Wednesday Open Thread

Our last open thread is full so here's another one. All topics welcome.

< Taliban Video of Prisoner Bergdahl Turnover | Maureen Dowd's Eating Disability >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Final Countdown... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 11:41:11 AM EST
    to Mountain Jam 2014 kids...T minus 21 hours to lift-off.  I've been packed since Saturday, just gotta throw ice in the cooler and hit the road.

    The Allmans will be performing their first two albums in their entirety as part of the farewell tour celebrating 45 years of excellence.  Far out man!

    Much needed respite from the cubicle grind...it's been bloody hell the last 2 weeks as we've migrated to "the cloud" and Microsoft 365.  First impressions...it sucks.  Bunch of bells and whistles I don't need clouding out the sh*t I do need to my damn job (pun intended).  Hate the newfangled user interface too.  But enough of that mess, somebody else's problem for a wee bit...I'm going to put my head in real clouds analog stylee.

    Behave yourselves and I promise to smoke one for each and every one of you! Two for jbindc;)

    Enjoy! Do you take the gondola to the venue? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 11:52:11 AM EST
    The Green Machine? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 11:54:57 AM EST
    Yep...the 'lil Nissan that could is my chariot to the Mountain.

    Take me? (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 11:59:14 AM EST
    If you can land at Laguardia... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:50:54 PM EST
    by 8am you're in Brother...then all you need is a ducat, I got the rest covered.

    Ski lift. Or is the music at the base? (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:06:34 PM EST
    Stages are at the base... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:54:22 PM EST
    but the ski lift will be running for entertainment purposes...my nieces love the ski lift ride, I'm sure I'll be on it twice daily.

    Have a great great time kdog! (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:01:39 PM EST
    I am going to think of you and smile all weekend!

    Enjoy! (none / 0) (#156)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:28:23 PM EST
    Sounds like you are going to have a great time!!

    Motto for the day from (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:19:41 PM EST
    my niece's FB. She just hiked the Grand Canyon rim to rim to rim.


    Josh was showing me some internet memes (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:24:36 PM EST
    Yesterday.  There is one called insanity wolf.  And insanity wolf said, "I will kill you so hard you will die to death!"

    Aware Wolf (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:53:50 PM EST
    Any excuse to cue up (none / 0) (#71)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:16:01 PM EST
    Or (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:21:09 PM EST
    Now you're talking! (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:46:23 PM EST
    I hope to hear a version of that jam this weekend.

    Wow. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:30:44 PM EST
    Now, THAT'S a memorable adventure. When I was 17, I hiked into the Grand Canyon down to the Colorado River with my aunt, uncle, cousins and their friends. We spent a full week there, and while I vividly recall the sights, what I do remember from that trip is that it gets very cold at the Grand Canyon, even in mid-June.

    This time it was very hot. Now her goal (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:32:11 PM EST
    is to run it.

    Is my memory correct (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:36:03 PM EST
    That it is six miles at its narrowest?

    One website states 46 + miles. Depends on route. (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:38:14 PM EST
    What a mesmerizing trek (none / 0) (#40)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:06:29 PM EST
    Years ago, in late summer, husband & I went into the Canyon--down & up (more power to the niece & others who traverse it)--and, I found the colors and shapes almost a magnificent magnet.  Lest I'd begin imagining that I could lift my arms and fly ... I had to remind myself of the hypnotic effect of such beauty.  

    Yes, the Canyon floor does get cold at night.


    The coldest water (none / 0) (#169)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 12:10:06 AM EST
    I have felt was the Colorado River at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.  Turned my foot blue really fast.

    Two friends of mine just rafted down the Colorado (none / 0) (#181)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:51:44 AM EST
    in the Grand Canyon and got dumped from the raft in the rapids.  They had to float/swim/fight through them to a spot where their crew could pick them up.  I haven't heard the entire story but from what I know they said it was the coldest water they'd ever encountered.  That's saying quite a lot.  

    Can relate (none / 0) (#183)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 10:02:58 AM EST
    Going on a float in a few days on the local river, Spring river.  Not the Colorado by any means but it has some bouncy stuff.   And it come out if the ground about a mile from my house as the largest spring in the state at a constant 56 degrees.

    Jeralyn HAS to write about the MoDo marijuana (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:09:20 PM EST
    in Colorado column.

    I know, right? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by sj on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:23:39 PM EST
    It's been cracking me up all morning. I finally got to her column wherein she sees herself in a sort of Reefer Madness.

    Something tells me thus will spawn (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:58:59 PM EST
    an SNL skit at the very least if not a meme.

    Bro I'm Dowded


    I'm waiting for (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 03:42:19 PM EST
    Kdog's review.  Will be better, I think.

    I have to agree with her about labeling (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by ZtoA on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:43:08 PM EST
    Altho when I was 14 I thought I'd try alcohol. My dad drank a fifth of gin a day and my mom drank too, but not nearly that much. I figured he could drink and apparently liked it, so why not me? I took an empty skippy peanut butter jar (so I could throw it away after) and put an inch of gin in it and drank it. Nothing happened. Not wanting to tip my parents off changing the levels in their liquor bottles, I next drank an inch of vodka, then scotch, then vermouth, then a beer, I think. Man was I sick - for days. Thank god for my good friends who took care of me.  

    Having smoked medical pot for a nerve condition I learned that pot nowadays is not like it was when I was a kid. And there are different pots for different results. There are sleepy blends, and hunger blends and so on. Since I was old friends with the grower I got the best stuff, and it was very strong - a vaporizer and one puff.

    Good labeling can make it much more accessible to more people. For most people a light buzz, like a couple glasses of wine at dinner, or a couple of beers at game time is the goal. A nice social or sleepy buzz. Labeling needs to be improved.


    Seriously (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:47:45 PM EST
    Pot eating 101 don't keep eating just you don't feel anything yet.  You would think if she was going to experiment she would have gone to the triuble to find that out.  Our perhaps it was her point that nothing is idiot proof.

    Thanks for pointing that out. It's the funniest thing I have seen in ages.


    ... my aunt and her friends found some pot brownies in the fridge that had been baked by my cousin for a party, and they ate them. They were so stoned, they thought everything was hilarious. And truth be told, none of them were angry afterward, but actually considered themselves enlightened by the experience.

