Friday Open Thread

RIP Alan Colmes, who has died after a short illness. He really was a gentleman, who never needed to shout to get his views across. It was always a pleasure to appear on Hannity & Colmes back in the days when Fox at least wanted to appear to be fair and balanced.

I'll be back to blogging this weekend, in the meantime, here's a new open thread, all topics welcome.

< Trump Issues Two Immigration Implementation Orders
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    From (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 10:36:40 AM EST
    you can't make this sht up department.
    Staffers at CPAC quickly scrambled to confiscate Russian flags with the word "TRUMP" written on the front that were being waved by attendees during President Donald Trump's speech on Friday.

    CPAC (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 11:34:30 AM EST
    has been in nothing but damage control mode the entire time it seems.

    Ga...you and I are missing out on a fine (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 02:41:41 PM EST
    Business opportunity.  We could set up shop outside Trump rallies selling those flags and T-shirts. Trump that B*tch doesn't mean anything offensive enough now for the Deplorables. We can give them a hand you know, and pay a few bills to boot.

    Somebody obviously beat you to it. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 07:18:42 PM EST
    "I asked people if they wanted a Trump flag and they took it. Many Trump supporters were proudly waving their Russian Trump flag. I think it says a lot about Donald Trump's base and their education level."
    - Jason Charter, age 22, to Talking Points Memo (February 24, 2017)

    CPAC attendees got punked today, "bigly"-time. Instant classic.


    seems (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by linea on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 07:46:27 PM EST
    activist Ryan Clayton, huffingtonpost contributor, and president of americans take action passed out the trump-russia flags.

    perhaps mistaken for the Slovenian flag?
    go melania!!


    Most attendees at CPAC couldn't find their own home state on a map, never mind Slovenia. They obviously had no idea what a Russian flag looks like. I wouldn't be at all surprised if most thought that Russia still used the hammer-and-sickle USSR flag.

    Actually (none / 0) (#56)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 06:14:29 AM EST
    Most Americans couldn't find their home state state on a map

    Not this American. (none / 0) (#142)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 10:01:16 PM EST
    But yeah, generally, far too many Americans tend to be geographically illiterate.

    Damn it (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 12:15:42 AM EST
    Late to the party again

    Yeah, it's (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 04:13:33 PM EST
    kind of obvious that these people are begging you to help them part with their money. We could wear We Are Here to Fleece on our shirts and get away with it :)

    Trump: "The Era of Empty Talk is Over" (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 12:00:36 PM EST
    DHS memo (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 08:15:16 PM EST
    says Trump travel ban will not enhance security.

    Rachel Maddow has the story.

    The Trump people tried to spike the report but the AP got it anyway.

    A half hour into the Yemen raid (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 09:13:30 AM EST
    With Trump not in the situation room, this tweet hit his Twitter acct.

    "I will be interviewed by @TheBrodyFile on @CBNNews tonight at 11pm. Enjoy!"

    It was deleted 20 minutest later

    Muhammad Ali Jr. Detained (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 05:27:46 PM EST
    The son of one of the most famous Muslim Americans was detained at a Florida airport, where he confirmed that he was in fact Muslim, and then was grilled about his religion.

    Ali Jr., 44, who confirmed his Muslim faith, was detained about two hours, despite telling officials that he's Ali's son and a native-born U.S. citizen, Mancini said. It was the first time Ali Jr. and his mother have ever been asked if they're Muslim when re-entering the United States, he said.

    The United States government has no legitimate interest in what religion a person espouses.  This violation of the First Amendment is disgusting.

    They also detained and humiliated Australia's (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 06:54:06 PM EST
    most famous children's book writer at LAX for two hours about some fascinating to fascists issue.

    This has gotten serious.  Anyone with a uniform is beginning to feel empowered and protected by the new atmosphere.


    My LTE (4.80 / 5) (#54)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 02:10:46 AM EST
    ...will run next week.  I got a call from the editor.  I get a high percentage published.  This one is a slight expansion on a post I had in an open thread a few days ago.


    Americans kill 30,000 of each other every year with the Second Amendment or drunk behind the wheel..

    Yawn.  Price of liberty, etc.

    Foreign terrorists kill fewer Americans than toddlers who find loaded guns.  Or falling trees.  Or lightning.  Or kitchen accidents.  Or drownings in community pools.

    But terrorists!  Sky is falling!  We must spend billions and kill a lot of people in other countries to protect us from this non-threat.

    I am a US Army veteran, E5, Honorable Discharge, because I accepted the responsibility that some people have to take risks to ensure liberty.  But that applies to all Americans, not just the young and physically fit who serve in uniform.  Now that I am out of uniform, I do not cower in my home because of the very real threats posed by guns and drunk drivers.  I am ashamed that paranoia over lesser threats posed by foreigners drives government policy.

    Cowardice is now the new American standard.  When did the United States stop being the home of the brave?  When will Americans remember that freedom isn't free?

    False dichotomy (1.00 / 2) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 10:24:19 AM EST
    Being concerned about security doesn't make anyone a coward nor does not being concerned make you a hero worthy of lecturing us.

    Yes, we know (none / 0) (#73)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 10:47:00 AM EST
    Ignoring a major risk (30,000 deaths/annum) for political purposes, and spending billions on making a minor risk more of a major risk by killing people who had done nothing to us is the conservative way.  Every conservative political campaign revolves around fear of something.

    We spend half our GDP on fear, and none on the future.

    We understand conservative fear, Jim, and we are sorry that they find it so paralyzing.  But we're liberals here, and there is no 12-step program to help conservatives conquer their fear.  All you can do is to try living without fear for just one day.  Then try to string such days together.  

    I lost count of my fear-free days at something like 15,000.


    The threats from and in the Middle East (3.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Green26 on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 10:59:51 AM EST
    are much much greater than just the threat of attacks or killings in the US. The Middle East is an important and strategic part of the world, including for its oil. The region is unstable, especially these days. There are very important US/Western allies and friends in the Middle East. People and refugees from the Middle East and Northern Africa are destabilizing countries in Europe. ISIS, Al Qaeda and others have stated goals of destabilizing and attacking the West. Many countries in the Middle East are very concerned about ISIS, Qaeda et al and support and welcome US assistance in the region.

    It is just plain silly to even say that the US is concerned about ISIS et al only because of the possibility of terrorism in the US. It is just plain silly to say that the US is not doing anything about drunk driving and even gun use. Sure, some think there should be more done on gun use, but that doesn't mean that some things haven't already been done.


    Gun owbership is covered in the Constitution (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 11:36:41 AM EST
    and has been before the SC many times. Your quarrel is with George W, Tom J., et al.

    I lock my doors when not at home, use a home security system, have a physical once a year, follow my doctors directions when I am ill and always use seat belts.

    Not because I am afraid but because it has been shown that failure to do this leads to bad outcomes.

    Now let me show you some actual facts about the number of attacks within the US.

    Successful attacks.

    Unsuccessful attacks.

    Do you follow what is happening in Europe and around the world? Do you think the radicals will suddenly become peaceful when they get off the plane in America?

    And many manhy times I have posted Peter Arnett's 3/97 interview with bin Ladin, in which he plainly says Muslims must not be interfered with throughout the world. Nothing has changed. In fact,it has become worse.

    And I also keep up with what is going on outside the US in the time period of:

    Jan 1 26 to 2 25

    There is absolutely no doubt that the radical islamist groups have penetrated the Muslim groups coming into the US. Why we argue over what countries is a mystery to me.

    And "We understand..." Tell me, do you have a mouse in your pocket or have you become overwhelmed with your own self importance?


    And yet.. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 01:25:40 PM EST
    you want to continue to insure that someone with mayhem on their mind can accrue as many assault weapons and as much ammo as possible with as few impediments as possible..

    Why is that, Jim????

    You're the pragmatic, commonsense guy; the one who plans ahead for every eventuality.

    We've got ruthless, bloodthirsty Islamists lurking around every corner, maybe even in the trees around your house, but you still think their Second Amendment rights should come before national security.


    jondee your inability to make (1.00 / 1) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 03:12:41 PM EST
    a logical point is legend.

    But let me help you.

    IF you could easily identify those "bloodthirsty Islamist" we could, as we do felons and the mentally
    ill, keep them from getting guns.

    Of course they would then use home made bombs....


    You are still (none / 0) (#104)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 02:14:03 PM EST
    just selling fear. Stop the cowardice. Hey that could be a new bumper sticker.

    Hmmmm, let me see (none / 0) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 03:14:34 PM EST
    listing successful and unsuccessful attacks is selling fear?

    And a bumper sticker? How about...

    Stupid Is As Stupid Does.


    Hmmm, let me see (none / 0) (#139)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 07:47:25 PM EST
    writing blog posts claiming displaying the Confederate Flag has nothing to do with a subculture that encourages violence and ignorance?


    How about a bumpersticker that says what you really think: All Terrorists Are Not Created Equal.


    News to me (none / 0) (#120)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 04:45:28 PM EST
    Gun ownership is covered in the Constitution

    I was not disputing that or even arguing against it.  I accept that this danger, which does not affect the residents of any other industrial state, is part of the price of liberty.  (The Second Amendment is practically the cornerstone of conservative thinking, the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments, not so much.)

