of mixed feelings about that episode (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Tue May 06, 2014 at 12:10:16 PM EST
    Liked a lot of the individual scenes but then looking back on it it seemed repetitive - how many times are we going to watch Don climb back out of the gutter?

    I loved the bit with the Mets pennant too...but as a Cubs fan the '69 Amazin' Mets are my most hated team in history. Will be interesting to see how they portray that as show calendar time approaches late summer. I'm sure it will be a symbol of Don's rebirth rather than my 11 yr old girls' pain!

    Overall I like the show so much better than most TV that I will forgive it anything.

    Parent

    Paul Ryan (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 05, 2014 at 10:00:01 PM EST
    Reminds me... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by kdog on Tue May 06, 2014 at 12:48:22 PM EST
    of a joke I heard the other day.

    A rich guy, a white guy, and a latino guy are sitting at a table, and there is a plate with twelve cookies on it.  The rich guy grabs 11 cookies and says to the white guy "watch out, that Mexican is trying to steal your cookie."

    The US economy, in a nutshell!

    Parent

    Occupy activist Cecily McMillan (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 05, 2014 at 10:39:21 PM EST
    found guilty of assaulting NYPD officer

    An Occupy Wall Street demonstrator was found guilty of second-degree assault Monday in Manhattan following a months-long trial concerning a 2012 altercation she had with the New York Police Department.

    Cecily McMillan, 25, now stands to face as much as seven years in prison behind bars as a result of Monday afternoon's conviction.

    As RT reported earlier this year, McMillan was participating in an OWS demonstration in New York City during the spring of 2012 when she was manhandled by the NYPD while being detained, and received multiples cuts and bruised ribs as a result. While handcuffed, McMillan -- then 23 -- suffered from a seizure for upwards of seven minutes before reportedly fainting.
    LINK


    Interesting... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by lentinel on Tue May 06, 2014 at 05:19:48 AM EST
    In closing arguments, the prosecutor said:

    "It is time for the defendant to answer for her own criminal actions,"..."Our founding fathers did not create a right to free assembly so people could commit crimes and hide behind their right to protest."

    So, we have a right to free assembly - with the added spice of a million cops surrounding us - sometimes we're placed in corrals.

    Just what the founding fathers envisioned, I'm sure.

    Those "fathers" were uncompromising.
    Those who invoke them in order to support tyranny are pathetic.

    Parent

    I wonder when... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by kdog on Tue May 06, 2014 at 12:44:44 PM EST
    the system and it's agents will ever have to answer for anything...maybe in the next life.

    Alotta balls to throw that in the closing arguments, not to mention to bring these bullsh*t charges in the first place, all thing related to Occupy considered.  Let us never forget who the law serves...and it ain't we the god damn people.

    Parent

    It's so much worse than we could ever (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Anne on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:00:40 AM EST
    imagine; I read this article this morning, and don't know whether to throw something or weep.

    Here's an excerpt of how Cecliy McMillan ended up in handcuffs:

    On March 17th, 2012, Occupy Wall Street was celebrating its six-month anniversary and Cecily McMillan was 23 years old. McMillan is an activist who was participating energetically in Occupy, but on St. Patrick's Day she was not there to protest. She had dressed in bright green and planned to meet up with friends at the corner of the park so they could head to a nearby bar together. They had just gathered when the police announced via bullhorn that they were clearing the park. In compliance with the order and eager to go out, McMillan and her friends headed for the exit. According to McMillan, this is when a hand abruptly grabbed her breast and she was lifted off her feet from behind. She startled and flailed out. Her elbow connected with Grantley Bovell's head before she realized he was a police officer. Several nearby officers rushed over and arrested her. These events will be discussed at the trial.

    What will not be discussed at the trial is the event that was recorded in these videos (the sound in the second video cuts out around the 3:30 mark):

    [snip]

    Protestors stand behind a barricade, near a city bus where the police are taking the people they have arrested. McMillan is being escorted there in handcuffs when she collapses to the pavement and begins to seize uncontrollably. The police officers stand over her in a tight circle wordlessly watching as she, in her bright green shirt, lies on the ground, unable to breathe as her body jerks violently. The visual is chilling. Do they think she's faking? The protestors curse and shout for the officers to help her, protect her head, give her space, but none of them acknowledge the cries. Several officers finally pick her up, take her out of the street, and put her down on the sidewalk, removing the handcuffs. It's more difficult to see her, but she seems to be going in and out of consciousness and she's clearly in distress. The protestors begin to roar for a medic. The officers respond by fanning out along the barricades, looking around warily at the protestors, their faces unreadable. McMillan tries to sit up, can't seem to breathe, then collapses, again and again.  All of the officers seem to be moving maddeningly slowly, milling around with hands on hips. It takes a very, very long time for the ambulance to come.

    When she wakes up in the hospital, she's covered in bruises and doesn't know where she is. She thinks her rib is broken, it hurts so much. In the next forty-odd hours, she is shuttled between the hospital and jail, and although she asks over and over, she is not allowed a phone call to a lawyer, friends, or family.

    The trial was worse than a kangaroo court - is this America now?


    Parent

    What's missing from that excerpt (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:24:50 AM EST
    and that is backed up by the video, is Officer Bovell's account of what happened:

    Officer Bovell testified he encountered Ms. McMillan flailing her arms and shouting curses at a female officer, who was never located and did not testify. Officer Bovell said he told Ms. McMillan to leave the park, and when she refused, put her hand on her shoulder to steer her out.

    "I remember her saying to someone: `Are you filming this? Are you filming this?' " the officer said. "Then I remember the defendant crouching down and lunging with her elbow and hitting me in the face."

    A video corroborated Officer Bovell's account. Ms. McMillan is seen bending her knees, then throwing her right elbow into the officer's eye. She lurches forward, runs a few steps, then is tackled by several officers

    Apparently, there is also no medical record of her suffering a seizure or having anxiety, (and remember, it was St. Patrick's Day and she admitted she had been drinking.  Also, the bruising on her breast was not detected by two separate hospital checks.

    So, while this woman certainly doesn't deserve 7 years in prison (which I doubt she will get - my guess is she gets hit with probation and a fine), she was convicted because her story just doesn't add up.

    Parent

    Couple of things: (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Anne on Tue May 06, 2014 at 09:59:11 AM EST
    First, when someone is engaging in a deliberate act of violence against the police, that person doesn't generally want to make sure it's being filmed.

    Second, on the stand, the officer repeatedly pointed to the wrong eye as the one she hit him with.

    Third, I can't speak for you, but bruising isn't something that is necessarily present in the immediate aftermath of contact; in addition, there were numerous other reports of women having their breasts grabbed by the cops.

    Fourth, the judge essentially completely hamstrung McMahon's defense, not allowing a number of things she should have been able to address.

    The judge seems to have alternated between boredom and rage throughout the trial, now three weeks old. He has repeatedly thrown caustic barbs at her lawyers and arbitrarily shut down many of the avenues of defense. Friday was no exception.

    The silver-haired Zweibel curtly dismissed a request by defense lawyers Martin Stolar and Rebecca Heinegg for a motion to dismiss the case. The lawyers had attempted to argue that testimony from the officer who arrested McMillan violated Fifth Amendment restrictions against the use of comments made by a defendant at the time of arrest. But the judge, who has issued an unusual gag order that bars McMillan's lawyers from speaking to the press, was visibly impatient, snapping, "This debate is going to end." He then went on to uphold his earlier decision to heavily censor videos taken during the arrest, a decision Stolar said "is cutting the heart out of my ability to refute" the prosecution's charge that McMillan faked a medical seizure in an attempt to avoid being arrested. "I'm totally handicapped," Stolar lamented to Zweibel.

    Given the numerous reports of the police's heavy-handed and unnecessary violence in connection with Occupy, it doesn't necessarily prove McMahon did not intentionally elbow the officer, but it is evidence of a pattern - unfortunately, that was something else her defense was not permitted to address.

    Here's more.

    For sure this verdict will be appealed, and I would be shocked if it isn't overturned.

    Parent

    Sure (2.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jbindc on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:47:44 AM EST
    Given the numerous reports of the police's heavy-handed and unnecessary violence in connection with Occupy, it doesn't necessarily prove McMahon did not intentionally elbow the officer, but it is evidence of a pattern - unfortunately, that was something else her defense was not permitted to address.

    But that, unfortunately, has nothing to do with this particular incident.  Just because other cops may have engaged in heavy handed tactics does not prove that this officer did during this specific incident, so it's not relevant and shouldn't have been allowed in. If that would be the case, then that of course, would open it up all the bad behavior shown by some Occupy protestors, and that certainly wouldn't have helped Cecily's case.

    Now this is just nonsense from someone who doesn't understand how a criminal trial works:

    The silver-haired Zweibel curtly dismissed a request by defense lawyers Martin Stolar and Rebecca Heinegg for a motion to dismiss the case. The lawyers had attempted to argue that testimony from the officer who arrested McMillan violated Fifth Amendment restrictions against the use of comments made by a defendant at the time of arrest.