    And while I don't believe that they've ever repeated it, you can generally count on them for a good rhetorical pushback whenever someone brings up the "War on Drugs," which my aunt always points out is mostly a war on pot. Even my tea-partying uncle considers such efforts to be futile, and a waste of public resources.

    On a related topic, we have a 78-year-old GOP state representative out here, who's long been a very staunch proponent of the legalization of cannabis. Rep. Cynthia Henry Thielen (R-Kailua) is a direct descendant of revolutionary firebrand Patrick Henry and sadly, probably one of the last members of the old GOP's liberal / progressive wing to be found anywhere in the country. And it's not that she likes to toke up and catch a buzz, but rather, she sees the value and virtues of hemp-based products. She's a real saleswoman who certainly knows her subject matter when it comes to hemp, which she sees as a potential economic boon to the islands.

    She's a very nice woman, who was inspired by her own activist daughter to go to law school at age 41 and pursue her dream of becoming an environmental attorney and advocate. She was first elected 28 years ago as the pro-choice alternative to the rather fanatical anti-abortion Democrat who then held the seat. And truth be told, she lists hard to port on social and environmental issues which so many of us hold near and dear.

    So we consider Rep. Thielen not only an valued ally, but also a voice of sanity and reason on the crazy train that's today's Republican Party, and we politely discourage prospective Democratic opponents who might otherwise be tempted to take her on. Her aforementioned daughter, State Sen. Laura Thielen (D-Kailua) is also an environmental attorney by trade. Together, they make a pretty formidable team in the legislature, particularly on all-important land-use issues.



    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:50:18 PM EST
    But your analogy falls short because MoDo is not a 14 year old girl..

    I agree that labeling effective doses would be a good idea, even if the liquor industry does not (wonder why... hahaha)..  but MoDo is an investigative journalist, who is acting as if she was 12 and living in a bubble.

    All in all it is pretty hilarious, and says much much more about MoDo than MJ and CO..  


    By no stretch of anyone's imagination, (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:27:48 PM EST
    not even if pot-assisted or alcohol-fueled, is Maureen Dowd an "investigative journalist;"  she's an op-ed columnist who opines for a living.

    Her employer describes her as follows:

    Maureen Dowd, winner of the 1999 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary, became a  New York Times Op-Ed columnist in 1995 after having served as a correspondent in the paper's Washington bureau since 1986. She has covered four presidential campaigns and served as White House correspondent. She also wrote a column, "On Washington," for The New York Times Magazine.

    Ms. Dowd joined The New York Times as a metropolitan reporter in 1983. She began her career in 1974 as an editorial assistant for The Washington Star, where she later became a sports columnist, metropolitan reporter and feature writer. When the Star closed in 1981, she went to Time magazine.

    And there's a reason she hasn't won any more Pulitzers for "distinguished commentary."

    As Charlie Pierce put it, if he could suggest some labeling, it might go something like this:

    "If you happen to be a visiting dilettante from The New York Times, please don't eat this and sit alone in your hotel room."

    More Charlie:

    The worst thing you could possibly do is determine that you will have your first serious marijuana experience by gobbling down an electric candy bar and then sitting there alone in your hotel room while waiting for the newspaper taxis to appear at your door, waiting to take you away. The second worst thing you could possibly do is to decide to generalize the inherent stupidity if your experience by sharing it in your very important newspaper column. Dear god, Maureen Dowd is the worst thing that's happened to cannabis consumption since Quicksilver broke up.

    Quicksilver! OMFG (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:34:17 PM EST
    I love Chrkie

    Even if I can't spell his name (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:34:45 PM EST
    By Her Own Admission (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:35:51 PM EST
    She was acting as an investigative journalist...  and it appears that she is as good at that as she is as an op-ed persona.

    IMO, both hats make her look foolish, most of the time.

    New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd took investigative journalism to a new "high" when she decided to do some of her own research on Colorado's legalized marijuana scene.

    I guess the operative phrase here (none / 0) (#87)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:48:32 PM EST
    would be "acting as," since she clearly has no idea what an actual investigative journalist would do.  I think it's possible a real investigative journalist would have asked more questions before she gobbled down the entire candy bar, not after, in an aside to someone at the plant she was visiting.

    In Dowd's case, I think the appropriate retort would be, "don't quit your day job to take up investigative journalism, but by all means, do please quit."


    Didn't mean it as an analogy (none / 0) (#103)
    by ZtoA on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 04:03:22 PM EST
    just an illustration about how good labeling could really help the pot industry. Of course there will always be rebellious hot head teenagers like I was.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 05:51:38 PM EST
    And your comparison to your own typical teen experiment aptly pointed out what a moron Dowd is.

    I will as soon as I read it (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:20:42 PM EST
    Don't miss the first draft... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by unitron on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:16:52 PM EST
    Aw sum (none / 0) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:04:39 PM EST
    Where's my room servees?  I AM STARVING

    At first, (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 03:21:31 PM EST
    I was surprised that MoDo drank Chardonnay.  But, at second bounce, it fits--she is usually slightly dated in cultural references.  

    Corduroys and Chardonnay ha ha ha ha ha (none / 0) (#176)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:22:46 AM EST
    Okay, I'm gonna lay off the corduroys now :)

    Have you read unitrons (none / 0) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:26:08 AM EST
    Dragons = nuclear weapons link in the MoDo thread. If not you should.

    Very interesting (none / 0) (#179)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:45:10 AM EST
    Amazing (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:26:58 PM EST
    Take a minute to check these out

    Pretty sure you will find it hard to believe you are not looking at photographs but you are not.  They are all CG rendered humans.  Some famous some not.

    They haven't quite got the indistinguishable from reality thing down with moving CG characters but with the still image they are there.

    Rendering (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:41:34 PM EST
    I prefer this rendering more than the CG ones..  but not fair to compare..

    Always had a thing for hyper realism (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:46:42 PM EST
    Whatever the medium

    Yes (none / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:57:32 PM EST
    I saw Betty in Berlin's Neue Nationalgalerie, (Mies van der Rohe museum) and I could not take my eyes off it.. Way more compelling than any photograph I have seen, and not for the aesthetic, if you could separate that from the painting.

    It just looked so real that it was hard to believe.  Walked away and had to turn my head back...  Obviously Betty was having the same problem,.. hahaha..


    How do they DO this?? (none / 0) (#104)
    by ZtoA on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 04:09:51 PM EST
    Seriously, do you know?  Do they move?

