Friday Open Thread

I have a lot of news to catch up on. Yesterday I gave a Continuing Legal Eduction lecture on the federal response to Colorado's marijuana laws. With all the new developments the past two weeks, (the new banking law and the new Spice and warehouse indictments) there was a lot to review.

I've also been following the kidnap and murder of 23 year old Yuriana Castillo-Torres, the former girlfriend or wife of "El Chino" Antrax (and mother of one of his children). El Chino is Jose Rodrigo Áriechaga Gamboa, the alleged sicario for Zambada-Garcia and Sinaloa, arrested in Amsterdam in January at the request of the U.S., which wants to extradite him to San Diego where he was indicted in December on drug charges.(More...)

She was kidnapped leaving her local gym and her body, which showed signs of torture, was found dumped the next day. The coroner first said she died by hanging, but that's been changed to she was strangled.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Uruguay Releases Guidelines for Legal Marijuana Market | DOJ Seeks Rule Change to Authorize Remote Hacking Searches >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Happy 40th... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by kdog on Fri May 09, 2014 at 02:17:58 PM EST
    to one of the greatest comedies with a social message of all time...Blazing Saddles.

    Some words from the legend Mel Brooks...

    "They can't make that movie today because everybody's so politically correct. You know, the NAACP would stop a great movie that would do such a great service to black people because of the N-word," says Brooks. "You've got to really examine these things and see what's right and what's wrong. Politically correct is absolutely wrong. Because it inhibits the freedom of thought. I'm so lucky that they weren't so strong then and that the people that let things happen on the screen weren't so powerful then. I was very lucky."

    I don't know about the NAACP (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 09, 2014 at 02:34:19 PM EST
    Stopping movies with the N-word in it.  We have Django now, which I thought was great too.  There were plenty of black actors taking that movie on too, and there were many social messages...some that the South didn't like much.  This is my favorite scene.

    KKK hood scene


    Good point... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kdog on Fri May 09, 2014 at 02:41:50 PM EST
    I don't think the NAACP specifically would object to the making of a "Blazing Saddles" today...but somebody would.  I'm in general agreement with Mel's sentiments.

    Those that are so politically correct that they object to the use of certain words in any context do their causes, and language, no favors...imo.  There is no such thing as a bad word, there is poor usage and ill intent, but no bad words.  Every word in a language is a good word.


    I am not fond of the N-word (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 09, 2014 at 02:52:41 PM EST
    But in the context of Django, well that was when it was used and how it was used and maybe we don't need to forget that and it is okay to juxtapose that image with where we are today.

    In my mind, if all the black actors who tackled this film can stand it...then let it stand.  The fights between Samuel Jackson's character and Jamie Fox's character just about threw me out of my chair...."snowball" and "horseboy"?  But slaves in the house were a step above field slaves, should we all forget that created ugliness too for the sake of having a Barbara Busheque beautiful mind?


    Artistic license,,, (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Fri May 09, 2014 at 03:09:28 PM EST
    is one of the reasons I am anti-pc....political correctness is often anti-art, making no distinctions for intent and context.

    Like Mel alluded to, it's stifling to freedom of thought if/when political correctness is so prevalent that an artist is self-censoring while their work is in progress.  

    Tarantino is an established Hollywood entity...could a first time director make Django and get it funded?  I don't know.


    If Tarantino (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ExcitableBoy on Fri May 09, 2014 at 04:54:40 PM EST
    couldn't use the N-word, he'd never be able to make another movie...

    But for the most part, "the artist" is fine. Much more acceptance in movies, music, etc. But remember the SNL sketch with Chevy Chase and Richard Pryor, where Chevy ends up using it? That would NEVER make it onto the air now.

    It's not in my vocabulary; it's an ugly word and I have no use for it, but I'm not afraid of it. I was having a discussion with a friend not long ago, and she said it should be banned forever, not said in any context. That's just ridiculous. We're adults, and adults have adult conversations, about books, movies, racism, etc. I asked her if there was another word that she would never, ever use, and she couldn't come up with one.

    I was talking to another person and he broke out the "how come blacks can say it and we can't" trope, which is MUCH more ridiculous. I just cringed, and let him know why I disagreed with him.


    how come blacks can say it and we can't" (none / 0) (#39)
    by unitron on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:29:17 PM EST
    Because you're not black.

    Next question.

    Seriously, if you're white (like me), you don't get to use the word, and that's just how it is, white people before you permanently poisoned it, and besides, why would you need to if not for a wrong purpose.

    I'm speaking, of course, about in real life, not an actor playing a part.

    But that was a great sketch, as was most anything with Pryor.


    Just making sure we're on the same page (none / 0) (#64)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 10, 2014 at 11:51:28 AM EST
    I wasn't wondering why whites can't say it, just relaying a conversation in which someone asked me why we can't. It's a stupid question for many reasons, one of which is, why would you want to argue for the right to use a racial slur in casual conversation?

    But you seem to be saying whites can't use the word in ANY context; I disagree. If I were relaying a moving speech, a movie scene, or having a serious conversation in which the term is prominent, rather than just a throw-in, I wouldn't necessarily say "n-word". That's just childish to me. As I said, adults have adult conversations.

    On a separate note, I'm wondering if it's undergone the same metamorphosis in other parts of the country as it has in mine (inner-city Massachusetts). Obviously it's gone from a slur directed toward blacks to a term of endearment between blacks. Now, I guess because of increased social mixing of the races, I see it used by minorities as a much more general term, basically referring to any friend, or any person. Asians to Native Americans. Latinos to other Latinos. Blacks to whites. There's no bigger melting pot than an outdoor basketball court, and as I drag my old butt out there, it's completely interchangeable, essentially just meaning "guy". I've been called it so many times, I barely notice it anymore. Maybe it will morph right out of existence, but it won't be anytime soon, unfortunately.

    The one caveat, as we've already discussed, is that whites must NEVER use it in casual speech. Virtually all my son's close friends are black and Latino, and it bothered me how much his friends use it. I discussed the issue with him, and told him that (and why),  though they wouldn't be bothered by it and he wouldn't mean it in a derogatory sense, as a white kid he just can't use it. End of story.


    I think so-called pc speech (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jondee on Sat May 10, 2014 at 12:08:17 PM EST
    is the least of art's problems these days.

    The more all-encompassing, deadly pc comes from marketers, focus group researchers and business and law school grads who think they know something about art.


    He made a lot of the same people (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:20:32 PM EST
    Uncomfortable with Django that he made uncomfortable with Inglourious Basterds.  I see the movies sharing a common theme though.  He took some of the world's most horrible human rights abuses and genocides and through tongue-in-cheek story telling he allowed a few to triumph, to get completely even with their torturers, to completely triumph.  Their triumphs were horrendous though because the crimes against them were equally horrendous.

    He dares us to admit that in all that make believe movie horror we left the theater feeling good for the main characters and uplifted.  The tongue-in-cheek allows us all some latitude to get to that feel good without true bloodshed.

    I think he's sort of brilliant, but I don't know that I would like him as a person.  How important is that?  It is a given that nobody is loved or liked by all.  I enjoy a lot of his work though.


    I don't get at all Tarantino's (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Sat May 10, 2014 at 12:00:13 PM EST
    fixation on the seventies; unless it's based on some childhood "more innocent time" fantasy like Speilberg seems to have about the forties..

    To me the cartoonish, over-the-top, violence thing ends up just glossing over and trivializing the actual history. Like turning it into some video game. But that's just me.


    Critical Theory (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2014 at 12:33:34 PM EST
    More than likely Tarantino is using nostalgia as a way to critique the presen.  Walter Benjamin, a Frankfurt school scholar believed that using the near past (nostalgia) in art forms is an effective way to cast doubt on the notion of progress. Once we doubt the notion of progress we can wake up to have a clear picture of the present

    His term for that moment is Jetzseit:

    Walter Benjamin uses this term in his `Theses on the Philosophy of History' to describe a notion of time that is ripe with revolutionary possibility, time that has been detached from the continuum of history. It is time at a standstill, poised, filled with energy, and ready to take what Benjamin called the `tiger's leap' into the future. It isn't naturally occurring, however, and takes the intervention of the artist or revolutionary to produce it by `blasting' it free from the ceaseless flow in which it would otherwise be trapped. Benjamin contrasts jetztzeit with the `homogeneous empty time' of the ruling class, which is history written from the perspective of the victors (as Benedict Anderson shows in his account of nation as imagined community).