    Yes, that happens at pretty much every single trial in this country - the defense asks for the judge to dismiss the case - it's called a "Motion for a Directed Verdict".  It rarely (but sometimes) works, but the lawyers do it as a procedural matter to get it on the record in case of an appeal.  They have to show they crossed their "t's" and dotted their "i's". But generally, if a case has made it this far in the process, there is a genuine question of fact for the trier (in this case, the jury) to find.

    And this is just out and out spin:

    But the judge, who has issued an unusual gag order that bars McMillan's lawyers from speaking to the press, was visibly impatient, snapping, "This debate is going to end."

    The defense attorney had been talking to the NYT and the judge didn't want either party speaking to the press, since this was a high profile case where, (and I could be wrong about this), the jury wasn't sequestered.  The gag order was placed on both the prosecution and defense not just McMillan's lawyers, so the author is completely spinning in that statement above by not telling the whole truth. Or, in other words, lying.

    You said it yourself:

    ... it doesn't necessarily prove McMahon did not intentionally elbow the officer...

    which is all the prosecution had to show:1) Did she intentionally elbow the officer so as to resist direction or arrest, and 2) if so, is this mitigated by the fact that she didn't realize he was a police officer, but rather, some creep just grabbing her and she instinctively reacted?

    Unfortunately, the liberal blogosphere and media are conflating the issue at hand with the larger conduct of both police and protestors at OWS sites and their feeling about those. What is being played down is that only 7 protestors were actually indicted out of the 2,644 that were arrested throughout the entirety of the NY OWS protests:

    During the protests, which began in September 2011 and lasted three months, the district attorney obtained indictments against seven protesters on charges of assaulting a police officer. Two pleaded guilty, one woman was acquitted at trial and three were allowed to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges.

    The majority of the 2,644 protesters arrested never faced serious charges. The district attorney declined to prosecute or dismissed 679 of the cases. An additional 1,355 cases were placed in the category "adjourned contemplating dismissal," which means those people will not have police records.

    The district attorney declined to prosecute or dismissed 679 of the cases. An additional 1,355 cases were placed in the category "adjourned contemplating dismissal," which means those people will not have police records.

    So, why does her case stand out?

    A jury of 8 women and 4 men decided this verdict.  They live in NY.  They hear stories about police brutality.  And while they aren't supposed to take their own personal prejudices into the jury room, they are human beings, so, of course they did.  And Ms. McMillan testified that she didn't remember hitting the officer - how does she know she reacted instinctively then? They saw the video - why didn't they believe her?

    And of course, her attorneys are going to claim reversible error on the part of the judge. That's their job and they will (and should) make every argument they can. Maybe there was error - and an appeals court will take up the case and look for it.  Like I said - I imagine she will get probation, a fine, and maybe community service.  Maybe she'll even get the conviction overturned, in which case they may start all over or the DA may let it go.  

    Parent

    We're just going to have to agree to (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Anne on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:34:26 AM EST
    disagree on this one.

    A jury can only make a decision based on the testimony it hears and the evidence it is allowed to see; I think an appeals court is going to find that the lower court erred in improperly restricting the evidence the defense wanted to present.

    I'm aware that asking for a dismissal is SOP in criminal trials, but you didn't really address this:

    The lawyers had attempted to argue that testimony from the officer who arrested McMillan violated Fifth Amendment restrictions against the use of comments made by a defendant at the time of arrest.

    And about the police officer's history and all those arrests of Occupy protesters, you left out some important parts:

    He refused McMillan's attorneys' request to allow Bovell's disciplinary file to be introduced into evidence, as he faces multiple lawsuits for past brutality, indicating a pattern, of course, and lack of credibility. The Judge refused the request as being potentially `prejudicial'.  Yes, I'd imagine so.  The NYPD has paid out thousands of dollars in lawsuits by Ocuppiers, including according to Sarah Jafee:

     

      That includes a $55,000 settlement announced Thursday, April 24 [video at the link] to be paid to Josh Boss, who was livestreaming an Occupy march when he was thrown to the ground and kneed by Chief Thomas Purtell, who was at the time the commanding officer of the Manhattan South Patrol Division. Also among the final tally is $82,500 to Shawn Schrader, who goes by Shawn Carrie, over three separate violent arrests. A joint report from NYU's Global Justice Clinic and Fordham's Walter Leitner International Human Rights Clinic found that the police's treatment of Occupy included `frequent alleged incidents of unnecessary and excessive police use of force against protesters, bystanders, journalists, and legal observers; constant obstructions of media freedoms, including arrests of journalists; unjustified and sometimes violent closure of public space, dispersal of peaceful assemblies, and corralling and trapping protesters en masse.

    More here.

    Parent

    I didn't leave it out (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Tue May 06, 2014 at 12:44:43 PM EST
    I know that's in his record - that may very well be a basis for an appeals court to overturn it.  But again - the issue was that at that moment she elbowed him - was it just a reaction or was it deliberate.  That's the whole case - not the macro level of the police department as a whole, or the behavior of the protestors as a whole - just what her actions and intentions were at that moment.

    The lawyers had attempted to argue that testimony from the officer who arrested McMillan violated Fifth Amendment restrictions against the use of comments made by a defendant at the time of arrest.

    They argued it - the judge apparently didn't buy it,  and ruled that her comments were excited utterances under the hearsay rule of evidence and therefore admissible. So, that's something an appeals court can look at, but it's not automatic.  They could very well agree with the judge too.  But it's very easy for writers to write that comment in their article as if it were a fact.

    Parent

    Have you asked yourself how you would (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Anne on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:57:40 PM EST
    react if you were walking along, or standing on the sidewalk, and someone just grabbed your breast and squeezed?  Not someone who walked up to you, face-to-face, and reached out and honked, but someone coming at you from behind?  Remember, there were a lot of people on the street, the police were heavily present, so there's a lot going on.

    How do you imagine yourself reacting?  Seems to me that first and foremost, you're being assaulted, and you want this hand off of you, ASAP.

    So, think about that for a minute.  

    Now, let's also try to remember that she's the accused and how are the accused viewed?  As innocent until proven guilty.  So, when she says she was groped, we believe her, unless it can be proved that she wasn't groped.  Prosecution has the burden of proof, but that doesn't mean the the defense is essentially prevented from presenting its case, does it?

    If I can be cynical for a moment, let me suggest that because of the documented ways in which the NYPD overstepped and overreacted to Occupy, and the vast numbers of arrestees whose charges were dismissed, and the monies that had already been paid out, the NYPD had some face to save.

    Has face actually been saved?  Not from my perspective.  What has happened is that, as badly as this whole thing was at the beginning, the way the prosecution was handled has compounded the problem and managed to highlight what's wrong with the system.

    Finally, do you mean to suggest that the defense didn't try to argue that the defendant's own words were improperly used against her?  

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by sj on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:39:10 AM EST
    I am wondering  if your thinking would change if you were the one who had been groped and then arrested. And then had your defense hamstrung.

    I am wondering if lawn order biases would change under those circumstances just like anti-gay biases have been shown to change after a loved one comes out of the closet. Theory -- especially high and mighty, supercilious theory -- has a tendency to change when it affects oneself instead of those arrogant, ignoble "others".

    Until then, your "let them suffer the consequences" has as much real life behind it as "let them eat cake".

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Tue May 06, 2014 at 12:36:01 PM EST
    You're assuming he actually groped her, which wasn't proven, so until then your "police =  bad" has as much real life behind it as climate deniers.

    All good.

    Parent

    Not really (none / 0) (#77)
    by sj on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:21:23 PM EST
    You're assuming he actually groped her, which wasn't proven.
    I was talking about your groping, which hasn't happened.

    I still maintain that your "let them suffer the consequences" attitude has as much basis in reality as "let them eat cake". I could go into much more detail, and I actually started to do just that. But as a nugget, that pretty much says what I mean.

    And you assigning my thoughts to "police = bad" is just as honest as jim saying I'm a straight up "Demo". I've never said that. I've always said police are human with everything that implies. But that's typical of what you do when your biases are pointed out: assign made up biases to the "point-er out-er".

    To be clear: you're entitled to your opinions. We all are. I'm not taking exception to your opinion, to which you are welcome, and which I don't have to read. And often don't. I'm pointing out your bias, Madame Antoinette. Or would that be Robespierre?

    ::sighs happily::   sometimes I just love hyperbole. It does get the point across, doesn't it?

    Parent

    clarification: (none / 0) (#162)
    by sj on Wed May 07, 2014 at 12:10:35 AM EST
    I was talking about your groping, which hasn't happened.
    I should add: "to my knowledge"

    I know better than to assume I know the nuances of someone's life and I shouldn't have presumed here.

    Parent

    NYC's Finest (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by squeaky on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:55:48 AM EST
    Still striven to make Giuliani proud! What monsters

    Parent
    Serves her right... (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by unitron on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:15:40 PM EST
    ...assaulting the police nightsticks with her ribs like that.