    As far as realism in paining goes I tend to judge it by seeing work in person. Sometimes work is done simply for a camera - looks good in photos and not good in person. Of course Richter's always looks good, but his realism is squeegeed which makes it more great to look at.

    In person the thrill of paint quality is visible. Chuck Close is another example. And Estes.

    But CG seems to be a whole other thing. Good - another way to get new neural connections for a viewer.  


    Oh sure (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 04:31:55 PM EST
    I did it for 20 years.  If you are really interested I will do  bit of googling for some how tos but it's really a pretty basic pipeline.
    First the 3d model is created, this is BTW why I respect the end product even more than a one dimensional image no matter how good it is.  These are not they can be turned and viewed from any angle in any light, anyway the model which is a dull grey color, that's called modeling, then images are painted for every colored area.  Usually completely different ones for everything, eyes, skin, any accessories.  Also there are often many "maps" for any one surface.  A color map, which is obvious, a displacement map for bumps and pores, and sometimes dozens of others.  Then the maps are applied to the grey 3d model and all sorts of refining goes on, depth maps for blur.  I'm sure each of these images had hundreds if not thousands of maps.
    Then comes the lighting which is just what it sounds like and is done very much the way any ligniting is done but virtually.
    And viola you have a face.
    As far as moving.  Of course they can.  See Gollum.  But as I said,when the start moving - well they don't quite have that mastered to the same extent and the still image.   But thousands of brilliant people are working on that right now as we speak.

    That's as in depth as I can handle technically :) (none / 0) (#112)
    by ZtoA on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 04:53:34 PM EST
    And truly fascinating. Gollum was great and I thought his movement was believable. I've seen videos about CG building but using the software eludes me. It takes very high level skills.

    The way these are constructed is so abstract in a way. Yes I'm very respectful. I also love the 2D (not 1D - tho that would be interesting) images because building a believable image with paint is difficult, but creating one with great paint quality is extremely difficult and rewarding. Painting a 2D image which has paint quality and movement, while moving around the painting, is so rare. The portrait of Nicholas Nutt by Rembrandt at the Frick is an example. His eyes follow you wherever you go in that gallery.


    Anyone can learn to use the software (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 05:00:49 PM EST
    With enough training.  Making art.  That takes an added bit of visual instinct that I honestly think one has to be born with to a certain extent.

    Fishing for virtual high fives (5.00 / 6) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 05:41:09 PM EST
    This morning when I weighed myself I found I had officially crossed the 30lb mark since I started my little diet quest.   Going for at least 10 more.  

    The Bergdahl situation (none / 0) (#1)
    by ragebot on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 11:26:36 AM EST
    kinda reminds me of what Lord Bolton's bastard son said to Theon Greyjoy.

    "If you think this has a happy ending you have not been paying attention."

    Why don't you guys leave him alone? (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:39:25 PM EST
    This will all sort itself out in due time, and we'll then understand more fully what actually happened, and how exactly he came to fall into the hands of the Taliban.

    Meanwhile, these crazy and brazen personal attacks on both the man and his family are most inappropriate and very, very unseemly -- most particularly when they're being leveled by Oliver North of Iran-Contra infamy, of all people.



    Know what I find most hilarious (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    Over on FAUX news they are making a HUGE deal about the guys beard.  HIS FREAKIN BEARD.  Saying if he is really not sympathic to the Taliban he should shave it off.   in the same week the asshat from Dork Dynasy was the keynote speaker at the republican clown show.

    Shame is something these people have no concept of.


    And I read (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:16:00 PM EST
    all these Fox news watchers are calling his hometown issuing threats. Like I said before a monster has been unleashed by the GOP and sooner or later something really, really bad is going to happen. One of their followers are going to bomb something or kill somebody.

    Do you honestly think that would phase them? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:50:19 PM EST
    They would blame it on Obama without missing a beat and be on to the next "thing"

    No (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:57:46 PM EST
    actually I don't but it certainly would turn about 75% of the country against them. That 25% is pretty much crazy and unreachable.

    I had a debate with one of these on facebook the other day. I showed him that Bush had lied linking Iraq and Saddam. Showed him that the CIA told Bush ten days after 9/11 that there was no link but that Bush continued to lie about it for years. Bush even lied and withheld that information from people in his own party on the intelligence committee in congress. I even linked to the National Review. It didn't matter. Nothing. It's like trying to reason with a cultist. Excuse after excuse was made. I'm sure it's the same thing with Bowe. They don't care about the facts or trust the system of military justice we have in this country to handle it. No one is safe from their wrath. They are going to attack and try to smear anyone who is not one of "them. Fortunately they are way outnumbered in this country.


    Wish I shared your optimism (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:03:07 PM EST
    IMO they would have no question of or problem with the system of military justice if there was a republican CIC

    Probably (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 07:20:45 PM EST
    I mean you even had the NRA warning off these people doing damage to gun control. You have Frank Luntz of all people warning them off attacking Bowe. But again, no matter how much the people at the top tell this to the bottom it is not going to matter. They have created a monster that is going to eat them all up.

    Which reminds me- follow up to the NRA (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 07:26:35 PM EST
    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 07:54:13 PM EST
    whether to laugh or cry because they are so stupid. They think the NRA progun regulation.

    Just saw the NRA (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 07:58:58 PM EST
    Is backpedaling this as fast as they can.   No word of reissued cards.

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#140)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:01:52 PM EST
    they completely caved into the crazies. I knew the slight whiff of sanity would not last there with their insane leadership.

    Yeah...after years of knowing that the Taliban (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 10:52:10 PM EST
    are the bad guys, even in the same breath objecting to letting 5 of them free...the think they have a right to tell a father how he is supposed to act when his son has been in the hands of The Taliban for five years. I just cannot fathom it.  I feel like Tryion trying to fathom the motives of morons as they crush beetles.

    Ambiguity (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:35:48 PM EST
    In the past day, I glanced at a comment about the ambiguity inherent in the latter days of this War in Afghanistan ... a reference in the NYT editorial, I think, about this situation as a metaphor for the War.

    Just thinking now about that one-time phrase "Take no prisoners," and how aptly it describes the personal attack aspect following the release.  Without waiting for investigation, the usual types--undergirded by Fox--heap slurs on the soldier, ridicule the family and the father's looks, and -- airing on the news this a.m. -- sent threatening letters and calls to the Idaho hometown that is planning a homecoming for Bergdahl.  