    As someone living in South (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 10, 2014 at 01:19:29 PM EST
    I say absolutely.  The KKK wants to rise again, and a common slogan down here is 'heritage not hate'.  It is a slogan that I have heard from every self revealed racist in this town.  The heritage is full of human rights abuses and murder and genocide, I don't know how we just excise the hate from that.  I can't do it.

    Create a different heritage you ignorant scums, start today....and then tomorrow it is your heritage and it happens all the time, new heritage is created daily, get after it.

    I went to an art show here and they had to have rebel army dress up too.  It's so stupid.  And there was a small showing for home schooled children that I was very interested in, but gee, it is really hard to not notice that all the home schooled kids had parents dressed up as Johnny Reb.  So tiresome.  So loathsome. So unoriginal :)  And they did it at the community college here, and I'm not making this up...the friggin community college had a designated Free Speech zone.  What the hell?  What the hell is it for?  What speech do you have to take there and what speech gets to exist outside of the zone?  I have no clue.  I probably break the rules on that campus everytime I'm on it :)


    It (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2014 at 01:37:24 PM EST
    is just tiresome. They keep trying to rewrite history much like the GOP has been trying to do lately.

    Mostly I just find these people really sad. Are their lives so miserable that they have to go back 150 years to find happiness? Are they so greedy the think people should not be paid for working?

    Mostly I think their lives are pretty rotten. They are nobodies with a chip on their shoulder and they think back in the past they would have been "somebody" but the truth is they would have been a nobody back then too.


    I think you nailed it (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 10, 2014 at 01:57:16 PM EST
    They think in the past they could have been somebody, and for some reason they feel like nobodies now.  Their belief system keeps them stuck though and gloomy and unproductive even, they shun science....how will they keep up with the real world though or have marketable skills?

    Yes, but 150 years ago in 1864, ... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 10, 2014 at 04:03:58 PM EST
    ... the Confederacy had already been cleaved in two along the Mississippi River, with Texas left to twist in the wind and await its fate while Union armies turned their attention to Atlanta and Richmond, both of which would eventually fall under siege. At that point, it was merely a matter of letting both time and attrition take its full measure.

    To be sure, the Confederacy died hard, but nevertheless die it did, and in a most brutal fashion. Save for New Orleans, which had the good sense and fortune to have surrendered to Adm. David Farragut and the U.S. Navy very early in the war, the South's major cities were sacked and pillaged and pounded into rubble, wide swaths of its countryside were laid waste by Union armies, and its white citizenry was rendered destitute and prostate.

    Let's strip away the nonsensical, Gone With the Wind-infused romance that even today cloaks much of the current sesquicentennial remembrances of the American Civil War with a warm and fuzzy comfort that completely belies what actually transpired 150 years ago. It's bull$H!+.

    To put it bluntly, what in the world was so friggin' noble and brave about those Southerners who knowingly and willingly started a war they couldn't possibly win, once the North was fully roused to its full human and industrial potential and set about to methodically kick some serious rebel cracker a$$?

    At a time which dearly called for sober leadership and cautious assessment, Southerners instead chose to listen to and follow some incredibly obtuse and starry-eyed individuals who clearly spoiled for a fight, and who subsequently convinced an entire region of the country to bite off way more than its citizens could chew.

    People who obstinately continue to honor the Stars and Bars as wholly representative of a valiant endeavor that's somehow worth resurrecting, are in fact worshiping at an accursed altar of fools, charlatans and morons who openly courted disaster some seven score and fourteen years ago, and subsequently reaped it in spades.

    That's the cold and hard reality about the South's so-called "Lost Cause." And speaking for myself only, I find it both sad and pathetic how a not-insignificant number of our Southern brethren apparently continue to deny the truth, and instead prefer to live their lives with their heads shoved firmly in their own rears, marveling all that time at the view from way up yonder.



    Oh hooey (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 11, 2014 at 12:29:20 PM EST
    "..how a not-insignificant number of our Southern brethren apparently continue to deny the truth,..."

    I live here.

    What I see is a totally integrated society separated only by the same thing that separates people in HI.



    People often don't see ... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Yman on Sun May 11, 2014 at 02:37:02 PM EST
    ... what they don't want to see.

    "Is the South More Racist Than the North?"

    There's about a 10-point difference there, with Southern whites more likely to agree with the question than non-Southern whites. We see the same sort of pattern when we look at questions about interracial marriage, whether blacks should "push themselves where they're not wanted," or whether the law should support homeowners who choose not to sell their house to blacks. Southern whites are consistently more likely to choose the symbolically racist answer than non-Southern whites are.

    In a thorough review of these sorts of questions and how they vary by geography, Nicholas Valentino and David Sears (via John Sides) concluded the following:

        General Social Survey and National Election Studies data from the 1970s to the present indicate that whites residing in the old Confederacy continue to display more racial antagonism and ideological conservatism than non-Southern whites. Racial conservatism has become linked more closely to presidential voting and party identification over time in the white South, while its impact has remained constant elsewhere. This stronger association between racial antagonism and partisanship in the South compared to other regions cannot be explained by regional differences in nonracial ideology or nonracial policy preferences, or by the effects of those variables on partisanship.

    In other words, it's not just that there's more prejudice in the South; Southerners are more likely than Northerners to use that prejudice in making political decisions.

    yeah, yeah (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 11, 2014 at 07:19:17 PM EST
    A story from the west coast reprinted in Salon full of anecdotal evidence gathered by political psychologists...



    You are pathetic.


    Not just anecdotal evidence (none / 0) (#121)
    by Yman on Mon May 12, 2014 at 06:48:37 AM EST
    A survey and paper published in the American Journal of Political Science.

    I guess reading is a problem down there, too ...


    Just to be accurate/fair (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 12, 2014 at 12:14:30 PM EST
    parts of the West & Mid/West hold the same prejudices.

    Oh, sure (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Yman on Mon May 12, 2014 at 06:47:22 PM EST
    They exist everywhere.  I'm just pointing out that it's more prevalent in the South.

    What you are doing is being a jerk (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 12, 2014 at 07:02:30 PM EST
    You have no idea as to what you write of.

    Any evidence ... (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Yman on Mon May 12, 2014 at 07:18:02 PM EST
    ... to back up your claims?  because I've already posted some.

    Here's another study.

    Pretty easy to do.  Feel like giving it a shot?


    Northerners (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Sun May 11, 2014 at 09:32:09 PM EST
    The north has just as many racists, they just do not answer the questions the way the southerners do.

    The data begs to differ (none / 0) (#120)
    by Yman on Mon May 12, 2014 at 06:45:19 AM EST
    Any data to support your theory?

    Their Data Does Not Beg to Differ (none / 0) (#122)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2014 at 08:41:32 AM EST
    Their conclusion differs. The study apparently determined what people say about race, not what they think.

    Here are the questions:

    1.Work Way Up: Do you agree strongly, agree somewhat, neither agree nor disagree, disagree somewhat, or disagree strongly with the following statement: Irish, Italians, Jewish and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without special favors. (Graph shows proportion agreeing somewhat and agreeing strongly.)

    1. No Interracial Marriage: Do you think there should be laws against marriages between (Negroes/Blacks/African-Americans) and whites? (Graph shows proportion responding yes.)
    2. Blacks Shouldn't Push: (Negroes/Blacks/African-Americans) shouldn't push themselves where they're not wanted. Do you agree strongly, agree slightly, disagree slightly, or disagree strongly? (Graph shows proportion agreeing strongly and slightly.)