    Parent
    Any more links (none / 0) (#19)
    by ragebot on Tue May 06, 2014 at 07:48:06 AM EST
    The one you provided was rather sparse.  Only arrest I remember from OWS was the pajama guy.  Anyone know what happened to him or the status of the false arrest law suits.

    Parent
    Anyone know (none / 0) (#94)
    by ragebot on Tue May 06, 2014 at 02:31:57 PM EST
    if there is a link to the video.  Seems like that may be the most important evidence admitted in the trial.  It may answer a lot of questions about why the jury convicted.

    Parent
    Here's a link (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Yman on Tue May 06, 2014 at 07:16:13 PM EST
    The video is not very clear.

    Parent
    As Slate says (none / 0) (#194)
    by ragebot on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:43:16 AM EST
    There is no doubt she hit the cop in the eye with an elbow.  What seems  to be at issue is did she hit the cop in response to being grabbed on the breast or because she was trying to escape.

    What is clear from the video is what ever happened it happened very quickly.  

    Perhaps more to the point when a LEO gives an order to leave an area and someone disobeys that order that person should expect LEO to follow up.

    The speed with which the LEO let go of the perp suggests to me it is unlikely he would leave a bruise on her.  

    I will be interested to see what happens on appeal.

    Parent

    Good news for old mice-- (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:11:41 AM EST
    and maybe, elderly humans. Two studies, one published in Nature Medicine, by scientists at Stanford University and UC-San Francisco, published in Nature Medicine and another by Harvard researchers to be released later this week in Science, found that giving blood of young mice to old ones un-did age-related impairments in the brain.  The young blood was seen to  reverse the  decline in learning and memory and boost the creation of new neurons along with the ability of the brain to change its structure.

    The researchers injected plasma from three-month old mice into eight-month olds and observed that the part of the brain (hippocampus) that plays a leading role in learning and memory is rejuvenated.  

    Stanford's Dr. Wyss Coray has co-founded a company to test the effect in humans (with the goal of memory care including alzheimer's disease.)  Wyss Coray named his firm, "Alkahest" derived from the medieval name alchemists gave to a hypothetical substance that would be an immortal liquid.  Probably a better name that, say, Count Dracula's Elixir.  Guess we will all have to be a bi more tolerant of those obnoxious teenagers at the mall.  

    So maybe ... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by sj on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:44:42 AM EST
    ... there was something after all to the wicked witch folklore. :)

    Parent
    If this is ever proven (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Zorba on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:19:57 PM EST
    to work in humans, why do I have a vision of people like Dick Cheney, the Koch brothers, Donald Sterling, and their ilk, exploiting young people to get their blood?
    Either in the Third World, or among our own young, desperate, and unemployed.
    Speaking of "wicked witches"...........

    Parent
    Wonder How Mice Do On Video Games (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:43:37 AM EST
    For Humans, and most notably the elderly, video games stimulates the growth of new neuron's and enlarges brain size, improves short term memory, and multitasking.

    Parent
    I found (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 05:25:36 PM EST
     this opinion piece interesting The Hillary difference
    he roughly one-eighth of voters who disapprove of Obama but nonetheless support Clinton for 2016 may be the most important group in the electorate. If Democratic candidates can collectively manage to corral Clinton's share of the national electorate this fall, the party would likely keep control of the Senate and might take over the House of Representatives. The latter outcome is now seen (even by most Democrats) as a virtual impossibility. These Hillary Difference Voters, as we'll call them, could find themselves the most courted contingent in this year's contests.

    Is it the revenge of the p*mas? I don't know.

    NASAs new Z 2 spacesuit (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 07:06:40 PM EST
    Here in GA (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 05, 2014 at 08:48:45 PM EST
    Georgia's Sweeping Gun Law Sparks Religous Backlash

    And it looks like the Southern Baptists might now be killing each other off in church.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 05, 2014 at 09:14:28 PM EST
    Some churches are advising members not to pack heat,

    Life has officially become a Mel Brooks movie.

    Parent

    Bishop Wright (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 05:58:04 AM EST
    is awesome. He lobbied for the Medicaid expansion and lobbied against this bill.

    He's also very brave. The gun nuts were threatening everybody. This is how the GOP has gotten so far right. They are afraid of these people. A friend of mine was down at the Gold Dome the day they passed this bill. Even people voting for it were saying it was one of the worst bills ever but I also guess they are big time cowards.

    So a lot of Georgians are going to die not only from lack of access to medical care but also from guns.

    We've already had a nut brandishing a gun at children playing in the park and the parents called the police and they said they couldn't do anything because of the new law.

    I know Kdog doesn't like Michael Bloomberg but he's really helping the people down here in GA with funding. If it wasn't for him there would be no seed money to help fight against the NRA.

    Parent

    If Bloombucks... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by kdog on Tue May 06, 2014 at 12:59:10 PM EST
    cared about income disparity and the plight of working people 10% as much as he does about guns and high fructose corn syrup, I might not dislike him so much.

    Of course, nobody is all bad, we're all a mixed bag. But I'm particularly unfond of Bloomberg's bag and his holier than thou social engineering schemes.  I think he's a crony capitalist grifter trying to buy his way out of conscience pangs.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:05:34 PM EST
    look at it this way: he's helping people fight back down here against the fundamentalist radicals. So he's actually helping us get freedom.

    But like you say, everybody is mixed bag.

    Parent

    Bloomberg... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by kdog on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:13:06 PM EST
    is a alotta things, a freedom advocate is not one of them imo.  Quite the opposite actually, a wanna-be Big Brother "benevolent" tyrant.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:16:19 PM EST
    what can I say? I guess you don't understand how bad these fundamentalist radicals are down here in GA.

    Parent
    I hear ya... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by kdog on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:27:40 PM EST
    but on the flip, you don't know what it is like to have him as a mayor either.  Opposing paid sick leave for workers, putting the "crony" in crony capitalism giving away the store to his developer buddies, stop and frisk, I could go on all day.

    But compared to your "representation", he could look like a prize.  Sad state of affairs, that is! ;)

    Parent

    Oh, I agree (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 02:11:48 PM EST
    It just tells you how bad things are in Georgia.

    Parent
    Doesn't (none / 0) (#16)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue May 06, 2014 at 07:02:58 AM EST
    no seed money pretty much mean no local support?

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 07:25:07 AM EST
    From what I have read 70% of Georgians were against this bill.

    Just because the special interests have been loading up the radicals in GA doesn't mean that their agenda is popular.

    Seed money is what got activists to get their name out there. Now they're outraising the radicals.

    Parent

    You're no more likely... (none / 0) (#126)
    by unitron on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:05:35 PM EST
    ..., I would think, to get caught in a crossfire in a church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention than in an unaffiliated one or one of a different denomination.

    Well, at least for now.

    Once the conservatives have completed their takeover of the convention and start consolidating power and begin fighting with each other over which one gets to be the equivalent of pope first, that may be subject to change.

    Parent

    In the interest of not going any further OT (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 05, 2014 at 09:27:21 PM EST
    In the correspondents dinner thread

    Researchers say Western IQs dropped 14 points over last century

    LINK

    100 years ago (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue May 06, 2014 at 07:06:51 AM EST
    people saw education as essential, and while many didn't go beyond the basics in formal education, reading opened many to a greater world.

    Many seem ok now with kids graduating high school unable to write well or do more than simple math.

    Parent

    Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by squeaky on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:46:58 AM EST
    Must have been a fascinating seance testing all those dead people.

    Parent
    I don't see how (none / 0) (#41)
    by ZtoA on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:00:25 AM EST
    measuring response time from the rods in our eyes correlates to IQ. The basic structure of our eyes and optic nerve have not changed. The optic nerve goes to the occipital lobe to the visual cortex there and that is in the back of the brain. Plus it looks like they are testing the perception from the rods in the eye. Rods see light and dark, can function in very low light, and see movement. Historically, and very generally, males rely on rods more (and color blindness is much more marked in males) and females use cones. Makes sense in an archaic way. Men were hunters -need to see light and dark and movement often in low light situations, and women had to see color to best do the gathering.

    So how they are relating that to IQ is questionable IMO. Reading skills are not IQ. Plus 100 years ago people may have valued education but many, if not most people did not get one. More of the population was agrarian and on farms only the youngest might get to go to school beyond 3rd grade.

    So I don't buy this study. But, naturally, I could be wrong. I have only the basic knowledge of how the eyes work, less about the optic nerve, and much less about the visual cortex. But I do know an interesting fact-lett about the visual cortex. Our blue cones ring the red and green ones and the signals are slightly less from the blue cones. But our brains have a "blue bias" and that explains why we see the sky as blue and not as violet.

    Parent

    Males tend to inherit color-blindness... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by unitron on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:11:34 PM EST
    ..., i.e., perceiving only two colors instead of three, from their mothers, although the mothers themselves are not color-blind, and in some cases are what's called tetrachromats, seeing four colors instead of three.