    A few known Republicans that live in my neighborhood appear to be in meltdown livid mode.  E.g., one asked me what I thought ... and before I could say anything ... she opined that the situation was horrible and that everyone in the service opposed him because he was personally responsible for deaths ... when I tried to interject that the trade concept has been practiced throughout history and that the war was nearing an end, she spat out her conclusion that Obama acted now and always illegally ... when I told her that there was an argument to be considered that circumstances dictated moving quickly, and that an investigation would be held separately, she declared that he was a deserted and that any investigation that said otherwise was because Obama dictated it ... then, after she started all this and worked herself into red face and glary eyes, she turned, almost running away.  BTW:  Total elapsed time for the instance was well under 10 minutes.  (Forgot to mention: A friend of hers standing with her nodding and saying that "Yes, he's a deserted."  She is also a neighborhood Republican.)

    It is the quick move to the verbal-atomic level that is so stunning here.  Are we all becoming so "programmed" that succumbing to immediate fury is the norm?  At the least, this open, almost proud disposition to disregard any investigation that doesn't align with her thinking seems only to mirror the same crapola oozing from orchestrated spinners.  It seems like a repeat of Swiftboating, a reprisal of a Rovian character smear, a new version of letting nothing stand in the way of smashing the opponent.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:52:59 PM EST
    this is what happens when a rat is cornered and the GOP is that rat. Everything that happens they ratchet up the rhetoric one more decibel. I thought the idiocy about Benghazi was bad enough but this is even worse. And whatever happens next will be more screeching than this one.

    And they were making up stories about people being "left behind" in Benghazi and now they're advocating this guy should be left behind. They've lost all sense of reason. They're all just running around with their hair on fire.


    yes (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:57:23 PM EST
    I guess they would not be so worked up about every little thing if Obama were not a muslim born in Kenya.

    And that's not (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by desertswine on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 10:51:58 PM EST
    the worst thing he is (to them).

    Good advice (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 03:24:37 PM EST
    Why didn't the Prez leave it alone and not do a PR bit in the Rose Garden?

    ... and refrain from commenting derogatorily about a matter about which you quite obviously know little or nothing? I'm now more than a little annoyed, and am becoming increasingly disgusted by the thoroughly obnoxious and uncalled-for manner in which you all are piling on a prisoner of war, for no other earthly reason than that the president is a black man -- and simply put, the crackers don't like it.

    Given that we do not yet know all the facts regarding the circumstances of Sgt. Bergdahl's capture by the Taliban, suffice to say that you unhinged crackpots have absolutely no right whatsoever to act as the man's judge, jury and summary executioner.

    Now, I may be an unapologetic librul scalawag, but I will say that by virtue of my own family background, I undoubtedly know one helluva lot more about the U.S. military than you probably ever will in your lifetime. Further, I respect our military personnel as something much more than cannon fodder for your revisionist neocon fantasies about the way the world oughta be.

    So, let me put it simply in terms that even you can understand: the United States military does NOT make conscious decisions to leave its soldiers, sailors and airmen behind in enemy hands in a war zone, regardless of whatever their perceived personal failings might be. And further, we as a country will make every effort to retrieve them from enemy hands. Period.

    Whether or not Sgt. Bergdahl in fact deserted his post in Afghanistan will no doubt be determined in due course by the proper authorities. But until such time as his case might be adjudicated by court-martial, he is most certainly NOT to be hustled to the gallows by a noxious bunch of right-wing GOP chickenhawks, squawking as you all are like some stuck-up prom queen who just walked outside for a smoke, only to discover her date banging one of the cheerleaders behind the school gym.

    Would you and your friends have said the same vile things about John McCain or Orson Swindle, two Vietnam-era Navy pilots and POWs who were each shot down while making a final unauthorized bombing run before acknowledging their orders to return to their respective aircraft carriers? I think not. Whatever their transgressions or shortcomings might have been as officers, they were eventually able to come home only because our country's leaders were adult enough to sit down with our North Vietnamese adversaries and negotiate in presumably good faith for their release.

    So, to quote Archie Bunker, stifle yourself. I don't give a rat's a$$ that you're older than me, Jim, because as far as you're concerned, there's no fool quite like an old fool. I read everything you and your right-wing buddies posted here on this subject yesterday. President Obama did absolutely the right thing to negotiate for Sgt. Bergdahl's release from captivity, and your fifteen minutes are more than up.

    Aloha, as in "Adios."


    Uh Donald (1.00 / 3) (#193)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 11:08:57 AM EST
    Unlike you I served in Naval Aviation for 10 years.

    You have no direct knowledge.

    Speaking of fools, there is nothing like a fool with no experience running his mouth.

    I mean, you can't even keep up with the conversation. Try some fish oil.

    Point. I called for a courts martial.

    Point. I believe he is a deserter. Maybe a collaborator. That is based on what I have heard/seem from his fellow soldiers who have no reason to lie. In fact, they jeopardize their careers by "speaking truth to power."

    Point. That is my right.

    Point. I won't be part of the proceeding.

    Point. Somewhere in the thread someone quotes an Admiral re picking someone out of the water who has either jumped, fell or was pushed overboard that you do back and pick him.

    Point. That's wrong. You do not interrupt combat operations thus endangering the ship, the mission and the rest of the crew to save a single man.

    Point. By trading 5 high level terrorists Obama has endangered the troops who serve and Americans all over the world.

    Point. He did it because he thought it would help his worsening poll numbers. That is despicable.

    Point. By supporting Obama his slime drips all over you. Even the staunchest Repub finally caught on to Nixon's lies and paranoia and withdrew their support.

    Point. You aren't smart enough to do that.


    PR Bit (none / 0) (#105)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 04:13:59 PM EST
    one interpretation.

    Humanizing the soldier vis a vis his family and their desire to see their child home regardless of circumstances is another.

    What's sad about you guys is you view everything through the lens of D vs. R and look for nefarious intent at every corner.


    Hooey (1.00 / 1) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:26:58 PM EST
    The facts are out in the public arena...that is if you care to look and listen.

    He walked away. He deserted a combat position. People died looking for him. The only honorable thing is execution.


    Seriously? (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:30:39 PM EST
    From demanding a court martial to skipping right to the execution in one day.