    I accept that the much less significant danger of a terrorist attack is also part of the price of liberty.  The difference between us is that you are scared by this part of that price and I am not.  It's that fear thing that conservatives love so much.

    Since 9/11, Americans have killed more than 100 times as many of each other than all the foreign terrorist attacks in our history.  We kill the equivalent number of Americans as 10 9/11s every year.  All by himself, native born terrorist Dylan Roof killed more Americans than foreign terrorists did last year, and he was far from the only white American successful terrorist.  As long as you are okay with that level of home-grown mayhem, why should we spend billions of dollars on a a far lesser threat?

    Because fear and BROWN PEOPLE.

    Killing "terror suspects" is like attacking the Hydra.  Every one you kill creates a dozen more from his immediate family, who probably would not have a terrorist thought had they not seen a family member vaporized.  The more you spend, the worse it gets.


    Again you make a totally unfounded assertion (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 08:32:35 PM EST
    I accept that the much less significant danger of a terrorist attack is also part of the price of liberty.  The difference between us is that you are scared by this part of that price and I am not.  It's that fear thing that conservatives love so much.

    Plus you write things like:

    All by himself, native born terrorist Dylan Roof killed more Americans than foreign terrorists did last year,

    Another false dichotomy.

    It ignores the fact that we are actively defending against terrorists. Yet we had Orlando and San Bernardino and Boston and on and on. What would have happened had we not defended against them?

    Did you even bother to read the link to unsuccessful attempts??

    Are you saying that we should not have a high level of defense? And if not, what would be your level of defense?

    Killing "terror suspects" is like attacking the Hydra

    Then, what is your solution? Remember this is what bin Ladin said almost 10 years ago to the day to Peter Arnett, then with CNN.

    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

    BIN LADIN: The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.


    Tell is your plan. What would you do? And how many should die before you become convinced that bin Ladin spoke for all the radical islamists??

    And remember. America is part of The Whole World.


    And...? (none / 0) (#143)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 10:04:12 PM EST
    Yet we had Orlando and San Bernardino and Boston and on and on. What would have happened had we not defended against them?

    In San Bernardino and Orlando we had terror acts carried out by American citizens who had easy access to high powered weapons.  Religious affiliation is unimportant, since we have seen plenty of nominal "Christians" commit terror acts.  The KKK considers itself a Christian organization.

    What would you do to protect American citizens from other American citizens who have access to heavy weaponry?  After all, the casualties at San Bernardino and Orlando, while tragic, are dwarfed by the OTHER 20,000 Americans killed annually by armed Americans.  But somehow these few dozen deaths are more important to you than thousands of others

    Just so we are clear, what non-terrorist purpose is served by arming untrained citizens with weapons that use military ammo in 30-round magazines?

    Want a laugh?  Call your local conservative politician and ask the staffer whether the politician supports the Second Amendment right of citizens to remove corrupt politicians by force of arms.


    Nope (none / 0) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 10:10:25 PM EST
    You are the one saying that we can't be killing terrorists.

    So YOU tell us what you would do.

    This is not about gun control. It is about radical islamist terrorist control.

    So let us read your grand plan for protecting American citizens.


    Why help them? (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 02:54:59 AM EST
    It is about radical islamist terrorist control.

    Terror only works on people who are afraid.  It doesn't work on me.  I am not afraid of terrorists, because they are only one of the many ways that I might die.  The chances are a lot better that if I am killed the culprit will be an American citizen born and bred.

    Do you see what I did there?  I controlled Islamic terror by not fearing it!

    If you are afraid of foreign terrorists, I can't help you, because I didn't get any of that personal quality and I don't understand how it must feel.  Public policy and expenditures should not revolve around your own personal fears, which I and most other Americans do not share.

    I don't think it is good policy for the United States to be applying the death penalty to suspects, without a trial, in territory we don't own.  Doing so does not "end" anything, it amplifies it.  


    But if there were no radical islamists here (none / 0) (#165)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 07:52:36 AM EST
    then the chances of you being killed by one becomes zero.

    Look, you aren't controlling anything. You are claiming to ignore the fact that radical islamists exist, that they are here and have attacked here and have killed here and will do so again. This is an undeniable fact. I gave you two lists for within the US and a Jan 17 list for the world.

    Acknowledging those facts makes no one brave or fearful. It makes them informed.

    And claiming that acknowledging that makes anyone fearful makes zero sense. It may in some. It may not in others. And how they react has nothing to do with acknowledgement.

    I think what you are really saying is that you control your fear and do not let it control your actions. Okay. So do I. But the question remains.

    What would be your plan/strategy to keep radical islamists from killing people in the US?


    Continue what Obama was (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 10:10:34 AM EST

    You mean birthing another (1.00 / 2) (#189)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 12:43:11 PM EST
    terrorist group?

    Drawing red lines?

    Increasing the number of Muslims refugees let into the country who haven't been properly vetted?

    Doesn't sound very successful to me.


    Most fairy tales usually don't (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 12:57:00 PM EST
    Talk radio and Fox News will rot your brain.  Spewing their garbage here in a fact/reality-based community is only good for a laugh.

    Helping human beings sounds (none / 0) (#195)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 01:14:47 PM EST
    like a good idea.

    Of course, you and Pamela don't consider Muslims real human beings. We all know that.

    As far as what the "inadequate vetting" entails, you actually don't have the faintest clue about what the details of the vetting process are.

    You're just blathering talk radio-style. Purusual.


    You've got your own nutbag blog (none / 0) (#145)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 10:46:55 PM EST
    to define what "this is about".

    You don't get to define the limits of the discussion here.

    The rest of us are talking about preventing acts of violence and mayhem, no matter WHO is perpetrating them.

    If you want to talk all-Islamists-all-the-time, you can always go post at the Skank of Liberty, Pamela Geller's site.


    Okay (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 07:12:46 AM EST
    "Who" includes radical islamist terrorists.

    What is your plan to prevent them.


    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 12:01:43 PM EST
    What is your plan for preventing far-right white supremacists and anti-government Tim McVeigh-types from perpetrating acts of terrorism?

    Besides inviting them to Teabagger events and "draw Muhammad" contests where they'll immersed in a warm, nurturing environment?


    For the 50th Time (none / 0) (#168)
    by RickyJim on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 09:27:27 AM EST
    If we don't mess with them over there, they won't bother us over here.  I have posted links recently to what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had to say about their motivations and it wasn't because the US is full of infidels.   ISIS represents only a small portion of those who might attack the US.  And the US, unlike some European countries, doesn't have slums full of Muslims.  

    Tell that to the French! (none / 0) (#187)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 12:40:18 PM EST
    And Germans and Dutch and Swedes and Brits...

    And I guess I must again post what bin Ladin said in 3/97 to Peter Arnett of CNN.

    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

    BIN LADIN: The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.


    And Islam, like Christianity, calls for its adherents to go forth and convert throughout the world.

    As for economics, all of the attacks to date have came from middle class Muslims and are based on Sharia Law  


    Bin Ladin Says it Too (none / 0) (#193)
    by RickyJim on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 01:03:30 PM EST
    Do you read what you post?  Despite what he said on the campaign trail, Trump seems to be just as inclined to take "aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world" just as much as his predecessors. If he just restricted himself to restricting the Muslim presence in the US, his Islamic policies wouldn't bother me as much.  By the way, are you all for a war with Iran?

    Kudos, kudos, kudos (none / 0) (#59)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 07:51:26 AM EST
    to you sir. Great letter. I especially love the last paragraph. It is a question I have been asking every day. Why are so many people so afraid of the "other" or brown people or the rest of the world? I am like you, I refuse to cower in home in fear of anyone. That includes the current US government.

    These are people who think patriotism is flying a flag in front of the house everyday. Real patriots do not cower in fear.


    Our old friend John Prine (none / 0) (#92)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    still nails it..

    Your flag decal won't get you into Heavan anymore..it's already overfilled from your dirty little wars..

    Patriots aren't people cowering behind triple-locked doors with a shotgun propped in the corner, feverishly waiting for Rush to come on at 1 o'clock.


    A few thoughts (none / 0) (#1)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 09:24:12 AM EST
    on the Laurel and Hardy comedy hour at CPAC yesterday (my bold through out)
    First the appropriately named Schlapp gives the invocation,
    You know, I know you all know this, but the last time a president came to CPAC in his first year, it was Ronald Reagan.
    (APPLAUSE) Saint Ronald in 1981

    Bannon makes a funny  

    I happen to believe, and I think many others do, he's probably the great public speaker in those large arenas since William Jennings Bryan.

    Then lays out his true agenda,
    Just like they were dead wrong on the chaos of the campaign and just like they were dead wrong in the chaos of the transition, they are absolutely dead wrong about what's going on today  
    The greatest Chaos ever!