    Parent
    fascinating! (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by ZtoA on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:55:06 PM EST
    I actually have a friend who is a tetrachromat - it's really rare. I've talked to her a lot about it. She formulated a very well known high end artist's paint line and is a world class expert on paint and pigments and is in the process of putting together a completely new and brilliant color theory - not the color wheel. Seems a natural fit for her.

    I wish I could see 4 colors. She had described it but says its hard to describe. I have seen an odd color in a paint by Old Holland. Its a pthalo blue with an almost black mass tone. I see a fleeting violet in it, like a peacock's tail with a bit of elusive fire. I know the pigment and only see it in that one paint. It has the darkest mass tone (straight out of the tube color) of all the pthalos I have seen so maybe that stimulates the stray cone or two I have of the new color cone. Being able to see color in very low light would be really interesting.

    I know males that are color blind inherit from their mothers and it is a function of chromosomes they inherit. But I can't seem to find out why it attaches to the male chromosome. Do you know?

    I bet the optic nerve has lots of room for more color channels. The brain visual cortex might need a bit of tweaking. :)  

    Parent

    If you wear reading glasses (none / 0) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 09:27:35 PM EST
    Ha! love these eye exercises (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by ZtoA on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:30:56 PM EST
    I don't wear reading glasses but am quite nearsighted. That was fun to see. Geniuses. (I also like seeing color as value - takes a lot of squinting and standing back).

    When I occasionally taught I loved talking about color perception. I enjoyed talking about the cones and rods and their function to college aged kids. Cones in the middle (picture the shape of the cone) and rods surrounding it (picture the shape of the rod). Men generally accentuate the rod function (value and movement) and women the cone function (color with high light levels) and see how these might 'function' together. I'd do the hand motions. Even tho it is a horrible over generalization, and probably would not hold up in close scrutiny, it always got their attention and was a bridge into further discussion of the mechanics of vision and perception.

    I taught a workshop on BLUE with a wonderful artist friend of mine. Maybe my zeal was lost on most. I had all the oil blue paints and pigments, samples of them with tints and glazes and even had powdered pigments of historic blues - indigo and egyptian blue which is a cobalt frit. There is a book written about BLUE, which is interesting but I disagreed with a lot of it. Eye evolution has not been that drastic in the last 2000 years. I could go on and on.... better not.

    I even tried to read about and understand screen technology. Wow, talk about complicated.  

    Parent

    My spouse loves studying or conversing (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:43:54 PM EST
    On how the eye works.  I think his fascination began in flight school with some basic instructions on how their vision could fail them.  He would be transfixed by your workshop. He rewrote the flight school course on target identification and won TRADOC instructor of the year after.

    Funny thing though, I have come to better understand that women generally see more hues.  When we bought our house and began choosing our color schemes I realized that my husband has difficulty seeing the difference between warm hues and cool, shades of blue/green fuggetaboutit.  It really bothers him too when he's hanging with the girls doing colors :)

    Parent

    This is Pretty Cool About Vision (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:37:37 AM EST
    That is so cool!! (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:05:58 AM EST
    my workshop would have probably bored him (none / 0) (#163)
    by ZtoA on Wed May 07, 2014 at 12:20:11 AM EST
    as it did with most. It was mostly for painters (tho I would have loved talking with him about visual perception!). But I get your point that visual perception is a vast fileld with many applications. Target identification is a very complex visual and brain function - I would think it is part inherited and part developed skill. And he needs to defer to the females when it comes to hue differentiatons.

    Parent
    Interesting vision question from last nights (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:41:24 AM EST
    Fargo
    Why can the human eye see more shades of green than any other color?

    No googling.


    Parent

    Dogs (none / 0) (#176)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:00:28 AM EST
    Apparently dogs seem more many more shades of brown than we do. Oliver Sacks writes about a man who became like a dog for three weeks in the The Dog Beneath the Skin

    Parent
    Ok the answer is (none / 0) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:16:51 AM EST
    Paraphrasing from the show -  "Predators.  Well,  cuz we were monkeys ya know.  So we had to see more shades of green in th jungle to see th lions and tigers and the like".

    I suspect that may be why females see more than males.  Usually charged with protecting the young. Ya know.

    Parent

    :You gave the answer too soon Howdy (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by ZtoA on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:42:23 AM EST
    I would have totally gotten it! :)

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#190)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:46:54 AM EST
    It is obvious, IMO.

    Parent
    Suspect this is related (none / 0) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:58:51 AM EST
    To the answer of the question about green below.

    Parent
    I bet so (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:10:06 AM EST
    The young'uns are usually with us.  Interesting.  Do predators allow us to enjoy art more?  I suppose not because no matter our different sight perceptions it seems enjoying art is fairly universal.

    Parent
    Or above as the case may be (none / 0) (#175)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:59:49 AM EST
    There is a fascinating (none / 0) (#160)
    by sj on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:55:56 PM EST
    Radiolab podcast on color. I might listen to it again.

    Parent
    Thank your for that link! (none / 0) (#165)
    by ZtoA on Wed May 07, 2014 at 12:32:04 AM EST
    I'll listen/watch that tomorrow. I love all this stuff! Love hearing anything about it!

    Parent
    I was just reading the comments (none / 0) (#166)
    by sj on Wed May 07, 2014 at 12:44:37 AM EST
    attached to that link. Apparently they don't have a concept of "site violators" :)

    Parent
    The Ravens (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Mon May 05, 2014 at 09:53:23 PM EST
    discuss last night's Game of Thrones. Spoiler alert!

    That was funny (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 05, 2014 at 10:08:33 PM EST
    For a moment last night I was sure Lady Lysa was going to take that long first step through the round door in the floor.  Sadly she did not.  The nursing 10 year old totally creeps me our.

    Parent
    Oh, I have a feeling someone is going through (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:49:41 AM EST
    that floor soon. I hope it is the nursing 10 yr old. Or Lysafinger wrapped in a warm embrace! They should not have let Sansa see the mechanism. Those Stark girls are dangerous!

    Parent
    Harder to get a job at Walmart (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slado on Mon May 05, 2014 at 09:54:29 PM EST
    Then get into Harvard

    Not sure what this means.  Not enough jobs? Working at Walmart not so bad?

    23,000 applications (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 05, 2014 at 10:02:50 PM EST
    For 600 jobs.   I goin with A

    Parent
    A sign of desperation (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by MKS on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:23:53 AM EST
    Just because wages and benefits can be driven down, doesn't mean that is a good result.

    Wages were strongest when unions were strongest.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#147)
    by Slado on Tue May 06, 2014 at 09:50:52 PM EST
    But those days aren't coming back.

    Unions were a luxuary of a non globalized economy and the post WWII boom.  If they serve a marketable need I'm all for them but if they just add to the cost of labor those jobs will go elsewhere.

    The only way forward is growth.  2% GDP fueled solely by the pumping of the fed isn't going to cut it.

    The policies we're using now are keeping the middle class stagnant and making the rich richer.

    I can almost hear the giant vacuum cleaner outside my savings account as the worth of my money is slowly sucked away to keep Wall Street in the black.

    This presidency can't be over fast enough.  Even Clinton will do a better job then our dear leader.

    Parent

    As opposed to ... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Yman on Wed May 07, 2014 at 06:27:04 AM EST
    ... 1.1% under Bush fueled solely by tax cuts (mostly for the rich) and deficit spending?

    Guess your hearing improved in the past 5 years ...

    Parent

    One winner from inequality -- Artists (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Mon May 05, 2014 at 10:24:17 PM EST
    Does wealth inequality have its upsides? In the course of a long review of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century, George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen suggested that it does, citing "scores of artists who relied on bequests or family support to further their careers included painters such as Corot, Delacroix, Courbet, Manet, Degas, Cézanne, Monet, and Toulouse-Lautrec and writers such as Baudelaire, Flaubert, Verlaine, and Proust, among others."

    The mechanism, basically, is that art-buying is mostly done by very rich people so when very rich people get richer, the price of art gets bid up. When buying power shifts to the middle class they tend to buy more banal things like bigger houses or nicer cars.

    Matthew Yglesias

    The exception to the rule? (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:51:51 AM EST
    When buying power shifts to the middle class they tend to buy more banal things like bigger houses or nicer cars.

    How does one explain Thomas Kincaide?

    Parent

    Genius (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:57:43 AM EST
    Are you in the minority as to (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:12:08 AM EST
    fellow artists' opinion of his art (as opposed to his marketing acumen)?

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:54:56 AM EST
    I guess it depends on who you consider artists, which artists etc.

    But statistically I doubt there would ever be a majority of artists to agree on the greatness of any one of their contemporaries.


    Parent

    But this artist is now deceased. (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2014 at 05:39:48 PM EST
    Still Contemporary (none / 0) (#173)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:42:45 AM EST
    It is a genre not a state of being.