    Jim - the arbiter of what's honorable for soldiers in actual combat.



    How many people died looking for trumped (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 10:32:30 PM EST
    up WMD in Iraq? Maybe I'll support executing Bergdahl if Cheney and Bush go with him.

    The Times ran a story today (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 10:37:46 PM EST
    Accounting for how each soldier was KIA in the area in the days following Berdahl's disappearance, and it appears nobody was killed looking for him.

    Anyway you cut it (1.50 / 2) (#184)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 10:20:32 AM EST
    He is a deserter.

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#187)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 10:51:20 AM EST
    we know you think he would have been better off left there with the Taliban.

    The irony is 3 hours before he got home, the GOP was blaming Obama for keeping them there and praying for his release. Now that their prayers are answered I guess they have nothing left to do but flail around and scream. Carry on.


    What a different story you would sing (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by ZtoA on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 04:01:55 PM EST
    if Bergdahl was executed on video and that was released. Of course the GOPers and the Tea people would scream that it was Obama's fault.  We don't know the level of threat against him. If the threats were rising to a critical point his character does not matter at all. He is an american soldier and his treatment in the hands of the Taliban is important.

    How many vids (none / 0) (#108)
    by ragebot on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 04:30:44 PM EST
    of Bergdahl have you seen.  His release was not the first one.

    There is a real history about his case.  Maybe the first thing to know is the Army had guys in his company sign non disclosure agreements, something that always is a red flag to me.  There were several verified reports the army has intel on where he was but did not want to risk a rescue.  The Rolling Stone article was a couple of years ago and raised questions about how he left the base.

    There are too many Johny-come-latlies who just found out about this guy when Obama had his press conference with the parents.  For some time now he has been viewed by the military not as a POW/detainee/what ever the PC term is but as someone who was UA under questionable circumstances at best.

    If you just found out about this less than a week ago you need to get up to speed before you embarrass yourself by posting something at odds with the known facts.


    So what? (none / 0) (#111)
    by ZtoA on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 04:41:48 PM EST
    Yes you have superior knowledge of this soldier than I do. But you don't know what threats have recently been made about him. At this point it is simply not known, and we may never know. But attacking his character may not get to the truth and is too knee jerk.

    I am still not understanding (none / 0) (#88)
    by ragebot on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:56:57 PM EST
    what this has to do with Bush, or the GOP.

    I have never defended Bush and was not in favor of Bush heaping more debt with Medicare Part B for starters.  I am not a fan of the GOP either for too many reason to list.

    One of the best comments I remember about Obama's analysis of this situation was that Obama thinks going UA is like cutting class.  It was clear to anyone who had experience in the military that at best this guy went UA.  It has just gone down hill from there.

    This will play out, but don't expect things to get better.  This guy is headed for administrative action at best.  He will be lucky to just get a dishonorable discharge and time served forfeiting rank and pay.


    Actually what you don't understand (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 03:01:30 PM EST
    Is that we get all that.  At least the part about the soldier. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to keep kicking him.

    not Capt Howdy (none / 0) (#91)
    by ragebot on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 03:08:31 PM EST
    You have already posted you have no military experience.

    For those of us who have been in an FOB what he did is inexcusable.  Going UA is like stabbing your fellow soldiers in the back, not like cutting class as you seem to think.

    If you notice he was a PFC when captured and now is suppose to be a Sgt.  Notice how lots of the guys who were in his unit commenting about it are not Sgt. but Spec.  Until you know the difference maybe you should spend your time getting up to speed instead of commenting.


    I think you are taking as verified, (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 03:29:30 PM EST
    proved, indisputable truth what these members of his unit can't find enough media outlets to scream to.

    Over and over, we keep hearing about the deaths that were the direct result of Bergdahl wandering off.  

    But not so fast on that one, okay?

    But a review of casualty reports and contemporaneous military logs from the Afghanistan war shows that the facts surrounding the eight deaths are far murkier than definitive - even as critics of Sergeant Bergdahl contend that every American combat death in Paktika Province in the months after he disappeared, from July to September 2009, was his fault. All across Afghanistan, that period was a time of ferocious fighting. President Obama had decided to send a surge of additional troops to improve security, but they had not yet arrived. In Paktika, the eight deaths during that period were up from five in the same three months the previous year. Across Afghanistan, 122 Americans died in that period, up from 58 in 2008.


    Two soldiers died during the most intense period of the search after Sergeant Bergdahl's June 30 disappearance. Both were inside an outpost that came under attack, not out patrolling and running checkpoints looking for him. The other six soldiers died in late August and early September.


    Mr. Bethea wrote that of the six men killed in August and September, two died in a roadside bombing while on a reconnaissance mission, a third was shot during a search for a Taliban political leader and three others were killed while conducting patrols -- two in an ambush and one who stepped on a mine.

    He suggested some connection to Sergeant Bergdahl for several of the deaths, saying the Taliban leader and a village that was in the area of one of the patrols were "thought affiliated with Bergdahl's captors." He also said a village in the areas of the other patrol was "near the area where Bergdahl vanished."


    A retired senior American military officer, who was briefed at the time on the search for Sergeant Bergdahl, said that even though soldiers were instructed to watch for signs of the missing American, they would have been conducting patrols and performing risky operations anyway.

    There's a lot more; I suggest you read it.

    The reality is that we really do not know all there is to know, other than the fact that what is happening right now is a rat-fking GOP  campaign, a  massive rat-fking by Republican PR flaks, and you've bought into it, hook, line and sinker.  It does not appear that you have considered that what these braying former unit-mates of Bergdahl are saying may not contain as much truth as you think they do.

    I find it terribly ironic that conservatives, who can't get to a microphone fast enough to call for hearings and investigations and select committees to get to the "truth" of every move Obama makes, are apparently willing to take as the God's honest truth/last word on the subject the spittle-flecked accusations of a couple guys who wore a uniform and seem to be enjoying the hot, bright lights of the TV cameras just a little too much.


    Yes (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 05:48:46 PM EST
    and you've bought into it, hook, line and sinker.

    Apparently you also bought into it hook, line and sinker. The whole hero bit, or not a hero bit was disseminated by Jake Tapper in his CNN article that used a tweet from a GOP operative who also was a soldier.

    This "group" as they managed to get a bit of Media attention on CNN based on a "Reporter Jake Tapper" who used a UNVERIFIED TWEET initially as a news story resource. Incredible right?