    Bannon seemed (none / 0) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 11:37:36 AM EST
    to misrepresent Jacques Derrida's "deconstruction" as a way of criticizing.  Bannon's "deconstruction of the administrative state," is to blow it all up so as to create bias, flaws and inconsistencies. Whereas, Derrida works to render justice through deconstruction that takes apart so as to expose bias, flaws and inconsistencies.  But, that  ersatz Laurel and Hardy act did take on a cringe-worthy, but revelatory, power play to be admired by even Euro philosophers.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 11:50:48 AM EST
    Priebus does a better Peewee Herman than Stan Laurel, but that's just my opinion.

    Bannon seems (none / 0) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 12:25:44 PM EST
    to see a lot of Mussolini in Priebus, although I do not get the resemblance.  Interview, last Bannon response Bannon complimenting Priebus on his beautiful administrative skills:  " toughest job...to make it run every day, and make the trains... "

    For my money... (none / 0) (#18)
    by desertswine on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 01:57:32 PM EST
    these guys are Nazis.

    Maybe a new name (none / 0) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 04:15:48 PM EST
    is needed, but Trump does take after the most vulnerable (refugees, immigrants, trans people). And, his full court press on the press to delegitimatize, confuse (fake news and news); rely on what he says,  undermine the judiciary (so called judges), scapegoats, divisive, a Congress that is his very own chamber of deputies. And, his attempts to marry business and government. Governing on his 39 percent approval core. I will stick, for now, with Il Duce light.

    Yeah, instead of blackshirts, (none / 0) (#26)
    by desertswine on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 04:40:34 PM EST
    he's got Redcaps.

    You are right. For a guy with a bunch of (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 12:24:34 PM EST
    fancy degrees, it is surprising that Bannon would so blatantly confuse "deconstruction" with "destruction," which is what he seemingly meant.

    Some (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 01:10:03 PM EST
    (Updated) lyrics from Bannon's playlist:
    And you tell me over and over and over again my friend
    You don't believe were on the eve of deconstruction


    But when you talk about deconstruction
    Don't you know that you can count me in

    and one of my all time faves

    And the riot squad they're restless, they need somewhere to go
    As Lady and I look out tonight, from Deconstruction Row

    As has been said before around here (none / 0) (#16)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 01:21:38 PM EST
    more than once, I wish I could give that comment a rating of 10!

    and (none / 0) (#17)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 01:27:13 PM EST
    we shouldn't forget his favorite album,
    "Appetite for Deconstruction"

    I think that ... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 03:48:34 PM EST
    ... "Eva Destruction" would be a fabulous name for Bannon's alter ego / drag persona.

    You guys are pathetically literal (none / 0) (#27)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 04:41:45 PM EST
    Bannon's a professional crap artist.  Internet text is a tool, not an absolute.  There are no blue pencils on the internet.  He does what he wants with the words.  Whatever makes it flow.  Whatever draws readers.  Whatever wins for him.  That's all he gives a damn about.  His use of deconstruction, which I have used myself in precisely the same way, is a smirking nod to others forced to suffer through readings of  Derrida's polysyllabic dreck and the same droning self-impressed tedious lecturers.  

    Nobody outside of academia gives a rip about Derrida and his celebrated cleverness.  On the internet, there is no erudition.  There is only content, clicks, Adwords, and transience.  If Derrida was the subject of your purloined translation/paper, Peter, I feel for you.

    Bannon uses language as a weapon.  Y'all tut tutters have been caught way behind the front lines created by the Bannon wehrmacht.  I'll go further; you're buried behind his front lines.

    For years I've been told by people here and elsewhere that Breitbart wasn't worth the waste of time reading, that it was rubbish, that no one with a brain wasted their time on it.  What is ironic is that I took you guys at your word.  I didn't read anything in Breitbart.

    Breitbart was so despised that the mere presence of an article in Breitbart was accepted as sufficient for a blanket dismissal of the article, its author, and every element of the article.

    As a result, I know almost nothing about Breitbart.  I don't know its history.  I don't know the writers.  I don't have a hint of its agenda.  

    Oh, I've been told what to believe.  But believing in Devils had gotten me no further than believing in Angels.

    Nothing we're doing is working.  Nothing.


    No, no, Mr. N, not Derrida, thank G*d (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 10:12:21 PM EST
    You are right (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 05:26:37 PM EST
    Nothing we're doing is working.  Nothing.

    I've got news for you, Billy Bob (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 06:19:48 PM EST
    hoping and wishing and praying we could go back to 1962 isn't going to work either.

    But you haven't tried this!! (none / 0) (#45)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 09:34:38 PM EST

    Starting at midnight on Friday, witches around the country are calling for a mass spell to be cast on Donald Trump every night of a waning crescent moon until he's driven from office.

    There is still time


    True, and "Desonstruction" (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 10:13:02 AM EST
    sounds really fancy, and better than "destruction," which although accurate is too revealing and threatening.

    "We lost Flynn's trust" (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 10:43:39 AM EST
    like accidentally mislaying your car keys, sounds so much better than "we couldn't trust Flynn."

    "Deconstruct" sounds, cool-headed, methodical, and rational..


    I agree Fox was better when Colmes (none / 0) (#2)
    by McBain on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 09:55:31 AM EST
    was a regular

    Colmes was a stooge (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 12:08:41 PM EST
    ...In the classic vaudeville sense.  

    A "stooge" was a character who was abused for the entertainment of the crowd.  The "Three Stooges" got their start in vaudeville as the foils for comic beatings from a "straight man" named Ted Healy   They ditched the straight man and took the concept to film.

    By providing an unresisting "liberal" who allowed himself to be verbally slapped around, FOX got to claim they represented a spectrum of political thought.

    In my opinion, what they provided was more like a speculum.

    Colmes was not a liberal. A liberal fights for morality and logic, and does not allow himself to be bullied by fools. IOW, Paul Krugman is a liberal, Colmes was a guy who played one on TV. Yuuuge difference.

    My condolences to his family.


    When I Used to Watch Fox (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by RickyJim on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    I noticed that when O'Reilly, Hannity etc, would have a left wing guest to balance one of their viewpoints, the guest was often pretty goofy and not capable of making the best case.  I assumed this was intentional.  

    ... Hollywood stars to take dead aim at Nazi Germany in their work, two years prior to U.S. entry in the Second World War. Their Columbia Pictures two-reel short film "You Nazty Spy!" overtly satirized the Third Reich, and came at a time when Hollywood's largest moviemakers -- MGM, Warner Bros., 20th Century Fox -- were cravenly catering to the demands of Nazi censors in order to have their movies released in Germany, which at the time was a huge and steady commercial market for American movies. So, it was something of a risky career move on their part.

    But Moe Howard, his brother Jerome "Curly" Howard and partner Larry Fine were all Ashkanazi Jews. And Moe in particular had been incensed at the decision by Warner Bros. Studios to remove any and all references to the Jewish ancestry of French Army Captain Alfred Dreyfus in the 1937 Oscar-winning biopic "The Life of Emile Zola," which was accomplished at the demand of Nazi "cultural agents" who'd been assigned by Berlin to review Hollywood's work product.

    And so, The Stooges prevailed upon the management at much smaller Columbia Pictures to allow them to lampoon Adolf Hitler's regime as a means to call public attention in the United States to the looming Nazi threat. In crafting the script, screenwriters Felix Adler and Clyde Bruckmam ensured that numerous explicit Jewish references were included; at one point, Moe as Chancellor Hailstone is haranguing the masses with language that contains a rather crude Yiddish obscenity.

    Further, the open political disdain shown Hitler, Reichsmarshall Hermann Goering (Curly as Field Marshal Gallstone) and Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels (Larry as Minister Pebbles) in "You Nazty Spy!" ran completely counter to the Hays Code, which generally prohibited many types of political messaging in films and further required that the history and prominent people of other countries be portrayed "fairly." Moe later admitted in an interview that he was confident at the time that they'd get away with it, because Hays Code censors tended to ignore two-reel short films.

    "You Nazty Spy!" was filmed over five straight days in December 1939, and hit the theatres the following month, nine months before the premiere of Charlie Chaplin's critically acclaimed "The Great Dictator." Although Chaplin's film had actually started production two months before The Three Stooges filmed their short, he later credited the prevailing popularity of "You Nazty Spy!" with ensuring that his own anti-Nazi film would enjoy a similar widespread release in U.S. theatres, in large part because Moe, Larry and Curly had successfully outflanked and undermined the Hays Code's political prohibitions.



    Now the Left is eating its own. (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 09:01:31 AM EST
    When it comes to (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 09:29:38 AM EST
    cannibalism, you ain't seen nothing yet Issa: Trump-Russia probe requires a special prosecutor ain't seen nothing yet , when you've lost Issa.........

    Visions of rats and sinking ships, comes to mind.


    Rats and sinking ships (none / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 12:52:31 PM EST
    and bold, tough-talking conservatives rushing the lifeboats in drag while elbowing women and children out of the way.

    Judge will allow one additional accuser to (none / 0) (#3)
    by McBain on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 10:32:42 AM EST
    testify against Bill Cosby in upcoming case.
    Prosecutors in suburban Philadelphia had asked the judge to let 13 other women testify, a list they developed after reviewing claims by nearly 50 of the accusers who have come forward in recent years. The defense objected to their testimony, saying the string of old "casting couch" claims are not unique to Cosby and therefore not part of "signature" behavior...