    Parent
    No artist I know would ever be (none / 0) (#119)
    by ZtoA on Tue May 06, 2014 at 06:00:46 PM EST
    caught dead talking about Kinkade in a serious way. I suggested, once, that if he played 'ironic' and made his earning power a piece of work that he would fit right in with some of the pop artists. I just got laughed at (which was rather fun). Only one dealer and I were able to have a long running conversation about him.

    I personally don't like his work that much but the phenomenon of him is so fascinating. History might well change its opinion of his work. Or if artists were brave enough they might riff off of his work and therefore off of the class wars, issues of originality (very similar to artists like Koons), and maybe most interesting the atmosphere of and dependance on irony in the 20th century.

    Parent

    It's really interesting. Koons' floral dog was in (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2014 at 06:38:31 PM EST
    the Getty in Bilboa. No sign of Kindade's work there though.

    LAT

    Parent

    I actually loved (none / 0) (#127)
    by ZtoA on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:07:50 PM EST
    topiary puppy. You never know...Kinkade's work may be in a museum with a few gun shots in it.

    Parent
    I liked the dog too (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:15:29 PM EST
    And I love the quote about Kinkades cottages looking so cozy as to look like a trap for Hansel and Gretel.
    I wouldn't hang one on the wall but I would totally live in one.

    Parent
    Joan Didion. (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:21:44 PM EST
    I read that it costs about $100,000 (none / 0) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:34:20 PM EST
    To keep Blooming Puppy blooming

    Parent
    Howdy (none / 0) (#151)
    by ZtoA on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:37:37 PM EST
    You know you could live in one. He designed whole cul-de-sacs of his designed houses/neighborhoods. All the electrical wires were buried. link

    Parent
    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:44:59 PM EST
    Definitely not those.  Particularly considering his fab base.  I probably wouldn't like the neighbors

    this I could live in

    Parent

    A Hobbit shack! (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:52:11 PM EST
    Exactly (none / 0) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:53:20 PM EST
    Seen (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:50:37 PM EST
    I'll have to show that to Josh (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:53:46 PM EST
    Tomorrow morning.  He'll be in stitches.  It will go to school on his cell phone and be the conversation of the nerd herd at lunch :)

    Parent
    OMG! (none / 0) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:51:17 PM EST
    Me too re that blooming puppy. (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:15:36 PM EST
    I can't find even one positive review of Kindade's  art as art on line, though I skipped the conservative site links.

    Parent
    Puppy at Bilbao (none / 0) (#180)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:51:09 AM EST
    One funny story I cannot dissociate from Puppy since I read about it is this:

    In a powerful example of how life doesn't imitate art, as Puppy facilitated a potentially disastrous security breach at the Guggenheim Bilbao. A few days before its inauguration in 1997, the museum was nearly bombed by three ETA Basque separatists posing as gardeners working on the sculpture. In addition to their incognito dress, the men carried flower pots like those on Puppy filled with 12 remote-controlled grenades. A firestorm and pursuit ensued, claiming the life of policeman Jose María Aguirre, though their plot was ultimately foiled. The plaza in which Puppy currently resides has been renamed in honor of Aguirre.

    link

    Parent

    Interesting. When we went, later, one of my friend (none / 0) (#198)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2014 at 12:35:11 PM EST
    shrieked w/excitement when she spotted the puppy from the parking lot. She had seen Barbara Walters' segment on the museum.

    Parent
    I don't like Kincade's work (none / 0) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:17:13 PM EST
    But how can anyone not think him an artist or an art failure when so many loved his work and invested in it?

    Parent
    Hard to imagine anything more subjective (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:20:25 PM EST
    Than "art"

    Parent
    Whenever I fail (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:32:38 PM EST
    I pray to fail just like Thomas Kinkade :)

    Parent
    If you leave the starving artist building though (none / 0) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:28:34 PM EST
    If you are financially prospering from your work particularly to the degree that Kincade did, how can other artists not consider you an artist?

    Parent
    There is an artist loved by many (none / 0) (#140)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:38:25 PM EST
    Out West, or at least she used to be, Bev Doolittle.  I didn't think she had great technique as an artist but how she used art sure sold her work.  Myself, I still think she's an artist though.

    Parent
    Bev Doolittle (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by ZtoA on Tue May 06, 2014 at 09:05:00 PM EST
    Of course she is an artist. So is Kinkade and Koons and lots of others. Assessment of the quality of work by museums etc has more to do with the cultural conversation they want to have/control. It makes the art world - which is HUGE - so fascinating. Technique has nothing much to do with that conversation (except that craft has often been seen as a deterrence in the last 60 years or so). It is much more about who likes what. And in that, who is progressive or not. The history of that is (can I use the word again?) fascinating.

    Rothko was from a time when craft was ignored. And the craft in his works was ignored. True, he painted too dry and his works are already showing that. But what he did with paint (his craft) was breathtaking.

    Parent

    I like her a lot. (none / 0) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 09:11:43 PM EST
    I liked a couple of her earlier works (none / 0) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:13:54 PM EST
    I wonder if after she became a commodity she began to rush some of her work?  I would still buy 'Two Indian Horses'.  Wish I had bought it long ago cuz it's spensive now.

    Parent
    But I also like (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 09:20:26 PM EST
    Howdy (none / 0) (#164)
    by ZtoA on Wed May 07, 2014 at 12:27:12 AM EST
    or music or tv or film or theater or writing or religion or.........etc etc etc....


    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#181)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:05:32 AM EST
    The piece was made for Documenta festival, or better put it was made for those who came to Documenta because Koons was not included in the show.

    Oh and the museum in Bilbao is the Guggenheim not the Getty

    Jeff Koons was not among the 44 American artists selected to exhibit his work in "Documenta 9," the international survey of contemporary art in Kassel, Germany, but instead of getting mad, the well-known recycler of kitsch has gotten even. One of the most talked-about works at the show's previews last month was Mr. Koons's "Puppy," a giant, irresistibly cuddly terrier made of real flowers.

    The sculpture, which is nearly 40 feet high, has nothing, or almost nothing, to do with Documenta. It's the main attraction in what was meant to be a modest summer show in Arolsen, a small town about 40 minutes by car from Kassel. Oddly enough, the show, "Made for Arolsen," was organized by Veit Loers, the director of the Museum Fridricianum in Kassel, who was keeping himself busy while Documenta took over his home museum.

    But Mr. Koons seized the day. Taking advantage of the proximity to Documenta, and a spectacular site, he parlayed his strong sense of self-promotion into a show-stealer that's not even in the show. As word spread, many Documenta visitors drove over to see the dog, which sits dramatically, if obediently, in the courtyard of a handsome Baroque palace. After a while, the ubiquitous Documenta question, "What do you think of the show?," was almost inevitably followed by "Have you seen the Koons?"

    NYT

    Parent

    Please explain to a museum- (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:24:34 PM EST
    going non-artist the qualities you admire in Kindade's work.  

    Parent
    Let me try another approach (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:48:35 PM EST
    I don't admire his work.  But I do - to a point - admire his skill as a craftsman.  I think his work, in some ways, is comperable to one of my favorite artist/illustrators Frank Frazetta.  
    The subjects obviously could not be more different but in the criticism of Kinkade I hear echos of the same stuff I used to hear from my artist classmates in college.  Art was my major and one of the reasons I dropped out was I hated the snooty dismissal of Illustrators in general and Frazetta in particular who I basically grew up idolizing.  I have said here that I don't consider the work i did professionally - for the most part - as art, but craft.  I do work privately I do consider art.  I consider many great illustrators artists.  Was FF an artist, was Maxfield Parrish.  This is from FFs obit --

    Describing Mr. Frazetta's bold, sexually charged style, the author Donald Newlove wrote in 1977, "There's no love of decay and fetidness -- his swamps and jungles are soft green, lush, aswirl and gently vivid, germinal . . . a perfect setting for the erotic."

    Mr. Frazetta was one of the first artists in paperbacks and comics to negotiate the ownership of his artwork -- a move that worked out well for him. The cover painting for a 1966 Lancer books edition of "Conan the Conqueror" sold for $1 million in a 2009 auction.

    Like I said, art is very subjective and I don't believe it's only was "critics" say it is.

    Parent

    I had a similar experience CaptHowdy (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by ZtoA on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:24:02 AM EST
    I did finish getting a BA major in art. I took the third year off and just painted, but they decided to give me credit for it anyway and some award. Senior year, as a reward, they gave me a closet to work in. It was a big closet but it locked so I could practically live there. After I thought of going to grad school and visited several but the ridged art focus plus the sexism of the day turned me off. Plus I was a hothead.

    So I began my own art eduction which included working in New Orleans as a quick sketch artist (and later in Reno too) and learned to draw from the figure and not to get precious about work and to do my best or my clients would walk away and stiff me. Then moving around the east a bit and then on to California I did illustrating and odd jobs. I knew illustrating was 'out' but so was I, so no matter. Learned a tremendous amount from illustrating. I did several commissioned copies of old masters. One was at the Gardner in Boston and I worked from a print. It taught me to look at original art's colors and the brush work very very closely and then remember it when I got back to my kitchen/studio and worked from the print. I loved looking close and have done that ever since - it opens up love of so many kinds of art.