    This is an blatant attempt by the far right wing to change the narrative from the rescue of this Solider and Prisoner of War -- into something else.


    New drinking game: (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 06:09:48 PM EST
    every time a comment makes one say, "Huh?" take a drink.  

    Bottoms up!

    Apparently, it doesn't matter to you whether I excoriate the right wing noise machine; your goal is to try to find one thing - even if it makes no sense - you can use to take a swing at me.

    You gotta problem, dude.  Kinda sad.


    Excoriating? (none / 0) (#124)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 06:54:16 PM EST
    You fell right into the trap...  

    Not much different from engaging in the question "are you still beating your wife"

    CNN Tapper, a GOP hack, based his hit piece on a tweet

    "Bowe Bergdahl is NOT a hero,"

    and the Facebook page where all the swift boating took place.

    Turns out that this was organized by Richard Grenell, a former George W. Bush and Mitt Romney adviser.

    WASHINGTON -- A former Bush administration official who was hired, then resigned, as Mitt Romney's foreign policy spokesman played a key role in publicizing critics of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the released prisoner of war.
    The involvement of Richard Grenell, who once served as a key aide to Bush-era U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton and later worked for Romney's 2012 campaign, comes as the Bergdahl release has turned into an increasingly vicious partisan issue.
    The New York Times reported that "Republican strategists" had arranged an interview for them with men who served in Afghanistan with Bergdahl, who was released after five years of imprisonment by the Taliban in a controversial prisoner swap deal. In the article, the men express their anger at Bergdahl for leaving the base, causing other soldiers to risk their lives looking for him.
    The same soldiers also did interviews with The Weekly Standard, the Daily Mail, the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News.
    Cody Full, one of the soldiers quoted in the New York Times and other stories, tweeted yesterday about Grenell: "I want to thank @richardgrenell for helping get our platoon's story out." Grenell retweeted the tweet, calling Full a "true American hero."



    You are making no sense. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 07:27:45 PM EST
    Or else you don't know what "excoriating" means.

    Because when someone says this:

    what is happening right now is a rat-fking GOP  campaign, a  massive rat-fking by Republican PR flaks, and you've bought into it, hook, line and sinker.  It does not appear that you have considered that what these braying former unit-mates of Bergdahl are saying may not contain as much truth as you think they do.

    I find it terribly ironic that conservatives, who can't get to a microphone fast enough to call for hearings and investigations and select committees to get to the "truth" of every move Obama makes, are apparently willing to take as the God's honest truth/last word on the subject the spittle-flecked accusations of a couple guys who wore a uniform and seem to be enjoying the hot, bright lights of the TV cameras just a little too much.

    it is not "buying into" the right-wing message, it is exposing it for what it is.

    I guess we can look forward to another episode of "squeaky keeps insisting on his point in the face of clear evidence that it makes no sense" because it would probably kill you to agree with anything I'm saying.


    What's next?  Up is down?  The earth is flat?  

    I'll say this: you sure are getting your money's worth out of that shovel you recently bought.  Have you hit oil or natural gas yet?


    BS (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:11:36 PM EST
    The way to expose that GOP operative bait is to point out that no one was calling Bergdahl a hero. And that the Tapper article was fueled by GOP operatives to smear Obama by swift boating Berhdahl.

    To ask "Why Why must we always set up this dynamic involving the term "hero?" plays right into the GOP trap.

    It would have been excoriating to ask "why does the GOP set up a hero dynamic when it is irrelevant, except to swift boat and smear Obama."

    But that would make you sound like you were defending Obama for something good that he did..  that will never happen.


    And do you honestly think (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 03:15:20 PM EST
    We have not all heard all this about a thousand freakin times.  You think you are posting news?  All I need to do to get "up to speed" on the poor guys alleged failings is turn on the TV for five minutes.

    We get it.  We don't care.  We get that you seem to.  We got it.


    The truth though Captain (5.00 / 6) (#168)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 11:12:24 PM EST
    The more that "comes out", the more questions are surfacing about these comrades stepping forward as truth tellers.  Leatherman threw a huge fit about soldiers killed looking for Bergdahl, but now it appears there were no soldier deaths that "Looking for Bergdahl" was specifically responsible for.

    Leatherman pitched a fit that Bergdahl was learning the local languages but that is what every soldier who wanted to be promoted was doing.  The military gave any of them free Rosetta Stone to do it.  The leadership was begging soldiers to learn the local languages if they were capable.

    With each passing day, it is becoming more and more apparent that this is a rightwing organized trumped up smear campaign.


    Do these blabbermouths not understand (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 10:46:15 AM EST
    that their own lives, their own military records, their own interests, associations, writings, etc. can and will be put under an equally bright spotlight - and that whatever's there can and will be made into whatever those unearthing the info want it to be?

    I don't mean to suggest that this is the way we should be going about getting to the facts, just that when the credibility game is played, it comes with a double-edged sword.  And how these guys don't know this is beyond me.  

    And regardless of non-disclosure agreements, classified reports, hush-hush, super-secret, password-protected safeguards, is there anyone alive now who doesn't know that there are always people willing to divulge anonymously?

    I don't know how we're ever supposed to know what the facts are when there's this thicket of innuendo, unsubstantiated opinion, distortions, agenda and utter bullsh!t that springs up the instant anything the least bit out of the ordinary happens.

    I'm just so sick of it I could throw something.


    Yes, Anne (1.50 / 2) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 11:15:12 AM EST
    I'm sure they realize they will be attacked by
    the Left wing press.

    I mean, we knew more about Joe the Plumber in 24 hours than we know about Obama to this day.

    And that gives their statements a lot of veracity.


    Yes (none / 0) (#182)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 10:00:02 AM EST
    My inartfully stated point was more even if you were right, who cares

    State of Mind (none / 0) (#98)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 03:33:43 PM EST
    ragebot: One of the most significant factors here is "What was B's state of mind at the time he left the post?"  My understanding is that determination -- ultimately, a legal determination in the course of a military investigation -- is central to what, if any, charges could/would be made against the soldier.  We are not talking about various tales or recounting or rumors or anything but an official, methodical investigation that is expected.  The longstanding practice of not leaving an American soldier behind is just that ... a longstanding practice that was again observed by a trade (which, under any number of Presidents, occurs near or at the end of war; and, which, in any number of countries such as ally Israel, is routinely practiced.)  The matter relating to any culpability -- state of mind, mens rea, etc. -- is a separate issue.