    3. No Open Housing Laws: Which law would you vote for? A) One law says that a homeowner can decide for himself whom to sell his house to, even if he prefers not to sell to (Negroes/Blacks/African-Americans). B) The second law says that a homeowner cannot refuse to sell to someone because of their race or color. (Graph shows proportion selecting option A.)
    Share on Facebook


    I live in the Noth, and I do not know anyone who would answer any of these questions to indicate that they were racist. Perhaps, it is a level of education, or perhaps it is political ideology. Liberals v, Conservatives.  

    Many white liberals are racist, in a covert way. Conservatives may be overt in their racism, particularly when they are amongst themselves. The questions also reflect a conservative ideology.

    For the first question, conservatives do not believe in any sort of welfare.

    The fourth question touches on government telling people what to do with their property, Conservatives do not believe government has a right to tell a homeowner what to do.

    Even if there is more racism in the South, the north is certainly not far behind in being racist, it is just way more covert.


    Ya think?!? (none / 0) (#127)
    by Yman on Mon May 12, 2014 at 06:38:48 PM EST
    Their conclusion differs. The study apparently determined what people say about race, not what they think.

    As opposed to what? .... reading their thoughts?!?

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    BTW - The peer-reviewed conclusions of experts, as opposed to your evidence-free conclusions?  Not much of a contest.

    Many white liberals are racist, in a covert way.

    Is the term "many" supposed to sound more convincing than the equally nebulous "some"?

    Conservatives may be overt in their racism, particularly when they are amongst themselves. The questions also reflect a conservative ideology.

    Or, rather than just being more overt, conservatives may actually be more racist, as reflected by their answers and their willingness to be more overt in their racism.  Guess where more conservatives live ...

    Even if there is more racism in the South, the north is certainly not far behind in being racist, it is just way more covert.

    Guess it depends on your definition of "not far behind", but that wasn't your original claim:

    The north has just as many racists, they just do not answer the questions the way the southerners do.

    Guess we've made some progress.


    Yes (none / 0) (#139)
    by squeaky on Tue May 13, 2014 at 09:26:31 AM EST
    Your posting proof that the South is more racist than the North and vigorously defending that proof, it a White Northern Liberal's wet dream.

    Just ask some Black people about Racism in the North...  I am sure that some of your best friends are black.



    The only one dreaming ... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Yman on Tue May 13, 2014 at 03:33:29 PM EST
    ... is you, when you (as always) put words in the mouths of others to try to win the argument you want to have.  I never said it was "proof".  It is evidence to support my claim - a conclusion supported by an expert.  Actually, in just the links I provided it was two studies by several experts, as opposed to ... well, ...

    your opinion ...shared by Jim.


    More (none / 0) (#123)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2014 at 09:09:34 AM EST
    But really, this "attitude test" neglects to look at actual outcomes, which is probably the better way to examine how actual (i.e. structural) racism functions. And such a study, conducted honestly, will likely show that no region in the country is anywhere close to eradicating racism, and the difference between North and South is nowhere near large enough to absolve the North of its continuing struggle with racism.

    and as the above opinion piece above points out Stop and Frisk took place in NYC, among other examples of structural racism in the north.

    And, the myth that the North was less racist historically, which of course figures in to the implied whitewashing of the study, here is something to put northern attitudes into perspective.

    Racism is alive and functioning in the most liberal sectors of the North.


    Or less (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Yman on Mon May 12, 2014 at 06:50:14 PM EST
    An opinion piece attempting to refute a point that no one was claiming.

    Racism is alive and functioning in the most liberal sectors of the North.

    Let me know when you win that argument with yourself ...


    Is it a "myth" (none / 0) (#140)
    by jondee on Tue May 13, 2014 at 11:32:43 AM EST
    that the abolitionist movement was much more robust and influential in the North than it was in the South?

    Was the South preparing to secede from itself back then?

    These things are obviously are matter of degree Squeaky, but take a few minutes and research the historical record of the locations of lynchings that were perpetrated between say, the Reconstruction period into the forties-fifties.  


    Sure (none / 0) (#141)
    by squeaky on Tue May 13, 2014 at 12:20:30 PM EST
    But getting into a pissing contest with white liberals about whether the south is more racist than the north is a bunch of nonsense.

    Particularly when the poll is flawed and the end result shows the South 10% more racist than the north...  ahahahahahah  something for White Northern Liberals to crow about... 10% less racist... hilarious, but must make yman et al feel liberated to be 10% less racist than his southern brethren.

    Racism in the entire US is virulent. Just ask any black person..

    And as regards the South, the trend today is  that many black people are leaving the north and moving back to the south..  

    Must be that the 10% is less significant for Blacks than liberal whites.  Wonder why?


    My advice is to not do it then (none / 0) (#142)
    by jondee on Tue May 13, 2014 at 02:31:37 PM EST
    So have you booked your ticket yet to God's Wrath, Alabama? they don't have any Tom Otterness's down there, but you can still find a good dogfight without too much trouble.

    That's it? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Yman on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:32:38 PM EST
    The poll is "flawed"?  (Because you don't like it).

    something for White Northern Liberals to crow about... 10% less racist... hilarious, but must make yman et al feel liberated to be 10% less racist than his southern brethren.

    Me?!?  I'm not "10% less racist" ... I'm just not racist.

    That was easy.

    Racism in the entire US is virulent. Just ask any black person..

    It is.  Doesn't really take a brain surgeon to figure that out ... and it's easy to find evidence to support that claim  But that, of course, wasn't the point I was making.  Nor was it your point, until you figured out there was nothing at all to support your claim that the North was a racist as the South.  So you (as usual) try to reframe the argument into a new one that you think you can win, while flailing about and calling people "10% less racist".

    Transparent and weak, but I guess you can only go with what you've got ...


    I do not agree (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Sun May 11, 2014 at 12:54:49 PM EST
    I know both the South and Hawaii.   They are not the same....

    I doubt that you know either (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 11, 2014 at 01:40:51 PM EST
    What I don't doubt is that you will disagree with anything I write.

    I know "Lost Cause" (none / 0) (#108)
    by MKS on Sun May 11, 2014 at 01:49:14 PM EST
    Southerners all too well.   Wistfulness about the South of old.

    Right wing, fundamentalist politics....

    That has very little in common with Hawaii.


    Hawaii at least (none / 0) (#109)
    by MKS on Sun May 11, 2014 at 01:53:09 PM EST
    has on the whole been more resistant to fundamentalist politics of the South.

    And baloney (none / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 11, 2014 at 07:13:51 PM EST
    Are there nuts? No more than any other region.

    The South is totally integrated. Schools, government, law enforcement, sports, media people, churches, store clerks, store managers, doctors, nurses, etc., etc.

    The only people not getting the word is people like you, MT and Donald who must always have an enemy to fight...someone to make wild claims about...someone to look down upon because you can't stand looking around you.

    So here's the deal. Join in the progress or keep on whining. Your choice.


    It is about race (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by MKS on Sun May 11, 2014 at 10:29:16 PM EST
    but not just about race.

    It is about all kinds of bigotry.  It is about the dislike of anyone who is different.  Gays, Latinos, atheists, Buddhists, feminists, environmentalists, etc.

    If you are not white Southern Baptist (or maybe Methodist), you are suspect in many places.

    And, if you do not believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.    


    Oh bull. (1.00 / 1) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 12, 2014 at 07:05:15 PM EST
    You are living in a world that ended 30 years ago.

    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 12, 2014 at 07:14:23 PM EST
    Last Friday, there is a "Christian Club" at Josh's Jr High, and the moms bring tons of treats for the meeting to entice more children to consider Jesus.  The non-Christian kids call it donuts for Jesus.  Anyhow, I'm trying to bring my disabled son to school and Southern Christian moms on the mission more important than all others completely block the use of the handicap parking space in order to be as close to the front door as possible in delivering the treats for the student run meeting.  My club footed twisted back son was not as important as they were, they watched me help him to the door with his backpack, knew they blocked the parking spot, and didn't really give a shit.   They are white evangelical Christians on Gods mission, they are above everyone here in their minds.