    I moved, out of the blue, to Portland and settled down and began learning the history on NW artists and reading art theory. I set up a proper studio and transitioned from illustration to galleries. Coming in thru the back door to the art world is very politically eye opening and a great lesson in not becoming trapped in cynicism or jaded bitterness.

    I also began to read about color theory, visual perception, and the mechanics of paint (still can't do chemistry - just a bit about paints, am a little better at the physics of light and vision). Some of the colleges had me teach a class here or there, and I would tell students that when they reached into their paint box they pulled out history. Carbon black, white chalk, ochres are ancient history - been around for 100s of thousands of years. Then I would briefly go thru the history of pigments and really caught their attention with the approx 20th century development of organic pigments. These are the very bright colors used by the fauves onward. Rembrandt did not have those available to him, ...I could go on (obviously) but this comment is already way too long.  

    Parent

    Fascinating. I'd enjoy seeing your work. (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:29:50 AM EST
    OK, here's one Occulus (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by ZtoA on Wed May 07, 2014 at 01:00:46 PM EST
    54"x84"

    I don't think this will out me - I hope not.

    link


    Parent

    One of My Favorite Artists (none / 0) (#193)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:42:24 AM EST
    Was living in Portland for a time.. still has a house there and maybe some family..  He is living in LA now with his wife who is also a wonderful artist..  

    Chris Johanson.

    Parent

    Yes, heard about him (none / 0) (#195)
    by ZtoA on Wed May 07, 2014 at 12:01:39 PM EST
    His time in Portland was before my time. Rothko was also from Portland. We're a backwater from the NY and LA scene but Portland has many wonderful painters.

    Parent
    He Lived in Portland (none / 0) (#196)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 12:22:22 PM EST
    Up to three years ago..  or something like that.. He still has connection to the place...  still owns a house..

    Jo Jackson is his wife a wonderful artist as well..  

    They were long time SF artists showing with Jack Hanley, who brought the SF and environs scene to the forefront.

    Parent

    Does he show in Portland? (none / 0) (#200)
    by ZtoA on Wed May 07, 2014 at 01:02:51 PM EST
    I'll have to ask some of my friends about him. One in particular knows all the artists and has connections to LA and is extremely well versed in contemporary art. This will be fun.

    Parent
    Kinkade (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:15:56 AM EST
    Apart from the incredible distribution scheme Kinkade came up with which certainly compares with Damian Hirst's conceptual post pop play regarding art and the marketplace, he was able to express a very particular quality in his works which is consistent.

    The emptiness in his works is haunting. The works are so filled with saccharine that there is no air. This is a perfect line from Warhol, and carries on the post pop agenda of contemporary art trumping Koons and Hirst in that Kinkade skips the part where the Artworld is involved.

    It is a perverse take on what Vito Acconci and other conceptual artists were doing in the 70 in their effort to de-commodify art. Kincdade also takes a cue from Clifford Still who cut the dealers out and set up his own enterprise.

    Parent

    Excellent interpretation IMO (none / 0) (#188)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:22:13 AM EST
    Haunting emptiness and saccharin, right on!  When I think of saccharin I also think Norman Rockwell, but not necessarily empty.

    Parent
    There's no conflict (none / 0) (#62)
    by sj on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:59:40 AM EST
    ...between the purchase of a Kincaide and the purchase of "more banal things".

    Full disclosure: I have very few prints (mostly original art acquired directly from the artist) but one that I do have is a Kincaide. I like it very much. But I knew when I bought it that it was banal.

    Parent

    Lucky You (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Tue May 06, 2014 at 12:06:02 PM EST
    IMO, Kinkade is hugely under-rated in the contemporary market.

    I will not be surprised to see that change at some point in the future. He was a genius, imo, and his work is not only compelling in itself but, IMO he is a conceptual artist akin to Koons, Otterness and many other post pop conceptual artists.

    Parent

    I see it as basically a war of collectors (none / 0) (#80)
    by ZtoA on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:27:08 PM EST
    Kinkade was reviled by the art world because the rich collectors despised his collectors who were for the most part regular people. and visa-versa. Kinkade was an Ahole, right up there with Koons, but his collectors were not powerful like Eli Broad was. It was a classist proxy war.

    There are many well accepted artists who do incredibly beautiful landscapes, seascapes and skyscapes. Usually without cottages tho. I get a similar 'hit' off their work as I do Kinkade's. My daughter and I were visiting a gallery (not in Portland) and came across some of this kind of work. She said to me, in a low tone, "Looks like a Thomas Kinkade". It did. I told her I was glad she spoke softly and we winked.  

    Parent

    Yikes! (none / 0) (#161)
    by sj on Wed May 07, 2014 at 12:06:33 AM EST
    I mean Kinkade. I should at least spell his name correctly.

    My artist brother didn't care for Kinkade's subject matter but he loved the way he represented light.

    Parent

    Yes - I just don't (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Tue May 06, 2014 at 12:47:28 PM EST
    agree with the overall point that only the super-rich buy art that they enjoy. I guess the point was limited to the purchase of super-expensive art, in which case, duh!

    Parent
    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by sj on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:23:34 PM EST
    Yes - I just don't (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:47:28 AM MDT

    agree with the overall point that only the super-rich buy art that they enjoy.

    I can be exhibit A :)

    Parent
    My vice is the Thomas Mangelsen wildlife (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by ruffian on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:29:55 PM EST
    photography. If I ever buy a banal bigger house it will be to have bigger walls for some of his prints! I am limited to smaller prints now, which is good for my checking account I guess.

    Parent
    And we are (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Zorba on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:33:00 PM EST
    "Exhibit B."  ;-)
    We do buy art that we like.  We can't afford the really expensive stuff, but there are lots of works from less-well-known artists and young artists that are affordable.

    Parent
    most people buy art they like (none / 0) (#84)
    by ZtoA on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:39:35 PM EST
    Maybe some speculators just buy art they think would look good in their collections of famous names. That really is only a tiny (but wealthy) segment of art buying. Luckily!

    Parent
    Not Really (none / 0) (#178)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:34:09 AM EST
    The point is that when the rich get richer it is good for the arts, and in this case artists. And it is not just good for super expensive artists, but the whole enterprise.

    One caveat, I have noticed, which is more of a collateral effect than related to the math is that in good times (more rich people) the art tends to become less adventurous. When times are good dealers do not take risks but show and sell the most popular stuff. When times are bad dealers take risks to show crazier art because no one is buying anyway.

    Parent

    The Third Man (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:39:04 AM EST
    You know what the fellow said - in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace - and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.



    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#187)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:21:45 AM EST
    It is interesting to think about the cauldron of creativity and how it gets fired up by societal change.

    Right now, IMO Italian art is booooooring..   But if I were living in Rome or Florence, with every stoke of paint I would lay on a canvas I would be looking over my shoulder to see how hard da Vinci or Michelangelo was laughing.

    Better to have lunch with ample glasses of wine when in Italy, and enjoy the landscape...

    Parent

    The biggest $$ goes to the (none / 0) (#42)
    by ZtoA on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:03:06 AM EST
    buyers and sellers on the secondary market. Best if the artist is dead. Van Gogh should have made some collectables like Kinkade.

    Parent
    Yes True (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by squeaky on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:52:33 AM EST
    That is if you rule out the 100- 200 artists who are raking it in on a daily basis.

    And then there are the thousands of artists who are doing well who have no secondary market (auction).

    Of course statistically speaking, by far most artists remain poor as long as they pursue making art as their only source of income.

    But often live interesting creative lives. Money is not everything.

    Parent

    This is so true (none / 0) (#167)
    by ZtoA on Wed May 07, 2014 at 12:45:48 AM EST
    Of course statistically speaking, by far most artists remain poor as long as they pursue making art as their only source of income.

    and sadly so many contemporary artists never learn this or forget it.  It is one reason living in the backwaters of the contemporary art wold is so interesting. The spawning (to use a NW term cuz we love salmon) is best in the shallows and not the main stream.

    Parent

    Supreme Court (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Tue May 06, 2014 at 07:49:28 AM EST
    Tell me local government meeting... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by unitron on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:16:39 PM EST
    ...doesn't inspire you to fervent prayer.

    : - )

    Parent

    Have you ever watched it on local access? (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by jbindc on Wed May 07, 2014 at 07:33:13 AM EST
    All local government meetings do is inspire me to sleep!  :)

    Parent
    James Beard Foundation Award Winners (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:39:50 AM EST
    The winners have been announced... yum! Thinking about them makes my mouth water.

    I didn't realize you were into cannibalism... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Anne on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:07:05 AM EST
    [yes, that's snark - I hope you can take it]

    Parent
    Only in my Dreams (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by squeaky on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:57:09 AM EST
    In my waking state, I am too repressed to consider it.