    As to State of Mind:  I'm sure that we all can develop and should practice a bit of patience in waiting for the facts.  This shouldn't be a matter of spin nor smear.  

    As for qualifications to speak:  I'm also sure that soldiers around the world, who loyally served, would welcome awaiting the facts developed during investigation.  After all, the desire to see determinations based upon the facts rather than informal stories is a practice that is everyone's interest in the long run.  As the daughter of a WWII Marine Corps veteran, I know my Dad would have exercised the patience and the discipline to await the facts.


    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:16:55 PM EST
    It was clear to anyone who had experience in the military that at best this guy went UA.

    Because just yesterday it wasn't "clear" to you.  

    There are still unanswered questions about just what happened just before, during, and after his capture.  Maybe the emails he sent to his folks were not as bad as some sources have reported.  

    But there does seem to be some reason to think he left his duty station with out authorization.

    From "some unanswered questions" and "some reason to think he left his duty station without authorization" to crystal clear in less than 4 hours.



    Do you mean President Bush's (none / 0) (#100)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 03:39:17 PM EST
    suppressing the cost of Medicare Part D? (rather than Part B).  And, the activities of other Republicans, such as Tom Delay?

    Fargo (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 11:31:18 AM EST
    Who watched?  Wow.  Won't spoil but wow.  We have a whole new story.  With two episodes to go till the season finale.

    The plot totally went around the bend, up the creek and over the falls in a barrel.

    Yes! I just got done watching it (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:43:39 PM EST
    I thought it was going to be the final episode - had to make sure they showed previews of next week.

    I think I am going to like the final cat and mouse game.

    Love the FBI agents in the file room.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:52:06 PM EST
    Also loved the guy who is an eternal screw up ends up working for the post office.

    Also, not sure how much of a fan of the film but nice nod in the scene where they are laying in bed and the pregnant deputy opines "we're doin good"


    Yes - I got misty just seeing her pregnant in (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:58:16 PM EST
    her uniform. Nice call back to Frances McDormand.

    Best episode yet (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 10:04:18 PM EST
    Love this show.

    Love the quiet confidence of Thorton and the emerging confidence of Lester.

    It's going to be a messy ending.

    I hope like in the movie our pregnant cop turns out to be the hero.


    Oh (none / 0) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 10:57:55 AM EST
    And what about the strange refugee adoption?  Maybe it's just my cynical nature but something tells me that may not end well.

    Understand I hope it does and it was just as it appeared but it was like what?


    That was weird (none / 0) (#191)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 11:00:47 AM EST
    Could be just a plot filler, an unnecessary one at that, but you never know.

    Hope he doesn't get killed or something.

    More likely the show ends in Vegas with the Lester confrontation of Thorton.  Previews make it seem like Lester's new found confidence is fools gold going up against a hardened killer.

    We shall see.


    You are a provocateur. (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:07:18 PM EST
    Let's just get this out if the way (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:12:35 PM EST
    Until J says we can't comment on TV, which I don't expect to happen, I plan to comment on exactly whatever I want in a ope thread.  If some one doesn't like that they can skip my comments, read a book or start their own blog where they can make the rules about who comments when and about what.

    If you consider that provocative so be it.  Peosonally I think it is you being so,once again stirring the pot.


    I do not object. And please don't join the (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:17:13 PM EST
    "stirring the pot" accusers. It is beneath your dignity.

    I have no dignity (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:18:48 PM EST
    It's my best feature

    Apparently it is beneath (none / 0) (#27)
    by sj on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:33:29 PM EST
    one's dignity to notice the stirring of the pot. As opposed to, you know, doing the actual stirring.

    Analysis, is what I do, so I never consider noticing trends to be beneath me. Hiding what I notice, however, is. I can't help but bring it out into the open. It's like a boil, you know? It needs to be lanced.


    So in fairness, feel free to do the lancing when I'm the boil. I know, I know... plain speaking and honesty is often considered boil-like, so I'm setting myself up here. But fair is fair. Besides, I don't want to hang on to my poisons either.



    If the stirring is so blatantly apparent, why (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:36:04 PM EST
    Even bother to comment?

    Like I said (none / 0) (#39)
    by sj on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    I'm an analyst. I document what I see.

    Analyst? Only Documenting? (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:11:41 PM EST
    Don't quit your day job, sj..

    Yippee!! (none / 0) (#47)
    by sj on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:17:06 PM EST
    ...more boils...

    btw, silly boy (none / 0) (#69)
    by sj on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:01:05 PM EST
    Analyst? Only Documenting? (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:11:41 PM MDT

    Don't quit your day job, sj..

    That is very much part of my day job. And I get paid quite well for it. I've gotten bonuses for finding and documenting ... boils... so that remedial measures could be taken :)



    Plus (none / 0) (#42)
    by sj on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:09:13 PM EST
    lancing boils, while unpleasant, is a good thing.

    In public? (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:20:51 PM EST
    If that's where they are... (none / 0) (#52)
    by sj on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:24:41 PM EST
    She likes our television commenting though (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:14:15 PM EST
    I think oculus does too (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:14:57 PM EST
    apparently is is not (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ZtoA on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:19:21 PM EST
    the hight of any of the sports seasons. Not so oddly TV and sports share lots of ground.

    Seriously (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:28:19 PM EST
    Can we talk about how many sports comments I scroll past.

    Okay, let's do that. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:45:55 PM EST
    CaptHowdy: "Can we talk about how many sports comments I scroll past."

    How about those L.A. Kings, eh?



    Go Heat... (none / 0) (#174)
    by fishcamp on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 08:37:55 AM EST
    World Cup starts in 8 days (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:26:46 PM EST
    The only thing that makes me sports coo coo.

    Psyched for La Copa! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:57:51 PM EST
    Even if we're in a death group...Portugal & Germany?  C'mon man!

    Gotta be Ghana by two goals in the first game me thinks or forget about any hope of advancing...and Ghana has our number.  


    You MUST see F Argo at ASAP (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:16:21 PM EST
    I'm supposed to primping right now :) (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:17:11 PM EST
    Fell asleep (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:11:50 PM EST
    It must wait

    I missed it last night, and will ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:23:30 PM EST
    ... have to catch it on the rebound.