    ...The one witness who can testify says she was assaulted by Cosby in 1996 in Los Angeles.

    Judge O'Neill is working hard, it seems (none / 0) (#12)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 12:26:27 PM EST
    to me, to ensure a fair trial for Cosby, despite strong pressure from both the prosecution and the defense to sabotage that effort.

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 04:04:40 PM EST
    The only apparent purpose for allowing 13 of Bill Cosby's documented accusers to testify would be to overtly prejudice the jury against the defendant with an avalanche of innuendo, and not necessarily enlighten them on the actual specifics of the immediate matter before them.

    If prosecutors' stated intent is to imply a pattern of bad conduct, one witness should suffice. Even then, I would think that Judge O'Neill would ensure that this witness's testimony be limited to her own particular situation and hers alone. That is, she speaks for herself only, and her story is not representative of those various tales from the 13 to 50 other women who've thus far leveled accusations.



    Hail, Caesar! (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 05:19:06 PM EST
    the Coen brothers flick, has as one of the main characters, Eddie Mannix, who was a show business "fixer" back in day, whose specialty was getting the Clark Gables and Errol Flynns of the world out of trouble and keeping potential pr-disaster scandals swept under the rug and out of the newspapers and tabloids..

    Sounds like Cosby could've used one or two Eddie Mannixes. Where are they when you need them?


    Sounds like Cosby could've used ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 07:27:35 PM EST
    Wearing clothing costing more than many (none / 0) (#13)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 12:38:20 PM EST
    can put down on a car, or pay for some cars, EdSec DeVos seems to refuse to be as hateful as her hateful bosses.

    NPR: DeVos, Defiant At CPAC, Walks A Fine Line On Transgender Rights

    Over roast duck, yellow curry, and papaya salad, I had a long discussion last night with someone many of whose downriver Detroit relatives voted for the orange man.

    Many of them are denying it now.  EdSec DeVos is roundly distrusted or hated.  Her conservative, fundamentalist brother refuses to insult Trump over the phone, warning her that the NSA is listening.  This from a guy who runs a successful software business; he's not an idiot.  Cousins who trumpeted for Trump pre election are now denying having voted for him.  An uncle, 75 years old, brags that he didn't vote for Trump; he "protest voted" against both candidates.  He's mortified when she tells him, "you voted for Trump."  

    A cognitive dissonance meltdown is in the offing.

    Is Betsy trying to ... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 03:53:26 PM EST
    steal a play from the Democratic Party playbook?  Wow the rubes with your sensitivity and inclusiveness, and then sell the textbooks out the backdoor when no one is looking?

    A Purple Cow in Every Garage (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 04:54:58 PM EST
    I never hope to see one (none / 0) (#47)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 10:15:41 PM EST
    But I can tell you anyhow, I'd rather see than be one.

    from the link (none / 0) (#48)
    by linea on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 10:21:10 PM EST
     O. Henry (american short story writer) sounds interesting. is he still read?

    The Ransom of Red Chief (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 07:56:50 AM EST
    is one of the funniest stories I have ever read or had read to me. A teacher read it to one of my classes many, many years ago. Written in 1910, it is just as hilarious today as when it was written. Read it, enjoy it. And I can only hope O'Henry is still taught in public schools.

    Perhaps the one that best applies (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 10:07:38 AM EST
    to modern day America is "The Gift of the Magi."

    When the name was placed there, Mr. James Dillingham Young was being paid $30 a week. Now, when he was being paid only $20 a
    week, the name seemed too long and important


    And how they coped.


    Yes, indeed. O. Henry's short stories (none / 0) (#49)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 10:24:30 PM EST
    are taught in English classes to this day in better high schools as a model of short fiction writing.

    i'll check the (none / 0) (#50)
    by linea on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 10:34:10 PM EST
    used bookstore down the block {{smile}}.

    Good idea. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 11:35:16 PM EST
    Or the public library. Or purchase on line. Or read free on the Web.

    Are they? (none / 0) (#57)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 06:17:34 AM EST
    I remember reading O Henry short stories in High School.
    The Ransom of Red Chief

    Bernard Malamud is a great short story (none / 0) (#105)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 02:20:44 PM EST

    And Barn Burning by Faulkner to me is like the Beethoven's Fifth of short stories.


    And, while the students are studying... (none / 0) (#138)
    by desertswine on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 07:30:08 PM EST
    O Henry, they can eat one at the same time.  Then go on to the Whitman's Sampler class.

    There was a sequal... (none / 0) (#128)
    by unitron on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 05:15:07 PM EST
    ...written by whoever it was* that wrote it after he tired of the notoriety that accompanied being the author of the original.

    "Yes I wrote the Purple Cow

    I'm sorry now I wrote it.

    But I can tell you anyhow

    I'll kill you if you quote it"

    *don't remember, too lazy to look it up


    Trump must have (none / 0) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 03:51:07 PM EST
    felt he needed to gin up his CPAC crowd. Of course, the usual about his big win, but also, his golden oldie to prompt "lock her up."  

    If only he had yelled "Allahu Akbar" ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 04:55:32 PM EST
    ... rather than "Get out of my country," this would be the lead story in the media right now:

    The Washington Post | February 24, 2017
    He yelled `Get out of my country,' witnesses say, and then shot 2 men from India, killing one - "Authorities in Kansas filed first-degree murder charges against a man accused of opening fire in a bar there, killing one Indian man, injuring two other people and causing fears about bigotry to reverberate across the globe. According to witness accounts, the gunman reportedly told two of the people who were shot -- both Indian men who work for Garmin, the technology firm -- to 'get out of my country' before opening fire and had also used racial slurs during the Wednesday evening shooting."

    Behold, the face of white Christianist terrorism.

    Christianist? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 03:46:51 AM EST

    Where in the linked article did you come up with that slur?

    Given that Jesus Christ never personally ... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 10:52:48 AM EST
    ... called upon His followers to smite the heathen and otherwise hound and persecute the foreign-born and others whose beliefs might differ from their own, Christianists are those persons who would cast the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in their own image and weaponize their religion as a means to an end.

    Because regardless of however these zealots might believe themselves to be, both their prejudice and their actions are hardly reflective of either Christian virtue or Christian values. At the very least, such conduct is certainly not something I've ever found acceptable as a Roman Catholic.

    As the late suffragist and humanitarian Susan B. Anthony once observed, "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice how it always coincides with their own desires."

    Adam Purinton is a white-wing Christianist, and what he is alleged to have done is both an act of terrorism and a hate crime.

    Would you prefer instead that I label Mr. Purinton as a white Christian, and further hold all self-identifying Evangelical Christians collectively to account for his alleged conduct, just as you and you friends on the right repeatedly seek to do to the Muslim community each time some distrurbed individual commits a heinous act in the name of Allah?



    I'd love it if (none / 0) (#84)
    by smott on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 12:00:24 PM EST
    Every Indian IT consultant firm pulled ALL their workers from US stateside assignments on Monday.
    For their own safety.

    I dream, I know.


    lol. They'll park them on cruise ships (none / 0) (#118)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 03:48:55 PM EST
    anchored outside the 12 mile limit.  

    White House Bars News Organizations (none / 0) (#30)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 05:10:33 PM EST
    Trump White House Bars News Organizations From Press Briefing

    Limber up and learn to goosestep, kiddies.

    You said above (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 06:13:21 PM EST
    Nothing we are doing is working.


    This is a big deal.  The WSJ said later if they had known about the exclusions they would not have participated and will not participate in the future.  They will not be alone.  Seany boy will be briefing TOWNHALL, BRIETBART and the WASHINGTON EXAMINER by Sunday.  This will not stand.


    While I don't necessarily agree nothing we do is working, the oscars will be worth watching for once, I'm starting to think we might not need to do much.  THAT said the grassroots activism happening from coast to coast is very encouraging.

    This is fu@king insane.  And getting more every day.

    I repeat what I said a while back.  We will survive this.  And likely be made stronger by it.  Maybe a lot.


    Or maybe several in the media need to (none / 0) (#35)
    by McBain on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 06:40:10 PM EST
    clean up their acts.  It's been long overdue.

    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 06:44:09 PM EST
    That the ticket

    We could say the exact same thing about you. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 07:06:37 PM EST
    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous that sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
    - The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), Free to Love (1963)

    The U.S. news media are not obligated to be either overly solicitous of or deferential to Trump's feelings, nor do they exist solely to cater to your own exclusive worldview.



    The major news media has been bad for a while (3.00 / 2) (#44)
    by McBain on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 08:41:21 PM EST
    They were atrocious during the election.

    As for TLers needing to clean up their acts. My behavior is far better than most in here, including you.  My opinions  are often unpopular but it's good to hear from people who see things differently than you do.  


    While the press (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 07:39:04 PM EST
    certainly has many, many faults number one being IMO they want to get it first before they get it right.

    Thomas Jefferson said this:

    Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.
    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff101434.html

    Or maybe you conservatives ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Yman on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 07:48:38 PM EST
    ... will just have to learn to deal with actual journalists reporting actual facts.  Reality is hard to deal with, but maybe you can learn to do so ... if you "clean up your acts".