    Parent
    Yikes (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:54:16 AM EST
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 346 (none / 0) (#30)
    by Dadler on Tue May 06, 2014 at 09:03:33 AM EST
    Their bottom line is drawn in blood. (link)

    v. 345
    v. 344

    Off the get my eyes examined, though I should include my head, since somehow I agreed to chaperone a bunch of middle school band kids down to Anaheim next week for a competition, a studio session with a Disney music director, a performance at the park, and of course the rest of the time doing the regular Disney thing. My wife and I are each responsible for four boys for four days. Interesting note: after they are in their rooms for lights out, we put tape on the outside of the doors to make sure no one sneaks out for some hallway or elevator or whatever kind of early teen mischief. Gonna be a pip, gonna be pip. Oy...

    Very brave. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2014 at 09:43:36 AM EST
    When I worked for Feature Animation (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:53:49 AM EST
    That Silver Pass was like a curse.  Because I HAD TO GO.  I hate Disneyland if I die without ever setting eyes on let alone setting foot in another Disney park I will die happy.

    But have fun if you can.   And thank god someone is not expecting you to take them every freakin weekend.

    Parent

    You didn't work on Mulan did you? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Dadler on Tue May 06, 2014 at 12:50:58 PM EST
    A buddy of mine was a production manager on that flick, worked at the wizard building there in Burbank. But I agree with you, Disneyland can bite me. I wrote a short story about the place, after hearing that back in the day, they had a problem with women flashing their boobs on the Splash Mountain camera, which meant kids saw the pics on the way out when they try to sell them to you.

    Parent
    I did not work on Mulan (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:23:16 PM EST
    But I did work in the "hat building" for a time.  On Treasure Planet and some other stuff.  For most of my six years I worked in the building that was converted from the famous Skunkworks building for the production of Dinosaur.  Which was 5 years.  We tried for a while to get Flower, he skunk from Bambi, on the side of the building but they wouldn't bite.
    I hate Disney.

    Parent
    In '94-'95 I worked at Disney (none / 0) (#88)
    by Dadler on Tue May 06, 2014 at 02:15:15 PM EST
    But "off campus" in an office building on Olive. I worked in a certain, how shall we say, boilerplate department, where they kept certain forms employees had to fill out to be employed there, from janitors to movie stars. I saw every celebrity's driver's license you could imagine, along with every other freak who worked there.  This was right before I "got my break" in H-wood, writing a bad episode of a worse TV show, writing a screenplay for hire that never got made, and optioning another couple of scripts that also never got made. So at the time, my head was so in the clouds that I think it was actually above them.

    That said -- and I'm serious here, but 20 years later I feel relatively safe being vague, and if not, oh well -- for most of my employment in that surprisingly tiny department, I was engaged in some shady and not so, um, Lee Gal activities for The Mouse. When I told a friend of mine about what exactly I was doing, a friend who was an HR director for a pretty big company at that point, she just gasped, knowing the MUCH bigger size of the company that I was doing this for. And she couldn't believe it.

    Good times, good times.

    Parent

    It may have been '93-'94 (none / 0) (#89)
    by Dadler on Tue May 06, 2014 at 02:17:21 PM EST
    I can't effing remember exactly. Ah youth!!

    Parent
    I started in 95 (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 02:24:59 PM EST
    In one of those buildings on Olive.  That is where we did the 6 month Dinosaur test.  Soon after the greenlight we moved into the converted Skunkworks.  
    Nothing would surprise me.
    Oh, and about splash mountain, all true.  Apparently they hired a full time boob spotter who's only job it was to police the photos and make sure nothing unseemly made it out front.  One of my Dino coworkers relatives had that job off he summer.  He kept all the rejects.  I guess he had quite a collection.

    Parent
    That's the guy my story was about (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Dadler on Tue May 06, 2014 at 02:27:42 PM EST
    The boob monitor.

    I combined it with the feral cat population they unleash in the park at night to keep rodents away, and that there is a small basketball court inside the bowels of The Matterhorn, though I fictionalized it into a full court.

    It's one of the stories in the collection I'm trying to get pub'd before real books disappear for good. If not, digital it is.

    Peace.

    Parent

    not about your friend specifically... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Dadler on Tue May 06, 2014 at 02:29:37 PM EST
    ...but a kid with that gig.

    How wonderfully odd that you knew a dude with that actual job.

    "It's a small world after all..."

    Ugh.

    Parent

    I might be able to find the guy. (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:00:00 PM EST
    I think I'm still in Facebook contact with the former coworker.
    I would like to read it.

    Parent
    And I have a file somewhere (none / 0) (#93)
    by Dadler on Tue May 06, 2014 at 02:30:31 PM EST
    Of all the stars and freaks whose licenses I saw at that gig.

    Parent
    Keep it (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:00:26 PM EST
    Who knows whe you might need it.

    Parent
    You might have mine. (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:02:52 PM EST
    I don't take good DL pictures. I am pretty sure the HR building was right across the street from the one I worked in.   Been trying to remember the name but no luck.  Maybe I will mine Facebook.

    Parent
    If your started in 95... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Dadler on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:12:31 PM EST
    ...then I wouldn't have yours. :-(

    The building I worked in was on Olive, one building west of Buena Vista

    Parent

    There is, or was, probably still is (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:36:19 PM EST
    A whole group of Disney buildings there.  They called it the Olive campus.  The one I worked in got some renoun because it was know as the place the first digital artist union was born.  Which was really just IATSE 839 taking us in the same as they did earlier with Disney animators.  But it was a pretty big deal, and a pretty big battle, at the time.

    Parent
    Hmm, to me it was called... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Dadler on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:55:18 PM EST
    ...The Building Where We, um, "Edited" Certain Legal Documents For The Rat, er, Mouse.

    Parent
    Nah, to be honest... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Dadler on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:15:09 PM EST
    ...the one line you gave me about saving all the freak pix is pretty funny. Pretty close to what I have. But my fictional guy just spanked it live a few times in the editing dungeon I put him in.

    Parent
    And growing up in SoCal... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Dadler on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:19:25 PM EST
    ...I knew a few performers in the Main Street Electrical Parade. That, from what I heard, was a big LSD fry-fest. It was all actors and dancers and libertines, and the hallucinogens did very good business.

    Parent
    And movie effects people (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:28:59 PM EST
    I knew a couple.  They used to have something called the "Gong Show" at the studio where people could pitch ideas for projects. One I remember was about misguided "Light Parade" worker who sabotaged the parade by putting out one of the lights - the idea being if one was bad none would work, like old Christmas lights. When someone told him it didn't work that way the poor guy looked so deflated.

    Parent
    My Mulan buddy did pitch thing (none / 0) (#106)
    by Dadler on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:33:01 PM EST
    No luck. He did a bunch of stuff for rides out in Florida, too. Funnier story is he worked on TITANIC at the very end, managing the re-jigger of some footage Cameron caught where the propeller is spinning the wrong way. Long enough ago that they needed time and money and a team, as opposed to one dude and twenty minutes today. But I could be nuts and remembering it all wrong, soft and clueless Luddite that I am deep down.

    Parent
    Probably true (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:49:32 PM EST
    I know several people who do high end work from home.  Only takes connections.  Which people usually develop by working in the various houses like ILM or Digital Domian.

    I have the best Gong Show story.  During Dino a good friend put together an elaborate pitch with models and artwork.  We made fun of him.  I honestly thought it was the dumbest thing I ever heard.  He thought it would be a good idea to make a movie based on Disney Theme park rides.  Can you imagine ? (snark ).   Yeah poor silly Michael thought a movie based on Pirates of the Carribean and Haunted House was a great idea.  We kidded him for months about movies based on the teacup ride.

    But here's the best part.  They turned him down.  So he eventually leaves and goes to Dreamworks and one day someone calls Michael to congratulate him on his idea being green lit.  Which he of course was clueless about.  But remember I told you about the artwork and models?  He sued them.  And won.  He is not allowed to say how much he got but he now lives in Bangkok and hasn't worked since.  He is now probably in his 40s.  I chat with him on Facebook almost every day.  
    See, there are happy endings if you keep the evidence.


    Parent

    Good for him (none / 0) (#109)
    by Dadler on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:52:17 PM EST
    I always tell people, whatever cliche of excess and deceit and absurdity you hear about Hollywood is true and worse.

    Parent
    And I sheepishly admit (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:55:11 PM EST
    I have a splash mountain photo on my fridge.

    Parent
    The idea which (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:52:26 PM EST
    They could have had for, what is the prize, 5 grand I think.
    Stupid corporate morons.  
    Did I mention I hate Disney.

    Parent
    Poor dipsh*t (none / 0) (#113)
    by Dadler on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:56:19 PM EST
    Humor and pity in the same guffaw.