    The more these (none / 0) (#137)
    by MKS on Mon May 12, 2014 at 08:09:47 PM EST
    thumpers push religion, the more secular society becomes...

    The youth of the South is not as religious as their parents...


    Some of the parents on all sides (none / 0) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 13, 2014 at 12:05:28 AM EST
    That are willing to talk about what is going on have had some great insights.  One Christian father told me that he is very concerned about the forcing it into school thing.  He says it is causing children to hate each other, and that being a Christian is about coming to it, not being forced into it.  He says it is going to backfire on everyone when the kids get into High School too because living as a Christian with a kind loving heart is not what is being taught.  Judgement and criticism and bigotry is what is being taught, and when the kids that don't get that yet figure that out in a few years it is going to hurt a lot of people and a lot of family relationships will become strained to the limit.

    My daughter says some of her generation is really rebelling against the taught racism and they are dating and marrying and having children with who they want and really putting up a fight.


    Did you enlighten them? (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:38:41 PM EST
    (I would like to have witnessed that!)

    I thought about it (none / 0) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 14, 2014 at 02:28:05 AM EST
    But Josh is at that age where I can easily embarrass him so I didn't as he went in, walking back alone....it felt like it was going to be a waste of energy.  We had made eye contact, the moms knew I wasn't impressed and they knew why but they had given themselves a pass of sorts already.  I felt certain that if I had schooled them they were going to fall immediately into a being victimized stance.  They made one mistake, and now I was crucifying them :)

    I love documentaries (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 10, 2014 at 12:30:51 PM EST
    So I'm not short on the truth.  And the truth is that nobody carved swaztikas into the foreheads of the SS so they couldn't hide later in life, but for a brief moment in make believe I experienced the thought, and found it pleasing.

    The violence in Django was very varied.

    When Calvin Candie's sister got blown away both my husband and I laughed out loud at the same time.  There was no blood shown.  Calvin Candie's sister was in charge of lining out the  "ponies", the young black women that everyone got to ride.  So her character was horrendous, unthinkably disgusting.  Django told one of the female slaves to tell Miss Laura goodbye, the slave told her goodbye and then boom.  Django shot her and it blew her threw a doorway with her big ole hoop skirt trailing after her and no blood shown, and it was a hoot.


    Yeah.. (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by jondee on Sat May 10, 2014 at 12:39:17 PM EST
    This must be somewhat of a generational thing, as someone commented to me awhile back. I just don't resonate with Tarantino's work. I'll leave open the possibiliity that I might at some point in the future.

    Of coure, as far as horror goes, once you've seen Bunuel's close-up of the meeting of an eyeball with a straight razor, it's all downhill from there.


    And I can't do the bloody gore thing (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 10, 2014 at 12:50:28 PM EST
    I can't do the Saw stuff....ewwww.

    There has always been some blood in Tarantino's work that was a bit much for me but it was mixed in with other things so I could get beyond it.

    He did have a great time in Django with different gun shots.  He killed two people with a Derringer shot to the heart, a tiny little blackened hole, a tiny trickle of blood.  He was having a great time.


    OMG! (none / 0) (#81)
    by Zorba on Sat May 10, 2014 at 03:36:45 PM EST
    Your mention of Bunuel and the eyeball brought back to me the time that Mr. Zorba (although we were just dating at the time) saw that film back in college.
    And you are absolutely correct.  After that scene, it really is "all downhill from there."  

    Times change (none / 0) (#41)
    by Lora on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:47:41 PM EST
    Huckleberry Finn, good example.  The N word was used in the context of the time.

    Doesn't mean it is in any way acceptable now, with the possible exception of thoughtful artistic expression.

    Another great Mel Brooks comedy, Men in Tights, made several years after Blazing Saddles, does not feature the N word, and, I believe, does not feature the fa@@ot word also present in Blazing Saddles.  Substitutes more in keeping with the times were used without any loss of meaning or hilarity.


    Money For Nothing (none / 0) (#60)
    by ragebot on Sat May 10, 2014 at 10:42:48 AM EST
    was the first song played on MTV Europe.  Currently the original lyrics are banned in several countries.

    Original lyrics

    A little more background



    We were walking around the lake here (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 09, 2014 at 02:56:09 PM EST
    Last week and my husband points to a purple plant near a mailbox and asks me what it is.  I tell him that it is a type of wandering jew.  He stares at me intently for awhile and then says, "You aren't kidding?  Someone got away with calling it that?"  Wow, I had never thought about it.  It's a slur commonly used, one I was taught from the cradle.

    AMC broadcast "Blazing Saddles" ... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 09, 2014 at 04:36:01 PM EST
    ... the other night supposedly in honor of its 40th anniversary, but excised all the N-words and other supposedly offensive words like "fa&&ot" and "ch!nk" from the dialogue, which had the unintended effect of deadening the film's powerful subtext about mindless bigotry by reducing the movie itself to a series of slapstick sight gags.

    Broadcasting "Blazing Saddles" without the N-word is like showing "Last Tango in Paris" without its nudity and sex, "The Wild Bunch" without its gunfights and "Saving Private Ryan" without its opening bloodbath on Omaha Beach. Why even bother, if you're going to do that?



    Or like (none / 0) (#24)
    by Zorba on Fri May 09, 2014 at 04:42:49 PM EST
    publishing "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" with the "n" word deleted.
    Which has been done.

    "The Godfather" (none / 0) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 09, 2014 at 05:40:54 PM EST
    How hypocritical is the way that classic movie is played on TV. All the murders, slaughters, infidelities are fine. But, the way gangsters really talk, oh no.

    Could you really appreciate the movie when every time a mobster said "F-you" (and, they say it in real life, like every other word) is dubbed with, "forget-you!" Why would the writers, producers, directors, and/or actors even allow it?

    Dubbing out the words in movies like "The Godfather," or, "Goodfellas" is so offrnsive to me as an adult, I simply can't watch them. Aren't we beyond that in the year, 2014; wouldn't a disclaimer, or, scheduling suffice?


    ... "Scarface," in which AMC left intact the scene in which that guy gets cut into pieces with a chainsaw, but redubbed the F-bombs in the soundtrack so that Robert Loggia and Al Pacino are now yelling at each other "Forget you, Tony!" and "Forget you, Frank!"

    Forget us all!


    Yeah, exactly (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 10, 2014 at 03:58:07 PM EST
    All those movies are metaphors for the hypocrisy that is America today. Blood, guts, murder, and, unfathomable, sociopathic, sadistic violence is deemed ok for our kids to wallow in. But, the artistic reality of the vernacular present in those movies, words that are absolutely necessary to grasp what the author is trying to convey is considered obscene, and, verboten for our little tyke's eyes.



    They're (none / 0) (#30)
    by lentinel on Fri May 09, 2014 at 05:45:25 PM EST
    also censoring "Tom and Jerry".

    Ya know... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Fri May 09, 2014 at 02:46:45 PM EST
    marijuana prohibition is flat-lining when even Okla-f*ckin'-homa is looking to hop on board the legalization train.

    We should start a pool as to which state will be the last to grow a brain...and it better not be NY!

    Oh, if I were you (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2014 at 03:10:33 PM EST
    I would bet money on NY not being the last. Probably the last will be Alabama or Mississippi. Think states that are already dead last in most everything else out there.

    Probably right... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by kdog on Fri May 09, 2014 at 03:19:19 PM EST
    but I wouldn't bet money...we can be as backwards as any state, in our liberal elitist sort of way.  In 2012 we were # 2 in the nation in marijuana arrests per 100,000 citizens, trailing only Illinois.  Mississippi was 3rd, and Alabama was 44th.

    With you (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by lentinel on Fri May 09, 2014 at 05:39:40 PM EST

    New York has the reputation of being far out left wing liberal...
    but it ain't so.

    Upstate is conservative, and downstate has had the likes of Bloomberg for umpteen million years.

    The only hope, in my opinion, is the lure of $$$$$$ in tax money if legalization happens.