    That's a vague statement that means (none / 0) (#100)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 01:46:02 PM EST
    nothing, McBain.  It's handwaving.  It's gasbaggery in a vacuum.  It is insulting to everyone else here that you'd believe a piece of rubbish like that would stand for a second.

    If you want to be taken seriously, up your game.  Inductive arguments are hard enough to pull off for the skilled, impossible when cite literally nothing that supports your contention.


    You took it seriously enough to respond (none / 0) (#106)
    by McBain on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 02:21:58 PM EST
    Sounds like it meant something to you.... something you didn't like hearing. I get it, a lot of people are butthurt right now and want to lash out.  Just don't expect everyone to put up with it.

    So far, what I like the most about the Trump presidency is the way he and his team have called out the media.  They deserve it.  Even hard core liberals should be upset with the news coverage of the past year.... they lied to you by pretending Hillary was winning.  

    Now go ride off on your high horse.



    Now you've segued into pathetic (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 03:47:06 PM EST
    attempts at innuendo.

    You should stick to what you're good at: making lame excuses for cowardly backshooting blue uniformed thugs.


    Keep up the BS and I'll call you on it every time (none / 0) (#122)
    by McBain on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 04:58:20 PM EST
    Just like I'm calling out the news media.  My post had nothing to do with police shootings.  Did you change the subject because you felt you were losing the argument?  Do you even have an argument? You still haven't said anything that refutes my  post... that several in the media need to clean up their acts.

    If you must change to the other topic.. go ahead... but you won't do any better there.


    refutes what? (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 06:35:59 PM EST
    there was nothing in your post but vague innuendo and empty handwaving.

    But, like der Trumpenputzen probably says about the cretins staggered by his administration genius:

    If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance,
    Baffle them with bull$hit.


    Chanting (none / 0) (#126)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 05:06:07 PM EST
    Fake new, fake news, fake news, maybe calling out to you, but it's pure sloganeering to me.

    Sloganeering worked well for Trump so far (none / 0) (#129)
    by McBain on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 05:27:20 PM EST
    so I understand why he's continuing with it.  As for myself, when I hear "fake news" I think about the hilarious website The Onion I love their recent headline...
    Wall Street Journal Reintroduces Nudes After Failed Yearlong Experiment

    An obvious jest at both the WSJ and Playboy magazine. I won't link because it actually has nudity.

    As for your post, I thought Bernie Goldberg made a good point on O'Reilly yesterday.  He said Trump is going to have to learn that biased news isn't fake news.

    My "calling out" has to do with observing way too much bias. I don't expect news media to be completely neutral but I do expect more integrity.  So should you.


    So (none / 0) (#132)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 06:05:20 PM EST
    the press must protect their integrity, by not pointing out the sloganeering and falsehoods spouted by Trump? Please.

    I am no great fan of the MSM, they do show bias mostly through focus and framing(IMO they always ginned up Hillary's problems), however they rarely actually use false facts or fake sources.

    Trump himself said that the leaks are real but the news is fake, whatever the heck that means. So far most of the big leaks reported have verified to be mostly true.

    tRump and his minions apparently think the press should pretend all of this Russian stuff is a nothing burger, it's not. Maybe it's not that big a deal but the press has a right and the duty to get to the bottom of it.

    The truth hurts. Deal with it.


    No (none / 0) (#150)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 05:51:00 AM EST
    The media has ran with too many stories that any fact checking would have lead them to stop the story. But they couldn't help themselves.

    And sorry, only a couple  of fake news events and your credibility is shot, and they have far exceeded their limit.


    Heh - from a conservative (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 06:45:54 AM EST
    Lumping all new media together and then claiming (without specifics or evidence, as usual) they have exceeded their false story allotment of a "couple" of stories.  MSM news organizations run thousands of news articles every single day, but conservatives try to label them as "fake news" because they don't like facts.  They can't handle truth.  They are trying to delegitimize MSM because they want people to listen to the constant barrage of daily LIES from their party, their party's leader and hate radio, which they then try to excuse as "hyperbole" or "exaggerations".

    Do you really think you're not 100% transparent?


    You (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 07:03:24 AM EST
    rail against all these "fake events" reported without even naming them. Once again you blindly leap to the defense of tRump, even though you pretend to not support him.

    Of course the press makes mistakes, but the legitimate ones will correct them quickly ala the Lincoln bust story that was retracted and apologized for within hours.

    Go ahead Trevor, I spotted you one "fake" story, surely if the press is passing around all of this fake news there must be a couple of obvious ones you can point out to us.

    Show your work.


    Please (none / 0) (#160)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 07:18:00 AM EST
    Just google them, it is not that hard.

    Lol, back in October you were railing against the inept lying press, and now they are paragons of virtue


    Sorry Trevor (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 07:39:40 AM EST
    "go google it", is a weasel answer. You come around  here parroting tRump's accusations of the lying press, yet when it comes to laying out an example you punt.

    Put up or shut up.


    Bernie Goldberg is still around? (none / 0) (#179)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 11:36:21 AM EST

    The guy who called Jonathan Kozol and Ralph Nader threats to the future of democracy in America?

    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black..

    The only cure for Bernie's "bias"  imo, is a couple of rounds of Electroconvulsive Therapy.


    They didn't lie (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 04:57:36 PM EST
    The only ones lying are the ones pushing THAT silly lie.  I hate to break it to you, but the national polls had he winning by @ 3% - and she did.

    But if that's all you've got to work with, keep pushing your winger fairy tales.  They're easy enough to knock down.


    B.S. Trump is not calling (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 10:25:19 AM EST
    out the media--he is using it to prop himself up, just as he used the media to get the Presidency.

    The fault of the media is/was that they pursued rating over substance, and thus promoted Trump rallies.

    The issue is rarely that the Press is unfair to Trump, but that it promotes him and fails to adequately point out his lies. Just like the Achilles heel of the N. Y. Times is not its supposed liberal bias, but its facilitation of conservative principles and candidates.  It boosted Bush's Iraq War a' al Judith Miller's lapping up and breathlessly and dutifully publishing the slop that Dick Cheney put in the trough.

    And this last time around, the N. Y. Times could not publish enough stories on Hillary's emails. The Hillary email story now seems quite quaint, given the Russian hacking and interference in out election.

    Without the media, or what the Fox crowd calls the Main Stream  Media, there would be no Trump.  No, Trump is not calling out the Media--he needs them to survive.  By bashing them, he boosts himself in his base's eyes.

    Trump is just mad that his manipulation of the media is not as successful as it has been, and the Press is not, at times, better at showing himm to be a liar.


    And (none / 0) (#107)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 02:52:00 PM EST
    Trump's daily lies do not bother you at all?

    Which are Trump lies? (none / 0) (#115)
    by McBain on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 03:43:45 PM EST
    Which are media lies?  Which are Trump misstatements or exaggerations?

    In general, I don't like how Trump appears to assume something is true because it's the first thing he heard that he likes.  He strikes me as a rush to judgement thinker.  


    So you're trying to draw a line (none / 0) (#124)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 05:03:16 PM EST
    ... between lies and making statements that might have been something he heard somewhere and liked (but is false) and taking something that has a tiny kernel of truth and exaggerating it until it's a blatant falsehood.


    Lies versus falsehoods based on willful ignorance and willful distortion.

    Sounds like the perfect leader for your party.


    Yes (none / 0) (#75)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 10:56:59 AM EST
    It is what Obama also did to Fox News

    And Fox News crew is not with it this time either

     Bret Baier ✔ @BretBaier
    Some at CNN & NYT stood w/FOX News when the Obama admin attacked us & tried 2 exclude us-a WH gaggle should be open to all credentialed orgs
    2:15 PM - 24 Feb 2017



    No (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 12:51:38 PM EST
    It absolutely is NOT "what Obama did to Fox News, which is precisely why the only evidence you offer for this silly claim is a tweet from Fox News which - apart from being entirely unsupported by any actual evidence and also self-serving - doesn't even make the claim that you are.

    False equivalency fail

    just guessing here, (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by mm on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 12:51:52 PM EST
    but I'll bet FOX NEWZ did not stand with CNN, the New York Times, Politico, the Los Angeles Times and BuzzFeed yesterday?

    The President of the United States, in another unhinged attack on the press stood in front of CPAC the other day and said the following:

    "I called them the enemy of the people," Pres. Trump said to the crowd of conservatives. "They are because they have no sources. They make them up when there are none. `Nine people have confirmed' one report says. I said `Give me a break.' They make up sources. They are very dishonest people."

    Complete bull.  


    Good guess (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 01:15:49 PM EST
    They didn't, but they said they would if it happened again.

    Moreover, Fox was not rescued by the other new organizations in 2009 as they tried to suggest:

    The network pool crew noticed Fox wasn't on the list, was told that they hadn't asked and the crew said they needed to be included. Treasury called the White House and asked top Obama adviser Anita Dunn. Dunn said yes and Fox's Major Garrett was among the correspondents to interview Feinberg last night.

    Simple as that, we're told, and the networks don't want to be seen as heroes for Fox.