    Parent
    RE: Hooey, Fri open thread 198 (none / 0) (#33)
    by Lora on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:01:34 AM EST
    See comment 198 by jimakaPPJ

    Jim,

    Your own quotes prove you wrong.

    How do you reconcile the "45% of [the] emitted carbon dioxide [that] stays in the atmosphere," i.e. the "airborne fraction," with your Wiki source of 0.0397% CO2 in the atmosphere (NOT the airborne fraction)?

    I will gladly use Wiki as well for the definition of "airborne fraction:"

    The airborne fraction is a scaling factor defined as the ratio of the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 to the CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.[1] It represents the proportion of human emitted CO2 that remains in the atmosphere. The fraction averages about 45%...

    Airborne fraction = 45%.  May not have changed much.

    Percent CO2 in the atmosphere = 0.0397%  Has changed much.

    OK?

    Trying (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:25:04 AM EST
    to convince Jim about global warming is like trying to convice Jesse Helms cigarettes cause cancer. It's doesn't matter if 99.99 percent of scientists say that cigarette smoking causes cancer, people like Jim are going to find one funded by the tobacco industry that says it is not true and cling to that one scientist for dear life.

    Parent
    Yes, that is true (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:07:52 AM EST
    and knowing that, I question why two billion words have been written (wasted) here trying to convince him otherwise.

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:16:14 AM EST
    His own cut and paste jobs the other day were undercutting what he was trying to say. It was hysterical. Not only does he not read the links you put in a post but he doesn't even read his own.

    Parent
    You may be right, however... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Lora on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:15:26 AM EST
    I feel obligated to counter clear and obvious mistakes about the subject.

    There is a lot of confusion out there about climate science, which I believe is exploited by those who wish to perpetuate the carbon-based fuel industry.

    So when you have something that sounds like CO2 levels haven't been changing, these people are going to put it out there on the right-wing sites and hope folks will misinterpret it as our friend Jim has done, IMO.

    Parent

    i'm glad (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:19:47 AM EST
    you are correcting his information but people have tried numerous times to show him the facts and he's either too afraid to look at the facts or too closed minded.

    Parent
    It all depends (none / 0) (#49)
    by Lora on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:30:08 AM EST
    ...on who you trust and believe, unfortunately.

    When your right-wing sites and sources are telling you one thing, and your left-wing frenemies are telling you the opposite, who ya gonna trust?

    That's why I really try to take the science, which, while complicated, isn't rocket science, and explain it as clearly as possible, so there can be no doubt.

    Parent

    We've actually (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:49:31 AM EST
    stuck with science with him but he doesn't recognize science. He relies on fake science. Unfortunately he does not seem to understand the difference between opinion and facts.

    Parent
    There really ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by sj on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:49:43 AM EST
    ...isn't that much confusion here about climate science. Granted, there are a few confused people, but they tend to be confused about everything. And anyway, they aren't so much confused as they are blind.

    And facts can't make some one see if they are determined to continue wearing blinderss.

    Parent

    Oh no! (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by sj on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:42:31 AM EST
    You invited him here to start this again? You realize that no amount of facts will ever change his mind and that we are likely to have the thread hijacked with the same-old/same-old "discussion".

    Just as well, I guess. I really have a lot of work to do today.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#100)
    by Lora on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:08:26 PM EST
    I didn't like my last comment on Friday's thread being called "Hooey"... couldn't let that one ride. ;-)

    Parent
    National climate change assessment today (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:12:13 AM EST
    TThe warming of Earth, with human consumption of fossil fuels as the main cause, will have severe consequences for every region of the United States, according to the Third National Climate Assessment released Tuesday morning by the Obama administration.

    LINK


    Parent

    The nation holds it's breath (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:23:52 AM EST
    As we await Less Woodcocks rebuttal

    Parent
    I still love ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:57:46 AM EST
    ... that name.

    Parent
    I can't wait to hear the name of (none / 0) (#64)
    by Anne on Tue May 06, 2014 at 12:06:59 PM EST
    Alabama safety Ha Ha Clinton-Dix in NFL play-by-play...though, to be fair, "Ha Ha" is a nickname for "Ha'Sean," but you know that's not how he's going to be referred to.

    Parent
    Ooooof! (none / 0) (#85)
    by Yman on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:52:42 PM EST
    Kinda hard to top that one.

    Parent
    Consensus (none / 0) (#148)
    by Slado on Tue May 06, 2014 at 09:54:45 PM EST
    Is for lemmings.

    Not scientists.

    Didn't the extreme cold slow GDP growth?   Or did I miss something?

    Parent

    Consensus (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Yman on Wed May 07, 2014 at 06:51:28 AM EST
    ... backed by thousands of peer-reviewed studies, OTOH ...

    BTW - The 97% number that you claim to have "shot down" is real.  I can provide you actual cites to several peer-reviewed studies and surveys, as opposed to a link to an opinion piece on a conservative blog.

    A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers.

    A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers. - "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environ. Res. Lett.

    2009 University of Chicago poll

    A 2008 survey of 2,058 climate scientists - Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2009). "A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change.

    2007 Harris Interactive survey of members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University.

    Etc., etc.

    Didn't the extreme cold slow GDP growth?   Or did I miss something?

    You might have, if you're suggesting that MMMGW/climate change isn't occurring because we had a very cold winter.

    Parent

    Conservatives (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 02:34:47 PM EST
    truly have jumped the shark on facebook. They are ranting and raving all over facebook about nonsense. They are just wacko.

    This would be why I (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:06:02 PM EST
    Invented the two page solution.  You keep the lunatics on one page and start another to which you move the people you actually (mostly) want to routinely hear from.  It works well.  
    You should try it.  I can now go on face book without feeling like I need to take a shower after.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:12:07 PM EST
    frankly I laugh at them and when they get too annyoing I hidex them where I don't see their posts in my newsfeed.

    Parent
    The problem is (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 05:07:15 PM EST
    They can still haunt and comment on yours.  

    Parent
    End The War On Drugs, (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 05:39:30 PM EST
    The report, titled "Ending the Drug Wars" and put together by the London School of Economics' IDEAS center, looks at the high costs and unintended consequences of drug prohibitions on public health and safety, national security and law enforcement.

    "The pursuit of a militarized and enforcement-led global `war on drugs' strategy has produced enormous negative outcomes and collateral damage," says the 82-page report. "These include mass incarceration in the US, highly repressive policies in Asia, vast corruption and political destabilization in Afghanistan and West Africa, immense violence in Latin America, an HIV epidemic in Russia, an acute global shortage of pain medication and the propagation of systematic human rights abuses around the world."

    LINK

    Meanwhile, back home (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 05:52:09 PM EST
    Obama's DEA Chief Refuses To Support Drug Sentencing Reforms

    WASHINGTON -- The head of the Drug Enforcement Administration is refusing to support a bill backed by the Obama administration that would lower the length of mandatory minimum sentences for federal drug crimes, putting her at odds with her boss Attorney General Eric Holder on one of the criminal justice reform initiatives he hopes to make a centerpiece of his legacy.

    During testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart about the role of mandatory minimums in drug cases. Grassley cited the opposition among some law enforcement groups to the Smarter Sentencing Act, a bipartisan bill that would reduce the length of mandatory minimum sentences for some drug crimes.

    "Having been in law enforcement as an agent for 33 years, [and] a Baltimore City police officer before that, I can tell you that for me and for the agents that work for DEA, mandatory minimums have been very important to our investigations," Leonhart said. "We depend on those as a way to ensure that the right sentences are going to the ... level of violator we are going after."

    Parent

    Yeah... (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by kdog on Tue May 06, 2014 at 06:02:45 PM EST
    narcs depend of those mandatory mins to jam pleas down people's throats and get snitches.

    What a bullshi+ artist...but less people are buying that crap everyday.

    Parent

    This is important to Holder (none / 0) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 06:36:06 PM EST
    I predict he will win this argument.

    Parent
    Too bad (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 06:24:17 PM EST
    it's not a study done in the US because all we'll hear is howls of it coming from Europe not whether it's policy worth considering or a study worth looking at.

    Parent
    Anyone see Fargo? (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:56:18 PM EST
    Interesting nod to the film.  Answering one of the nagging questions the film did not.

    I did (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:07:17 AM EST
    More info.  It was ages ago that I saw the film Fargo.  I am enjoying the series.

    Parent
    We watched Philomena last night too (none / 0) (#186)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:16:34 AM EST
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 347 (none / 0) (#197)
    by Dadler on Wed May 07, 2014 at 12:34:25 PM EST
    Re #159 Fargo (none / 0) (#201)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2014 at 06:51:18 PM EST
    Didn't think I'd remember enough of the movie to recognize what you were talking about. But that was a nice touch!

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 348 (none / 0) (#202)
    by Dadler on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:51:01 AM EST
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 349 (none / 0) (#203)
    by Dadler on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:24:05 PM EST
    Welcome to the dead open thread:

    "The nickel and dime make for a very hard time." (link)

    v. 348
    v. 347

    Peace, my silent friend. ;-)