    It could happen.

    Offtrack betting and lotteries are as sordid as it gets - luring people into poverty - and the latter being the numbers racket incarnate - and yet now they are as accepted as instant coffee. Why I thought of that as an analogy is a mystery...


    The first time (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2014 at 07:51:05 PM EST
    I went to NY and saw the OTB places I was amazed. I was like wow, people don't have to actually go to the track and bet they can walk into a place in Manhattan and just bet.

    The (none / 0) (#48)
    by lentinel on Sat May 10, 2014 at 02:53:34 AM EST
    State became the bookies.

    The State became the numbers runners.

    The State became the rum-runners.

    So, they should easily become dealers.


    Except (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 10, 2014 at 04:03:33 PM EST
    when cronyism was the deciding factor in filling the management posts in New York's OTB we were treated, I believe for the first time in recorded history, to the spectacle of a gambling Monopoly going broke.

    I was (none / 0) (#99)
    by lentinel on Sun May 11, 2014 at 01:38:38 AM EST
    unaware of this.

    More people being arrested (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2014 at 03:38:48 PM EST
    I would think is likely to make more people sick of the whole thing.

    Maybe MS won't be last then but then again in MS it depends on who is arrested. If that number is mostly composed of minorities I'm sure they are fine with all the arrests.


    Same here... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Fri May 09, 2014 at 03:42:18 PM EST
    the reason sky-high marijuana arrest rates and stop and frisk are/were tolerated for so long is minorities are disproportionately the victims of these crimes.

    If arrests were evenly spread by who is actually smoking and selling the most of it (aka white folks), marijuana would have been legalized 40 years ago.


    Benghazi (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2014 at 02:55:40 PM EST
    committe has finally been exposed for it's purpose--fundraising!

    Do you think the Dems should participate? (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Fri May 09, 2014 at 03:14:39 PM EST
    I am of mixed mind...I hate to legitimize it, but as an official House committee it IS legitimate...so I hate to have people hauled before a kangaroo court with no defenders.

    On the other hand (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Fri May 09, 2014 at 03:15:57 PM EST
    if they haul Hillary in and she annihilates them, they might as well inaugurate her on the spot.

    Oh, I'm sure (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2014 at 03:42:15 PM EST
    she will be WELL prepared for anything the crackpots are going to throw at her.

    Remember how Bill Clinton annilated the person at Fox News years ago? I'm sure they're going to play their little gotcha game


    More & more (none / 0) (#15)
    by christinep on Fri May 09, 2014 at 03:33:53 PM EST
    I'm thinking that Dems cannot be absent from some form of participation in this "House Benghazi Committee."  A lousy hand has been dealt in the composition of the Committee to date ... but, deciding not to participate throws in the hand (and maybe a towel to boot.)

     While my first inclination was that we should have no part of it, experience with the set-up behavior that the Repubs are planning cautions that it is better to play this hand as best we can by being fully there with strong Dem members appointed.  The reason:  To walk away is to cede anything that might happen during the kangaroo hearing.  To keep it from running amok, the 7 Repub members need to be challenged, answered, debated every step of the way so that "points" are not just read unaddressed on each days news reports.  

    If we play this hand directly, adroitly point-for-point now, this Repub fiasco should lose the momentum they are trying to create and inflate.  Otherwise, the public could be teased into thinking that the Dems were "afraid" of responding, of being open about fact-finding, and all that.  Key to the dynamics, clearly, would be the heft and confidence of the designated Dem members.


    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2014 at 03:35:37 PM EST
    at this point it's really just a fundraiser for the GOP. Everybody knows the questions they're going to ask. Why should they raise money for the GOP? Do you  really think it's a good idea to participate on a committee led by a neoconfederate clown?

    This is a perfect example of why nobody should believe the GOP when they talk about the debt. Here they are wasting more money yet again.


    Democrats run the real risk of being broadsided, because there would be nobody there on the dais to official counter the crackpot theories and fact-free arguments that will almost surely be raised by Gowdy & Co.

    Agreed. I believe it would (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by KeysDan on Sat May 10, 2014 at 09:56:05 AM EST
    be a mistake for the Democrats not to participate in the Select Committee.  For the reasons Donald states and to avoid a "unanimous" kangaroo court report from being filed--if that proves to be the outcome.   Moreover, the Democrats, if required to do so,  should be able to take a lesson from various Republican tactics on how to hinder the majority when a minority.

    That is the risk (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Fri May 09, 2014 at 09:06:26 PM EST
    Chuck Schumer made his bones in the House dismantling the House Whitewater Committee.....That propelled him to the Senate....

    Reluctantly, I agree the Dems should participate.  Someone needs to counter the Colonel Mustard grandstander that is the chair....


    Exactly. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 10, 2014 at 12:56:28 AM EST
    Why give the GOP crazy train a free ride? The Democrats need to be there in order to get the truth into the public record. That won't happen if they boycott the hearing.

    Benghazi ALWAYS (none / 0) (#111)
    by Mikado Cat on Sun May 11, 2014 at 07:02:17 PM EST
    was about fund raising, Obama needed a good nights sleep before a fund raising event in Las Vegas the next day.

    Benghazi has three main parts.

    Incompetence and failed policy leading up to it, far below minimum standards for walls etc, no real armed defense, arming extremists.

    Failure to act while it was happening.

    Cover up and lies, plus bonus, money and weapons destabilizing the whole region, arming groups like Boko haram.


    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2014 at 07:39:48 PM EST
    Thanks for the laugh. You guys are just screaming and slinging mud.

    Any actual FACTS ... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Yman on Sun May 11, 2014 at 09:34:40 PM EST
    ... or evidence to back up these tin-foil claims?

    It would be a nice change of pace ...


    What is the point (none / 0) (#126)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon May 12, 2014 at 06:34:39 PM EST
    in trying to convince someone who doesn't believe we landed on the moon? Anything that conflicts with your view you think isn't real.

    Plenty of information as long as you don't depend on the lapdog US media, but I have no idea what you would believe regarding faults to the dear leader.

    Start with pictures of the compound walls that clearly show they fail to meet minimum standards, then move on to what Obama was doing during the attack and what his response was.

    How about this, why was ambassador Steven's in Benghazi, a known hot spot with no real guards?

    Read the Rose Garden speech from the point of view that Obama absolutely knew it was a well planned terrorist attack unrelated to any video.


    There is no point (none / 0) (#129)
    by Yman on Mon May 12, 2014 at 06:45:45 PM EST
    What is the point in trying to convince someone who doesn't believe we landed on the moon?

    ... but the point is not to convince me.  The idea would be to convince anyone that your theories are correct.  But if you tried to do that, you'd have to actually provide evidence that would be easily debunked, as it has been numerous times already, so you don't.

    Besides, I'm not the one claiming we didn't land on the moon.  Those who would promote that silly, tin-foil theory are like those (including you) who promote tin-foil Benghazi claims.  They push their claims with no links and no evidence.

    Just like you.


    Benghazi (none / 0) (#143)
    by jondee on Tue May 13, 2014 at 02:51:13 PM EST
    was almost as appalling as when Reagan let those Marines in Lebanon die.

    Or when he secretly traded wmds to the terrorist Iranians.

    At least people today don't lionize that addle-pated incompetent Reagan the way people provide cover for Obama. Conservatives know better.  


    Do you view the Bush Administatration (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by MKS on Sun May 11, 2014 at 10:24:04 PM EST
    through the same lens with regard to 9/11?  

    Are you just as hard on them with respect to a much greater tragedy?

    Are you using the same standard?


    The media (none / 0) (#125)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon May 12, 2014 at 06:21:11 PM EST
    gave Bush plenty of scrutiny, nobody needs to do their job for them.

    BTW I know its PC to refute Obama with Bush, but really Nixon is the much better comparison.


    Nixon to Bush is a much better (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2014 at 05:50:30 PM EST

    So Fox says (none / 0) (#136)
    by MKS on Mon May 12, 2014 at 08:06:52 PM EST
    I was around during Nixon.  People went to jail.  People were convicted of felonies.