    TPMDC spoke with a network bureau chief this afternoon familiar with the situation who was surprised that Fox was portraying the news as networks coming to its rescue.

    "If any member had been excluded it would have been the same thing, it has nothing to do with Fox or the White House or the substance of the issues," the bureau chief said. "It's all for one and one for all."

    More fakery (1.00 / 2) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 03:05:48 PM EST
    He called fake news the enemy of the people.

    He said: "We are fighting the fake news, it's fake news, fake. The fake news doesn't tell the truth. It doesn't represent the people. They have no sources, none.

    "I'm not against the media, I'm not against the press, I don't mind bad stories if I deserve them. I am only against the fake news, media, and press. I'm against the people that make up stores and sources. They shouldn't be allowed to use sources that they don't name. 'A source said Donald Trump is a horrible human being'. Let him say that to my face. They should put the name of the person and then you'll see stories dry up  so fast."



    And yet he spreads fake news himself (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 03:24:00 PM EST
    and gets geniuses like you to admire him for it.

    And not only admire him, but seemingly be proud of admiring him.

    Really, sometimes you don't know whether to laugh or cry.


    He labeled mainstrean news ... (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 05:28:45 PM EST
    ... organizations as "fake news" - CNN, the NYT among others.  He labels anything he doesn't like of disagrees with as "fake news", while surrounding himself with actual fake "news" organizations as spewing lies on a daily basis.

    Maybe..Maybe not (none / 0) (#96)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 01:28:52 PM EST

    Fox News anchor Bret Baier blasted the White House's decision Friday to exclude several news organizations from covering spokesman Sean Spicer's question-and-answer session.

    Baier said the White House press gaggle "should be opened to all" credentialed organizations, pointing to treatment of his network during the Obama administration.

    "Some at CNN & NYT stood w/FOX News when the Obama admin attacked us & tried 2 exclude us-a WH gaggle should be open to all credentialed orgs," Baier tweeted.

    Brett Baier's tweets (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 05:07:24 PM EST
    You realize they're just unsubstantiated claims that have already been debunked, right?  You're starting to sound like your party's leader.

    Maybe...Maybe not (none / 0) (#99)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 01:41:29 PM EST


    And the White House has gone beyond words, reports CBS News senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield. Last Sept. 20, the president went on every Sunday news show - except Chris Wallace's show on FOX. And on Thursday, the Treasury Department tried to exclude FOX News from pool coverage of interviews with a key official. It backed down after strong protests from the press.

    fake news (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by mm on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 03:44:57 PM EST
    I think it started with Judicial Watch misrepresenting staff emails talking about a pool interview of a Treasury official. But they didn't do it. It never happened

    Big difference from what happened yesterday which really happened, cheered on by the lunatic inhabiting the WH.

    He stated again,

    "They are because they have no sources. They make them up when there are none.

    Utter BS, coming from the President of the United States should be alarming.  This is an ongoing deliberate campaign of corrosive divisive and destructive behavorior.


    Not (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 05:04:47 PM EST
    Repeating winger lies doesn't make them any more credible.

    Big election upcoming (none / 0) (#58)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 06:45:22 AM EST


    The contentious race that has split party members appears headed for a close finish.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and many of his allies are backing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a progressive firebrand and favorite of the left.

    Former Vice President Joe Biden and other key figures from the Obama administration back former Labor Secretary Tom Perez, who supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

    Democrats have done their best to quash the notion that the DNC chair race is a proxy war between these competing wings of the party.

    One interesting candidate with a outside shot of winning would be

    In just 24 hours, members of the Democratic National Committee will vote for their next chair. Supporters of Mayor Pete Buttigieg are there campaigning for him.

    The more ballots that are needed to attain a winner, the better chance that a alternative candidate like Buttigieg has.

    It's not that big (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 08:19:48 AM EST
    of a deal. The only reason anyone is paying attention is because it's about the only thing happening in the party right now as far as elections go.

    The head of the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 08:26:48 AM EST
    Is not a big deal?

    The direction of the party, and who runs it is not a big deal?
    They are re litigating the primary, Sanders and Clinton wings, and hope is also there for a conciliatory candidate.

    Considering the nationwide decimation of elected Democrats throughout the nation, federal, state and local levels,
    I would have thought it was a big deal'

    I guess you yourself don't care who is running the DNC, but I think Democrats involved in the political process may be very interested in this election.


    I agree with Psaki (none / 0) (#63)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 08:36:31 AM EST

    I think Buttigieg would be an inspired choice and someone all wings of the party could rally behind

    I came away from the CNN debate among candidates for the Democratic National Committee chairmanship Wednesday night even more certain that Democrats heading to Atlanta to vote this weekend should give Mayor Pete Buttigieg a chance.

    But the times we are in do not call for safe choices. We may have won the popular vote, but we lost the presidency, and Senate seats in North Carolina, Indiana and even Wisconsin that we should have won. We only picked up six House seats, including three that were the result of redistricting.

    Trevor (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 09:37:03 AM EST
    you would like it to be re litigating the primary concerning the mess the GOP is in right now but it's not. Ellison backed a big time Clinton supporter and donor for the DNC FL chair over the howls of the Bernie supporters. Ellison has the support of Schumer. Perez has Biden. Schumer hardly has been a Bernie supporter. I know you don't like it when the fact don't justify your silly narrative but what you would like and what is actually happening are two completely different things.

    I (none / 0) (#68)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 09:50:39 AM EST
    Didn't write the article, or the countless others reporting on the DNC election.

    I just find it odd, or maybe not, just illuminating, that you consider the DNC election "not a big deal"


    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 10:05:18 AM EST
    because the GOP is in such a dramatic mess with the Russia Putin connections someone just has to write the same thing is happening on the other side of the aisle even if it is not.

    If you read their platforms you would see that they all have pretty much the same goal.


    Given that you're not a Democrat, ... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 11:01:32 AM EST
    ... your opinion is irrelevant. Selection of a national Chairperson by DNC committee members is entirely an internal matter and decision, just as it will be for their RNC counterparts whenever they eventually get around to formally naming a replacement for Reince Priebus.

    That is just so silly (1.00 / 2) (#79)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 11:05:22 AM EST
    But typical of the Donald from Hawaii.

    There is an election, with many candidates , there was also a debate among the candidates.

    My opinion, just like my vote , counts as much as any.

    Just try and squash out any opinion you don't agree with Herr Donald.  Hmmm, sounds like someone  I know


    Your silly attack on Donalad? (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 12:24:09 PM EST
    You're right.  That does sound like someone we all know.

    Ok Pee Wee (1.00 / 1) (#98)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 01:33:26 PM EST
    Grow up, Trevor. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 05:00:17 PM EST
    TrevorBolder: "Ok Pee Wee"

    While you've every right to your own opinion, that's doesn't necessarily mean that it carries any weight with those of us who are actually card-carrying Democrats.

    And trust me, it doesn't, any more than does the snide commentary of Glenn Greenwald, aka "the smartest man in the room," reporting live from his boyfriend's house in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He's not a Democrat, either.

    Look first to your own party, which has gone completely off the rails, before you seek to advise us how to run our own.



    Excuse me (1.00 / 1) (#149)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 05:47:16 AM EST
    Yman is the top insulter on this blog, a gratuitous insult with every post. He reminds me of the childish characters from Pee Wee Herman, and I will remind him with every childish insult he throws.

    Lol, you certainly make me laugh, so take your own advice, this is Talk Left, correct?
    And all everyone has obsessed with over the last week or so is Milo, CPAC and The Donald.

    Myself, I sit watch and read all articles regarding all topics, Democrat and Republican politics.

    So I will kindly refuse your offer of censorship, I thought the DNC election was of importance , especially on a blog named Talk Left, and was surprised at the dearth of commentary regarding who would lead the DNC.


    Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 06:48:25 AM EST
    Trevor complaining about insults while hurling them.  Let me know if you need help finding the definition of "hypocrite" after you post the same, debunked tweet from Fox News for the 5th time.

    Never ever (none / 0) (#159)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 07:16:01 AM EST
    Do I post a insult that was unwarranted or unprovoked.
    And I ignore most, but on occasion, Yes I do respond in kind.
    Probably not a great attribute, but I am only human

    The nice thing ... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 07:50:37 AM EST
    ... about making that claim - it's completely subjective.  So I'll say the same.

    was easy.

    BTW - Time to get busy (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 06:51:05 AM EST
    Yman is the top insulter on this blog, a gratuitous insult with every post. He reminds me of the childish characters from Pee Wee Herman, and I will remind him with every childish insult he throws.

    If that's the case, you've missed a he// of a lot of my posts.  You'd better get busy.  You may also want to think of a few original insults - take a look at your leader's tweets for inspiration.


    The DNC has (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 10:38:49 AM EST
    good, sane, and rational choices. (it seems that these basic attributes are important to mention in today's scary Republican politics.)  And, qualified to boot.  Tom Perez (b. Oct 1961), Brown University and Harvard Law. Civil rights lawyer and former Sec of Labor; Keith Ellison, (b. Aug 1963), Wayne State Universiyt (BA), University of Minnesota Law, US Congressman, civil rights lawyer. In addition to these top contenders, Pete Buttigieg, (b. Jan 1982), Harvard College (BA), Honors Degree,Oxford (Rhodes Scholar), Mayor of South Bend.