    There is nothing on Obama or anyone else.

    But Fox does make up stuff.


    Well, he really knows how to sweet-talk a girl (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by ruffian on Fri May 09, 2014 at 03:20:00 PM EST
    Sterling says he made his comments to get Stiviano into bed. Makes me glad I am not young and beautiful and being courted by millionaires.

    Weirder and weirder... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kdog on Fri May 09, 2014 at 03:27:44 PM EST
    I'm a fan of the self-depracation seduction tactic...but I think the other Donald is doing it wrong;)

    And I love that he thinks (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Fri May 09, 2014 at 05:27:48 PM EST
    to paraphrase...."Hey, I'm jealous of black guys! It's a compliment!" is a defense.

    ... from 40 years ago: "I ain't no racist! I'm the first guy to say it ain't their fault they're colored!"

    The show was brilliant (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 10, 2014 at 12:09:20 PM EST
    in the way it used the prejudiced main character, the supposedly dim-witted wife (who often made the most intelligent comments on the show) and others to make powerful statements about race, women's lib, transgender issues, sexual assault, Vietnam, etc.

    Archie's character was used as a foil against the "sane" position, but he grew at times during the show. I remember as a kid watching the espisode with a drag queen who brought out the usual homophobic response from Archie. But they ended up friends, and later when he's visiting again, Bunker can't wait to see him, only to find out he was attacked and murdered on the way from the train station. Quite powerful stuff from a "comedy".


    Yes, he did grow, (none / 0) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 10, 2014 at 04:43:02 PM EST
    I remember the episode in which Archie was initially mad at Mike because he'd gotten Gloria pregnant while he was still in school, but he soon warmed to the idea of becoming a grandfather, and was later devastated to learn from Edith that Gloria had suffered a miscarriage.

    What started as abrasively buffoonish soon turned quietly elegant and moving, underscored by the episode's closing scene in which an obviously crestfallen Archie was left holding and comforting his grieving daughter. It was the brilliance of Carroll O'Connor as an actor that he could so effortlessly summon forth Archie's innate humanity at those moments when it was sorely needed.



    Colorado Springs, Moscow.... (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by ruffian on Fri May 09, 2014 at 05:28:49 PM EST
    really not so far apart not he repression scale. Been that way for a while.

    Nun raps ignorant Catholic's knuckles. Twice. (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 10, 2014 at 01:42:10 AM EST
    Seeing Sister Simone Campbell upbraid that little right-wing troll Dinesh D'Souza on the minimum wage and the true obstacles to economic innovation is a thing of beauty to behold.

    And once again I am left to wonder why on earth (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by caseyOR on Sat May 10, 2014 at 07:14:22 AM EST
    the Vatican chose to take on the nuns. Did none of those men go to Catholic school? Do they not have first hand experience with nuns?

    In my experience he nuns always win. They tend to be smarter and better-prepared than just about anyone.


    Nice (none / 0) (#51)
    by Yman on Sat May 10, 2014 at 07:38:47 AM EST
    I'm guessing she has a whole LOT of new fans ... including me.

    Dinesh D'Souza (none / 0) (#58)
    by DFLer on Sat May 10, 2014 at 10:19:52 AM EST
    I knew he was a wingnut - and so never have paid much attention to him. But I didn't realize what a complete dink he was. ("I have a nun on a very high horse" -how patronizing!)

    Haven't been around (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 10, 2014 at 10:07:20 AM EST
    Don't know if we have seen this.

    Arkansas ban on gay marriage struck down by county judge, with no stay

    The judge did not issue a stay, meaning same-sex marriages could begin as soon as county clerks next open their doors.  However, Arkansas Atty. Gen. Dustin McDaniel plans to ask for a stay and immediately appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court, which has initial jurisdiction on all county circuit appeals.

    "We respect the court's decision, but, in keeping with the attorney general's obligation to defend the state constitution, we will appeal," spokesman Aaron Sadler said. "We will request that Judge Piazza issue a stay of his ruling so as not to create confusion or uncertainty about the law while the Supreme Court considers the matter."


    The ruling of (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by KeysDan on Sat May 10, 2014 at 06:03:38 PM EST
    Judge Charles Piazza, of the Pulaski Circuit Court (Little Rock area) presents sagacious arguments distilling the issue at hand to whether the fundamental right to marry in Arkansas is being denied to an unpopular minority.  Arguments in favor of the existing ban, such as "think of the children" are rendered cats paws.

    Not only in relationship to the case before him, but also, for the appellate court he knows is sure to follow, Judge Piazza builds on recent decisions and quotes Loving v Virginia.  And, with an historical dart he reminds that "our judiciary has failed such groups in the past," citing, perhaps, the most incorrectly and egregiously decided case: Dred Scott v John Sandford.  Judge Piazza's cogently argued  opinion is followed by the straightforward it, "violates the US constitution."


    The Russians have been world class (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by jondee on Sat May 10, 2014 at 12:22:06 PM EST
    swearers for centuries. I think I heard somewhere that only the Serbs had more time-honored, recognized swear words n their language. Putin might as well try to pass a law to making it illegal for the moon to wax and wane.

    Although, (none / 0) (#82)
    by Zorba on Sat May 10, 2014 at 03:44:05 PM EST
    the worst swear words I very heard (translated by the user of them) were in Hungarian.
    And I know both Russians and Serbians, as well as our Hungarian friend.    ;-)

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 349 (none / 0) (#17)
    by Dadler on Fri May 09, 2014 at 03:37:29 PM EST
    What happens when (none / 0) (#35)
    by jtaylorr on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:19:14 PM EST
    the poor meet suburban sprawl. Great piece from Politico Magazine (never thought I'd hear myself say that...) on poverty in suburban Atlanta. Though I have one quibble with the lede: "What happens when poverty spreads to a place that wasn't built for poor people?" When the author says 'wasn't built for poor people' what she really means is 'wasn't built for people'. These are places built for cars, not people. Everyone is expected to drive everywhere. No biking, no walking. No street life anywhere. Truly inhuman places.

    Politico "journalists" would ... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 10, 2014 at 01:05:12 AM EST
    ... do well to perhaps examine the longstanding poverty in their own midst, in a very wealthy Washington, D.C.

    Perhaps, a better title (none / 0) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Sat May 10, 2014 at 10:34:21 AM EST
    would be People Meet Sprawl.   The sprawling nature of the Atlanta metro area means that housing and jobs are at ever greater distances from the city center.

    According to the US census, from 2000 to 2010, the metro area has gained over one million people, and most of this major increase come from the City of Atlanta and the suburbs of Sandy Springs and Marietta. The City of Atlanta grew during that period, only to 420,000 from 417,000.

    This sprawl leads to economic segregation and slimmer chances of rising out of poverty.  The sprawl makes it difficult to provide public transportation even if the political will was there to do so--which is apparently not the case.  While the sprawl affects all people (certainly the traffic), some workers find themselves disadvantaged  in that there may be jobs available , but they, literally,  cannot get there.


    Obama hearts (none / 0) (#37)
    by Slado on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:25:37 PM EST

    I'm confused.

    Well, no wonder! (none / 0) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 10, 2014 at 01:29:31 AM EST
    After first insisting that Donald Sterling was a Democrat, and then hearing Mitt Romney endorse efforts to raise in the minimum wage, you must be feeling very disoriented right now. Me, I don't sweat the small stuff -- and it's all small stuff, when you get right down to it.

    I was driving home from the office this afternoon during a late season monsoon, and a large Norfolk pine tree had fallen across all the eastbound lanes on the only highway from downtown to east Honolulu, about a mile from home, closing it completely. Fortunately, we're on a island, so all I had to do was turn around, drive 12 miles back to downtown, then 10 miles over the Pali Hwy. to Kailua, and then 15 miles through Waimanalo and around Makapuu Point to reach home from the opposite direction. 90 minutes later, and I still made it home before they could re-open the highway from town.