    Perez is a bad person (none / 0) (#78)
    by Green26 on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 11:01:56 AM EST
    and bad news, in my view. I have seen him in action and had a bit of experience with him. I do not like the guy.

    A "bad person"? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 12:18:39 PM EST
    Not that I would put any weight in one (anonymous) person's opinion, but what does that even mean?

    Bad (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 12:39:08 PM EST

    D@mn (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    Can't believe I didn't jump on that.

    Greene, pony up with examples (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 02:05:29 PM EST
    illustrating your point.

    I'm open to your arguments, unlike some here.  I've got my reasons.

    There's been way too much innuendo passed off as evidence on this blog.  Raise the bar.  Ignore the implicit racist insult in the comments following yours, and dish.  ¿Cuál es su problema con Pérez?


    No answer. I'm shocked. (none / 0) (#135)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 06:37:13 PM EST
    Attorney-client privileged and (none / 0) (#146)
    by Green26 on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 02:04:05 AM EST
    thus confidential. When Perez was at DOJ.

    Sure (none / 0) (#155)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 06:52:59 AM EST
    Unless Perez was your actual client when he was at DOJ, you can talk about it without revealing identifiers/specifics about your client.

    Nope, can't provide specifics or details (none / 0) (#174)
    by Green26 on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 11:00:51 AM EST
    without identifying the matter or providing too much about the matter, situation, people, etc.  Can't provide confidential information.

    lol. you haven't provided any information. (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 12:00:42 PM EST
    Vague innuendo, a sneering insinuation, an attempt to trade on your reputation in a crude attempt to evoke a knowing wink, "you know he's a ...."

    There is literally nothing to believe or disbelieve.

    You wasted your time typing an insubstantial calumny.  We wasted neurochemicals reading it.  


    So your baseless attempt ... (none / 0) (#192)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 01:03:12 PM EST
    ... to smear Perez should be given even less weight than if you gave some factual basis for your personal opinion.

    Not sure if that's possible.


    If anyone is interested (none / 0) (#81)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 11:13:35 AM EST
    But not that it matters any, it seems


    DNC chair vote: live coverage

    Democrats voted down a measure that would have reinstituted a ban on corporate lobbyists donating to the DNC. The measure was instituted by former President Barack Obama but quietly lifted by former DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz ahead of Hillary Clinton's presidential run.

    After spirited debate, Democrats decided against reinstituting the ban. They feared it would limit donations from liberal activist groups at a time when the party is in the throes of a massive rebuilding projects.

    Those who wanted to see the ban reinstituted argued that it was a symbolic measure to say to the nation that Democrats would not compromise their values.
    If things got that heated over a resolution, the event is about to get sent into the stratosphere for the election.

    A Shocker (none / 0) (#97)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 01:32:40 PM EST
    After the first balloting, Perez falls a single vote short of winning. The race will proceed to a second ballot.

    Perez received 213.5 votes, one ballot short of the 214.5 threshold to win. Ellison received 200 votes.

    2:15 p.m.

    A DNC member forwarded The Hill a text from the Ellison campaign touting a Buttigieg endorsement: "Keith is grateful to have the support of Mayor Buttigieg and we're in a strong position to win on the next ballot. Can he count on your support?"
    The problem: Buttigieg did not publicly endorse Ellison, sowing confusion among members. Two sources have told The Hill that the Ellison camp has corrected the erroneous text.

    South Bend, Ind. mayor Pete Buttigieg drops out of the race, stunning the crowd. He is gay, 35-years-old a Rhodes Scholar, a military veteran and viewed by many as a next generation star of the party.

    Buttigieg didn't make an endorsement.

    Buttigieg comported himself well at the debate. He is a polished speaker and debate and will have some role in the national party moving forward.

    By dropping out instead of being voted out, he was allowed to give a farewell speech in which he encouraged Democrats to "pay attention to communities like ours in the heart of the country not as an exotic species but as everyday Americans."

    Buttigieg encouraged Democrats to engage with the next generation of liberals.

    "There's nothing wrong with our bench, we just haven't called enough people off the bench and asked them to get on the field," he said.

    Perez (none / 0) (#111)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 03:18:13 PM EST
    3:20 p.m.

    With 235 votes, former Labor secretary Tom Perez wins the DNC chairmanship on the second ballot. Ellison received 200 votes.

    Read more here.

    3:00 p.m.

    Former DNC chairman Howard Dean, a Buttigieg backer, sent an email to DNC members saying he will now back Ellison. His statement nods to the earlier controversy of the Ellison campaign claiming they had Buttigieg's endorsement, even though they don't:

    "This is Governor Howard Dean. I believe that Keith Ellison would be the most likely person to be able to successfully bring in the first global generation to the Democratic Party. (This is real)"

    2:53 p.m.

    Tom Perez (none / 0) (#113)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 03:33:57 PM EST
    appointed Keith Ellison Deputy Chairman of the DNC. "I am asking you to give everything you've got to support Chairman Perez." said Ellison. It would seem that, now, Ellison will be able to remain as US Representative.  He had indicated that he would resign his Congressional seat if elected DNC Chair.

    Smart move (none / 0) (#114)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 03:37:37 PM EST
    Latino/Hispanic/Mexican descent citizens: 17+% (none / 0) (#137)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 06:58:33 PM EST
    of the population.  Blacks: 12.5%  So the math works for me anyway.  

    Too bad they didn't choose a woman: 51% of the population.


    Well (none / 0) (#151)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 05:53:05 AM EST
    They did go the route in the last election

    The difference being (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 06:55:04 AM EST
    ... they didn't choose HC because she was a woman.  They chose her because she was intelligent, highly qualified, and competent - as opposed to say ... Trump.

    And unelectable (none / 0) (#166)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 08:00:50 AM EST
    "Unelectable" - heh (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 09:12:32 AM EST
    The woman who got 3 million more votes than your orange, incompetent, congenital prevaricator.


    You're always good for a laugh.


    Unpersons: (none / 0) (#80)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 11:10:24 AM EST
    "The White Helmets" cinematographer barred from entering U.S. for Oscars, AP reports

    According to internal Trump administration correspondence seen by The Associated Press, the Department of Homeland Security has decided at the last minute to block Khaled Khateeb from traveling to Los Angeles for the Oscars.

    NewData for a NewSpeak Era (none / 0) (#83)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 11:41:19 AM EST
    The White House also removed all of the data from its portal of searchable federal data. The site previously included data on everything from budgets to climate change to LGBT issues. It now displays a message telling people to: "Check back soon for new data."

    - Why Trump's election scares data scientists

    That's pretty funny (none / 0) (#85)
    by Green26 on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 12:10:29 PM EST
    "New data". Should have said: "Check back soon for new and alternative data".

    Among Trump's rantings (none / 0) (#101)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 01:53:50 PM EST
    and ramblings during his CPAC address, he knocked Euro immigration policies by relaying the worries of "Jim, a very, very substantial guy," who warned that Paris is not the same; Paris is not Paris and Jim is too scared to return.  

    It is not known if "Jim" is related to "John Barron" or "John Miller," the terrific PR man who sounded precisely like Trump, himself, who was a very boastful advocate for Trump.

    Parisian Mayor Anne Hidalgo tried to allay the fears of "Jim" who was too scared to return to Paris, noting the increase in American tourism; and by President Hollande, who acknowledged the need for all to work, together, cooperatively against terrorists.

      Mayor Hidalgo has become much more reserved and diplomatic since last spring when she observed that "Mr. Trump is so stupid, my God." Not much worse of a statement than that made by Trump's Republican primary opponents, at the time.

    Getting adjusted to Trump ramblings (none / 0) (#102)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 01:59:52 PM EST

    Just ignore them, lol

    Now, when Trump makes public declarations that aren't true or clash with what his Cabinet secretaries say, Republicans barely look up, aides and members say. Even some Democrats are now trying to assess if pointing out a misstatement will get any traction.

    "The president is in danger of people on Capitol Hill simply tuning him out because of the flood of misinformation that comes out of the White House," said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, a Brooklyn Democrat.

    Free advice from Warren Buffett (none / 0) (#119)
    by McBain on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 03:53:17 PM EST
    He said he estimates that wealthy investors who use high-priced advisers have wasted over $100 billion over the past decade.

    I've never paid to have someone manage my money but I might do so when I get closer to retirement.  
    To prove his point, Buffett recounted the first nine years of a 10-year bet he made that an S&P 500 index fund will outperform a collection of hedge funds. He made the wager with the money managers who own Protege Partners LLC a few months before the recession began in 2008 with both sides picking a charity that would get at least $1 million.

    Buffett's chosen index fund has recorded an 85.4 percent gain over than time while the hedge funds delivered an average of 22 percent.

    ... were announced this afternoon as is tradition, one day before the actual Academy Awards.