    Like I said, it's all small stuff. A couple months from now, the monsoon, Obama at Walmart, Romney on minimum wage, and Donald Sterling on race relations will all be forgotten, and no doubt people will have found something else to complain about.



    You really shouldn't be (none / 0) (#50)
    by Yman on Sat May 10, 2014 at 07:36:00 AM EST
    Giving a speech at the country's largest retailer to promote a green energy initiative does not mean he "hearts" them.



    Look... (none / 0) (#52)
    by lentinel on Sat May 10, 2014 at 08:41:42 AM EST
    Obama praised Walmart on the environment!

    Considering that they have a lousy record, that amounts to a "heart" in my book.

    "Wal-Mart is one of the nation's largest and worst employers - low wages, unreliable hours, few benefits, discrimination against women, and anti-union," said former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich in a Facebook posting.

    In a post entitled "Department of Ill-Advised Photo Opportunities," Reich also criticized Wal-Mart's environmental record and asked: "What numbskull in the White House arranged this?"

    As for the environment, Stacy Mitchell, a senior researcher at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, said in an op-ed that "Wal-Mart's wind and solar projects supply just 3 percent of its U.S. electricity -- and that's down from 4 percent two years ago."

    I'd wait to praise Walmart after they have actually done something regarding wages and the environment.

    As BTD used to say, pols will be pols - and O. is a pol.


    Did he "praise" their record ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Yman on Sat May 10, 2014 at 08:59:09 AM EST
    ... or the fact that they were adopting this new initiative?  Your quote doesn't indicate what he said.

    Never mind (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Yman on Sat May 10, 2014 at 09:11:57 AM EST
    I found an article with more details about his comments.

    Obama didn't "praise Walmart on the environment."  He was talking about this new, green program that Walmart has committed to.  He also praised this specific Walmart store for their past environmental record:

    "The commitments that we're announcing today prove that there are cost-effective ways to tackle climate change and create jobs at the same time," he said, speaking at a Walmart in California.

    "So often when we hear about how we're going to deal with this really serious issue, people say we can't afford to do it. It won't be good for the economy. It will be good for the economy long term," he said, as he stood between racks of clothing and discounted energy efficient light bulbs.

    In addition to outlining a series of executive actions intended to tackle climate change while circumventing congressional opposition, the president announced that more than 300 organizations, including companies such as Home Depot and Apple, have pledged to expand their use of solar energy...

    The White House chose the Mountain View, Calif., store as the location for today's speech because of its recent efforts to become more energy efficient, officials said.

    As the president explained, "a few years ago, you decided to put solar panels on the roof of the store. You replaced some traditional light bulbs with LEDs. ... You even put in a charging station for electric vehicles. And all told, those upgrades created dozens of construction jobs and helped this store save money on its energy bills."

    BTW - I'm no fan of Walmart, but trolling with feigned confusion (Slado) and claiming Obama "hearts" Walmart because he was promoting this new, green initiative at one of their stores (or praising this store's positive record) is silly.


    The Waltons (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2014 at 01:12:22 PM EST
    They may be stagnant in terms of their CO2 footprint, but they sure do give a lot of money to environmental causes.

    Also they are coming out with a new truck to cut fuel usage in half.

    But the biggest measure to cut the footprint would be US consumers who are less affluent, to stop trying to save money by shopping at Wal-mart, and stop buying so much junk.

    Walmart is half, and their customers are the other half of the problem,


    In some locales, particularly ... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 10, 2014 at 09:14:30 PM EST
    squeaky: "But the biggest measure to cut the footprint would be US consumers who are less affluent, to stop trying to save money by shopping at Wal-mart, and stop buying so much junk. Walmart is half, and their customers are the other half of the problem[.]"

    ... smaller rural towns, residents have little choice in places to shop for groceries and household items other than Walmart, because the locally-owned retail outlets have since been driven under.

    Further, not everyone can afford to shop for groceries at places like Mollie Stone's, which is a popular but relative high-end chain in the S.F. Bay area. Those of us who happen to live in large cities or metropolitan areas and make a pretty decent living have a bigger range of choices, and not shopping at Walmart is one of them.

    So, please don't paint people with such a broad brush, and then pass a declaratory judgment on them like that without even bothering to first determine or understand their circumstances.



    Yes (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2014 at 10:03:33 PM EST
    Irony alert... but not surprised it was lost on you.

    Wal-mart gets blamed for having a poor environmental record because all their decisions are about profit which includes keeping prices low low low...  but the shoppers have no blame because they have no other choices?

    sounds to me that buying green is a luxury that only the rich can afford. Particularly ironic when they cart the goods between county houses in their Range Rovers.

    And also sounds to me that the less affluent have no blame in your book, because?????   oh I get you are guilty, and feel sorry for those who are disadvantaged and have to shop at wal-mart.

    In any case, there is little difference between the Walton's and their clients... and those in the middle..  when it comes to saving money, most do not think past the ringing of the cash register.


    True... (none / 0) (#100)
    by lentinel on Sun May 11, 2014 at 01:40:16 AM EST
    If people were to boycott them, they might be prompted to give living wages to their employees.

    In the meantime, imo, they do not deserve to be celebrated.


    Lies, d4mn3d lies, and statistics... (none / 0) (#102)
    by unitron on Sun May 11, 2014 at 10:33:54 AM EST
     "Wal-Mart's wind and solar projects supply just 3 percent of its U.S. electricity -- and that's down from 4 percent two years ago."

    So, does that mean Wal-Mart is supplying less than previously, but that the overall amount supplied by every entity that does so has remained fixed, or that they are supplying just as much as before, if not more, but the the overall amount supplied by everyone has increased enough that Wal-Mart's percentage has gone down but not their amount?

    The size of the slice has no further implications unless you know the overall size of the pie.


    The pie (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by lentinel on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:23:09 AM EST
    Apparently, Walmart is using more energy than before. Maybe it is still using the same amount of renewable sources as before, but the percentage is down because they are using more energy, most of which is from sources that cause pollution.

    In any case, bottom line is that Walmart is polluting more, not less, than before.

    Do you disagree?


    By keeping (none / 0) (#128)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon May 12, 2014 at 06:45:14 PM EST
    salaries low, Walmart reduces the energy used by employees.

    oops sorry about that long link (none / 0) (#40)
    by ZtoA on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:29:26 PM EST
    I'll repost if you want J.

    BTW, the link you posted to (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Sat May 10, 2014 at 12:38:32 AM EST
    See a photo of one your creations requiired a login. Maybe email it to kdog. He's my intermediary!  Thanks.

    OK, sent one to Kdog (none / 0) (#63)
    by ZtoA on Sat May 10, 2014 at 11:22:49 AM EST
    Thank you. (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Sat May 10, 2014 at 12:42:00 PM EST
    thanks, please repost and I'll (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2014 at 02:34:17 AM EST
    delete the one with the long link.

    I've reposted, thanks (none / 0) (#62)
    by ZtoA on Sat May 10, 2014 at 11:22:15 AM EST
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 350 (none / 0) (#55)
    by Dadler on Sat May 10, 2014 at 09:52:35 AM EST
    "First World" indignity should come with a bullsh*t disclaimer. (link)

    v. 349
    v. 348

    Happy Saturday, peeps. Costco, and gallon cans of stewed tomatoes, is calling.

    Anyone following this? (repost) (none / 0) (#61)
    by ZtoA on Sat May 10, 2014 at 10:54:29 AM EST
    Broadcasters maintain in their Supreme Court challenge that Aereo, a two-year-old company with its engineering operations in Boston, is illegally hijacking broadcast signals to resell copyrighted content. Aereo contends it is simply providing the equivalent of an antenna-like service for individual consumers.

    this could be really interesting. My sister who is a high level money manager told me about this. she is watching it closely. She is highly successful, a 'contrarian' (whatever that means) and is very green and progressive in her outlook.


    Clement turned to an automotive analogy to differentiate Aereo

    from cloud-storage companies like Dropbox.
    "There is a fundamental difference between a service that provides new content...and a service that provides a locker," he argued. He contested that the difference is akin to that of a car dealership and a parking garage.  A dealership, in offering new cars, is more comparable to Aereo whereas services like Dropbox are more like a garage.