    And the Razzie for the year's absolute worst movie goes to Dinesh D-Souza's paranoid equivalent of a mob hit on acid, "Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party," a monumental and richly deserving waste of celluloid which received a 4% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

    Had you bothered to educate yourself by watching "Hillary's America," you'd have no doubt learned that the Democratic Party was single-handedly responsible for slavery, the genocide of Native Americans, the Ku Klux Klan, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the First World War, the Great Depression, the attack on Pearl Harbor, Vietnam and AIDS.

    Meanwhile, the American Civil War was really fought between Democrats and Republicans, Hillary Clinton is a conniving super-villain who harnessed Bill's insatiable lust for vulnerable women because it allowed her to control him for her own political gain, and Barack and Michelle Obama were under the spell of Saul Alinsky, who was coincidentally a friend of Al Capone.

    Does it all make sense to you now? If not, have another shot of Everclear, a bong hit laced with Angel Dust, and a sniff of model airplane glue.

    Okay, getting back to Mr. D'Souza, he further received Razzies for Worst Actor (for portraying himself in the film as a self-styled political prisoner, having been convicted of felony-level illegal campaign contributions) and worst director (w/Bruce Schooley), so give the man a hand for hitting the trifecta.

    Additionally, Becky Turner received the Razzie for Worst Actress for her (hopefully) career-defining turn as Hillary Clinton in D'Souza's cinematic bellyflop, in which she all too predictably booed and hissed at President Nixon on her TV in her dorm while surrounded by lesbians at Wellesley College. Next up for Ms. Turner, the lead roles in "Ninja Vixens" and "On Golden Blonde."

    Tying "Hillary's America" with four Razzies is "Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice," for Worst Screen Combo (Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill), Worst Supporting Actor (Jesse Eisenberg), Worst Remake / Prequel / Sequel / Ripoff, Worst Screenplay.

    Early favorite "Zoolander 2" only managed to snag one Razzie, for Kirsten Wiig as Worst Supporting Actress.


    A legitimate take on Best Picture (none / 0) (#161)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 07:19:54 AM EST

    If you were paying attention to the Oscars in 1999, when Shakespeare in Love controversially won Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan, you know what's likely to happen when La La Land sweeps the Academy Awards on Sunday. (And it probably will: The Academy adores films about Hollywood's ability to make feel-good magic). A thousand thinkpieces will outline Moonlight's cinematic superiority to La La Land. We will read about Hidden Figures' greater historical import, about Fences' far more visceral honesty, about the ways Manchester by the Sea more experimentally blends humor with truly unfixable grief. Every one of these takes will be right. But they will all grant a flawed premise: that the Oscars can meaningfully judge something like Best Picture.

    And in that, they will all be wrong.

    ... was Terrence Malick's "The Thin Red Line," his luminous and philosophical adaptation of James Joyce's semi-autobiographical novel of the same name, which was based on the author's experiences as an Army infantryman during the Battle of Guadalcanal in the Second World War.

    For all the praise Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" deserved, I felt Malick's work was the better war movie. While his film certainly boasted a stellar cast, Malick's characters weren't from stock players right out of central casting. And his battle scenes were certainly as fraught, visceral and frightening as anything ever seen onscreen in "Private Ryan."

    Whereas Spielberg hits you over the head right at the outset with his vivid recreation of the carnage at Normandy's Omaha Beach, Malick instead allows the horror show that was Guadalcanal to unfold upon his audience at a deliberately languid pace, with the Army's initial landings on the island going quietly unopposed by its Japanese defenders. Only when the American soldiers start moving inland do matters then begin to go slowly but terribly awry, gradually culminating with an almost operatic majesty.

    Both of those films were far better than "Shakespeare in Love."


    My favorite movie from 2013 (none / 0) (#176)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 11:13:50 AM EST
    Inside Llewyn Davis, didn't get nominated for anything at all at the Oscars, which was flat-out ludicrous.

    Lion (none / 0) (#177)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 11:31:51 AM EST
    No one is really talking about that film.  But it was very, very good.  Better than Manchester by the Sea.

    I did hear an Oscar predictor say La la Land, but her voice trailed off when she said Dev Patel was great.  She thought he should win Best Actor.


    Should win as in he (none / 0) (#178)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 11:32:38 AM EST
    deserves to win.  Not that he would actually win.

    Patel is not a Best Actor nominee. (none / 0) (#182)
    by caseyOR on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 12:04:59 PM EST
    He is in the Best Supporting Actor category. And, while I do think DeVos turned in an excellent performance, my vote would go to Mahershala Ali in "Moonlight."

    My Best Actor vote would be Denzel Washington. Best Actress to Natalie Portman whose performance in "Jackie" was breathtaking. And Best Supporting Actress to Viola Davis.

    My Best Picture is "Fences."

    I saw "laLaLand" and enjoyed it, but no way is it the Best Picture this year. In fact, of all this year's nominees, I would pug it near the end of the pack.


    No idea how Dev turned into DeVos. (none / 0) (#183)
    by caseyOR on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 12:06:25 PM EST
    Autocorrect is evil and possibly possessed by the devil.

    Dev Patel (none / 0) (#185)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 12:22:40 PM EST
    was great as well in The Man Who Knew Infinity from a couple of years ago..

    About the Indian mathematician Ramanujan, who I knew nothing about before seeing the picture.


    Actor Bill Paxton has died at 61. (none / 0) (#184)
    by caseyOR on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 12:20:42 PM EST
    Cause was complications from surgery.

    He had a new TV series this season. "Training Day" based on the Denzel Washington movie.

    I loved him, and Helen Hunt, in "Twister."


    Making the paleo cookies tonight (none / 0) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 08:32:52 PM EST
    That Jeralyn had the recipe up for months ago, but it took awhile to get Barney Butter, coconut sugar, and the paleo chips to Enterprise AL. I've been eating only paleo for about 3 wks because the weight I gained at Christmas eating our way through Germany, Colmar France, Poland, and Prague wasn't budging. It has budged now. But I finally needed a treat.

    A scary look at crime & genetics (none / 0) (#162)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 07:30:12 AM EST

    Variety in our gene pool matters when we seek to understand why some people can dunk a basketball or compose a sonnet, and why some people persistently break the law. The effects of genetic differences make some people more impulsive and shortsighted than others, some people more healthy or infirm than others, and, despite how uncomfortable it might be to admit, genes also make some folks more likely to break the law than others.

    Behavioral algorithms, are already being created, compiled from the massive amount of data we willingly hand over to our Overlords, Google and FaceBook.

    Minority Report, and one of the Marvel movies both touched upon the benefits for society to take preventive action, one by using a algorithm, the other by psychic means.

    Sort of eliminating the concept of free will and choices.

    I do believe that science will eventually go there, if they haven't already, as expressed by another favorite of mine, Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

    Ian: Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. ... Ian Malcolm:

    Behavioral genetics is like (none / 0) (#175)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 11:06:35 AM EST
    the new phrenology; which was the pseudo-scientific theory that skull shape determined behavior.

    This just the old nature v nurture question, framed slightly differently, that scientists in fact Have been discussing and arguing about at for at least a couple of hundred years.

    One well-known faction in the last century that gravitated very much to behavioral genetics in particular was the German National Socialist movement.


    When I was a kid I did believe the arguments... (none / 0) (#186)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 12:32:48 PM EST
    The Germans being exhibit A.  I believed that they were exemplars of something uniquely German, a predisposition toward horror.  I believed that we were different.  Turns out I was wrong.

    The hypothesis didn't survive my few years of growing up.  It wasn't just the headline horrors of nation vs nation, religion vs religion, tribe vs. tribe.  It was the everyday horrors of the way people in my own society treated each other, the instinctual greed and easy resort to lying, the embrace of ignorance, the multiplier effect of individual sin.

    Doubtless the uniformed class will buy plenty of profiling software.  Anything to get more 'data' for their lists and their reports.  Anything to abstract themselves from their own innate, universal potential for evil.


    What did RP McMurray say? (none / 0) (#191)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 01:01:51 PM EST
    that Nurse Ratched likes a rigged game, know what I mean?

    The other aspect of embracing self-alienation, is that folks also end up abstracting themselves from their own potential to learn and mine their own creativity and move society forward.


    RP McMurphy.. (none / 0) (#194)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    America last: (none / 0) (#188)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 12:40:24 PM EST
    The case for moral disengagement from politics in the age of Trump - Anis Shivani, Salon

    There continues to be a gross underestimation, even among politically aware liberals, of what we are really up against, and how to counter it. Increasingly, our fellow citizens are resorting to the concepts of fascism to describe the current situation, but this is not necessarily followed by any cogent reflection on what the political subject under fascism needs to do. Ordinary liberal prescriptions have no chance of success under a regime that has moved into an overt fascist mode; moreover, the unacknowledged continuities from the recent neoliberal past, which led to the fascist overture in the first place, mar any consistency of thought among intellectuals, activists and ordinary citizens.

    The time has come to explore modes of existence that only make sense under a fascist regime, or rather, are the only modes that make sense under fascist conditions. Above all, the question of moral disengagement from any existing political practice must be taken seriously, and this includes so-called "resistance." Are there things that pass under the activist rubric today that are actually strengthening fascism rather than weakening it? If that is the case, then those activities must undergo severe scrutiny, because it may well be that what seems like activism is actually "passivism," and vice versa.