    It all hinges on... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by unitron on Sat May 10, 2014 at 03:54:06 PM EST
    ...what does and does not constitute "re-transmission", from both a legal and technical standpoint.

    Broadcasters get to send their signal out over the airwaves that belong to the public and the public gets to receive, for free, whatever they can pull out of the air.

    Unless they subcontract out some part of the reception.

    If you're in an area where the signal has trouble reaching you, you can put up as high an antenna mast as local ordinances, the laws of physics, the FAA, and the HOA or landlord will allow, and in addition to not yet having figured out the technical aspect of how to charge you for their signal, the broadcasters are also legally prohibited from doing so.

    But if somebody notices that the entire neighborhood is a bad reception area and installs a cable TV system, all of a sudden the broadcasters get paid for having viewers they wouldn't have otherwise, because sharing an antenna like that is considered re-transmission.

    Aereo, like cable, puts the antenna in a better location, but unlike cable, does not involve antenna sharing.

    Whether that also is "re-transmission" is the question for the courts.

    Aereo doesn't want to have to charge more in order to cover paying the broadcasters.

    Cable doesn't want to have to pay the extra, either, and they very much don't want a competitor who is not saddled with that, but if Aereo wins, that may give them an opening to try to get out from under the retransmission fees.

    However, if cable and broadcast channels get money for airing copyright content, the content providers are going to want a cut of it, and cable companies are fast becoming vertically and horizontally integrated combination content providers and content distributors, so they may not know on which side of this issue they are.

    The broadcasters, and the networks with which they are affiliated (some of whom demand kickbacks from the broadcast affiliates out of those re-transmission fees), want more money coming in however they can grab it.

    Some say that the amount of money broadcasters can get just from selling ad space has gone so far down that they can't make it on just that anymore, and that local broadcasting as we know it may go away, with the networks becoming cable channels without broadcast affiliates.

    I fear interesting times are coming, along with yet more forced obsolescence of consumer electronic equipment.


    Yes (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2014 at 01:03:40 PM EST
    Seems interesting..  each customer gets their own antenna at the company...  so instead of one big cable or antenna that the company distributes from, that have a separate antenna for each customer.

    I hope that they prevail.

    Aereo can't use some of the strategies that other cloud computing companies use to make more money. For instance, one big saver in cloud computing can be re-using identical data, or "deduplication." For instance, Dropbox uses deduplication of files to save space; in other words, if two users save the same file in their respective accounts, Dropbox just keeps one copy of the file.

    From a technical standpoint, Aereo could use that to even greater effect--but it doesn't. Instead, Aereo uses its current setup in order to make it crystal clear that everything happening on its system is done by the direction of the user. If one thousand Aereo customers record the latest episode of New Girl, Aereo keeps one thousand separate copies.



    I'm following it (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2014 at 04:10:05 PM EST
    and wrote about it here.

    Cable is facing increasing cord-cutters. With an antenna and streaming service like HuluPlus or Amazon Prime, you can watch most new tv episodes the following day for free. There's also Netflix of course.

    Aereo does nothing you can't do on your own with an antenna and a DVR, it just provides the antenna, so you can watch on a device other than your TV. The channels you get with Aereo's antenna are the same you get for free in your broadcast area.

    If consumers can make a copy of programs broadcast on free, public over-the-air channels for their own personal use, it seems to me all Aereo is doing is providing a means for people to do just that.


    Not quite (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by unitron on Sun May 11, 2014 at 10:18:46 AM EST
    "Aereo does nothing you can't do on your own with an antenna..."

    It does one thing you can't.

    Optimizes antenna placement within your broadcast coverage area.

    You are stuck with whatever reception conditions exist at your residence.

    They can locate in the best available location.


    I totally agree, J. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Zorba on Sat May 10, 2014 at 04:21:35 PM EST
    I'm just not sure that the Supreme Court will agree.
    I am also not sure that the Supremes are savvy enough about modern technology to make a fully-informed decision, but that's a discussion for another day.
    We shall see.

    Adam Liptak (NYT) (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Sat May 10, 2014 at 04:44:27 PM EST
    was in court during the recent crim. case re cellphones. He said the court was doing great until one of the attorneys referenced "the cloud."

    Well, there you are (none / 0) (#92)
    by Zorba on Sat May 10, 2014 at 05:18:17 PM EST
    I mean, for crying in a bucket, I am almost 66 years old, and I know about "the cloud."  Heck, I use iCloud.
    But I'm afraid that many judges are clueless about modern technology, or for that matter, modern science.

    So, I've been really struggling to (none / 0) (#96)
    by ZtoA on Sat May 10, 2014 at 06:40:26 PM EST
    understand all this. My knowledge of new technologies is pitiful.

    I have a question tho. If someone gets aereo and can watch TV on their smart phone, does that then eliminate the need for a computer hook up and thus any cable, or DVR device?  If one just had a smart phone would that be all that is needed to watch a TV show IRT? More cable cutting?


    This one will (none / 0) (#112)
    by Mikado Cat on Sun May 11, 2014 at 07:11:40 PM EST
    be decided by who has the biggest lobby in congress, regardless of how the courts act, plan on the vested interests to put the screws to the pols in their pockets for protection and compensation.

    Seems to me content providers will eventually work out a fee schedule and for a price streaming customers will get their programming first for pay, or later for free with maybe regionally embedded advertising.

    Advertising money being the likely key, as local advertiser are not going to pay for viewers outside their area watching their commercials.


    I hope Romney (none / 0) (#68)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 10, 2014 at 12:19:23 PM EST
    expands on his minimum wag hike beliefs. Except for the endorsement itself, all he said was the standard "party of jobs" spiel. All of the minimum wage hike discussion I hear focuses on the benefits to the people getting the hike, which are obvious. Since he's supposed to be such a great business guy, I'd like to hear more about the benefits from from the business side, and how the hike is good for the bottom line.

    Robert Hughes (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Sat May 10, 2014 at 12:30:36 PM EST
    was commissioned to write reviews of some Koons, Hirst, and Otterness exhibits and instead decided to take the easy way out.

    Btw, is Otterness still filming himself shooting dogs? I mean that was just so punk. So "transgressive". He's underscored the arbitrariness of the categories Good and Evil for all time. In the name of art..  


    Oh jeez.. (none / 0) (#103)
    by lentinel on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:14:01 AM EST
    Do you think he's winding up for yet another run?

    I was hoping I'd never have to see or hear from him again.


    Well, something's going on in the GOP (none / 0) (#89)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 10, 2014 at 04:29:00 PM EST
    I read an article that quoted Rand Paul scolding his brethren in the Voting repression nonsense. He said, basically, that that is no way to make inroads in the rapidly growing black & Hispanic voting block. He said, "why would any minority vote for you when you're doing everything possible to keep him/her from voting? (paraphrasing)

    This guy is on to something. He lectured his audience that the way to win elections is to let the people know that you take them seriously. Tell them that, regardless of some shortsighted actions taken in the past that you will look at their problems in a new light, with open eyes and hearts. And, the first, and, best way to do that is to make it easier, not harder, for them to vote.

    Like we've said many times here, "America loves to forgive." Watch this guy, "Paul."

    His problem (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2014 at 06:15:30 PM EST
    is not going to be the general public as much as the GOP. The GOP is already trying to shoot him down releasing tapes of him dinging their God Reagan. The Bushies have aimed fire at him with his foreign policy stances.

    I have always said that the GOP should nominate him not because he would win, he wouldn't, but because he changes the trajectory of the GOP away from the Bush Reagan years.


    So our (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2014 at 06:18:19 PM EST
    favorite neoconfederate Trey Gowdy wants to set up his Benghazi "investigation" with Democrats on the panel but saying they can ask no questions. ROTFLMAO. He's turning all this into a kangaroo court a lot faster than I ever imagined.

    Hillary should demand concessions from him if he wants her to show up.