    Now I'm really curious (none / 0) (#159)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:32:20 PM EST
    Love the series, but won't have time to watch this episode until this weekend.

    Probably seen this (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:03:09 PM EST
    I'm a sucker for this stuff but this really made a lump in my throat

    Mr G & Jellybean reunited

    It's cute though (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:22:12 PM EST
    My spouse loves goat sagwala.  I told him he ever knew a goat it would ruin it for him.  He says no, but he carries spiders outdoors and debates whether a snake is poisonous or not before killing it.  Just hand me the shovel!  If he ever KNEW a goat, it would be game over for goat sagwala.

    You could try (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by sj on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:03:55 PM EST
    just sending him some of these. (I couldn't find the one or two that I was looking for, but I just spent an enjoyable ten minutes or so).

    Spiders and non-poisonous snakes... (none / 0) (#138)
    by unitron on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:00:15 PM EST
    ...are more likely to be dangerous to various and sundry insects you didn't want around anyway than they are to the humans in your house, so he's doing it right.

    He does that because he can't kill (none / 0) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:07:26 PM EST
    Them.  It hurts his heart.

    Tea party (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 12:35:49 PM EST
    crackpot wins the IA GOP senate nomination.

    What about the Mississippi cracker? (none / 0) (#58)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:49:02 PM EST
    The run-off with McDaniels and Cochran could be fun to watch ... for a Democrat.  I hear today that the big PAC money from Rove's group will be parking it's money on the sidelines, now taking it away from Cochran.  The Tea Party has found fertile ground, it appears.

    Starting to think a McDaniels win (none / 0) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 06:44:15 PM EST
    Might not be the worst thing for the democrats.  First, on policy or any possible vote he's not that different than the incumbent but more importantly he would instantly supplant Ted Scruz-loose as the insane face of the Republican Party.  Not the worst thing going into 2016.  

    In any case I am very skeptical of an dem winning rap there no matter who the R is.


    I don't know much (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 07:23:35 PM EST
    about what is going on with MS other than it's an all out war.

    The IA GOP senate candidate thinks that we found WMDs in Iraq. Can you believe that?


    That's Ms Pignuts right? (none / 0) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 07:28:03 PM EST
    Yeah, that's her (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:00:58 PM EST
    Of course, I ready an article in Slate about her and she did an interview with the Des Moines Register ON TAPE now have you stating that there were WMDs in Iraq. The same article says 67%!!! of republicans polled in 2012 thought we found WMDs in Iraq. So she's actually with the GOP on that. She's going on and on about Obama. Does she not realize that Obama carried Iowa twice? I guess not.

    More hopeful about that one (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:03:43 PM EST
    That Mississippi.  That's Tom Harkins seat.

    I think even (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:19:11 PM EST
    if Cochran loses the primary that the tea party crackpot will win. I mean it's Mississippi after all isn't it?

    Speaking of sports... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:01:06 PM EST
    how 'bout the sport of kings and that California Chrome?  I got a good feeling this is the year for a Triple Crown winner, the most difficult feat in all of sports.  Only Chromie (or Espinoza) can beat Chromie.

    I'll be there (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:09:41 PM EST
    How about you?

    See above... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:18:28 PM EST
    I'll be jamming at Hunter, but I hope they'll have the race on in the lodge.  

    Regardless, I've been to Big Sandy hundreds of times, but I have never and will never attend a Belmont Stakes...I'm too used to having the grandstand to myself and a couple Rastas smoking spliffs...and no lines at the betting windows.  Only exception is the family tradition of Fathers Day at the track...it's jam-packed that day too, but only in the picnic area.


    Haven't been to Belmont in a while (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:22:47 PM EST
    I think the last Breeders Cup there, but have some great memories and some awful ones.

    Risen Star winning by 15 is the top.

    Charismatic breaking down the worst.


    In all the years I lived in Baltimore (none / 0) (#53)
    by sj on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:28:53 PM EST
    I never went to the Preakness. I couldn't get any of my friends to go with me, and it didn't look like fun for a solo afternoon.

    I do regret that. I never made my own great and awful memories of the second leg of the Triple Crown.


    A beautiful place... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:50:23 PM EST
    so much nicer than that dump Aqueduct...but it's no Saratoga.  Ever been up to the Spa?  It's like walking into a time machine back to 1890.

    I remember Charismatic...he had a shot.  Thank god he survived to be a stud in Japan...who has a better retirement than a top thoroughbred, eh?  

    My old man was not one for tears...but he'd shed 'em when he got to talking about the great Ruffian, and her tragic break down in the match race against Foolish Pleasure at Belmont Park.  He could talk for hours about that horse.  She's buried in the infield at Belmont.


    Del Mar, baby (none / 0) (#68)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:59:18 PM EST
    I prefer Santa Anita. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 04:15:13 PM EST
    But quite honestly, while Santa Anita enjoys a magnificent setting in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, my preference is probably due more to its proximity to Pasadena, being only five miles or so from my old stomping grounds in Hastings Ranch and Sierra Madre.

    Del Mar is an equally spectacular locale to spend a pleasant afternoon. I haven't been there in quite a while, though, because it's a nearly 100 mile-long drive from Mom's house, one-way. When we have gone down there, it's more often than not for the San Diego County Fair, and then we'll probably spend the night at my cousin's place in nearby Carlsbad.

    I've never been to Los Alamitos racetrack near Seal Beach, even though I've driven by it I don't know how many times. And I never really cared for long-fabled Hollywood Park, so can't say that I lament its recent closure last December, as did your old buddy Dick Van Patten. That racetrack's site in economically-challenged Inglewood no doubt contributed to its perpetual struggle to attract and keep an audience, and the relatively recent proliferation of off-track betting was probably also a significant factor in its demise.

    I'm not a big gambler at all, and leave that to other family members and guys like BTD. Rather, I just put my $2 down and then sit back to watch the ponies run. Personally, I find very few things in nature more fascinating and beautiful than a horse galloping down the stretch at full stride, especially on a gorgeous day in Southern California.



    Too much smog at Santa Anita (none / 0) (#107)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 04:24:55 PM EST
    I remember going there as a kid in June or early July and hardly being able to see the mountains from basically point blank distance. Now that's pretty frightening on the lungs. Then again, I had pleurisy twice as a kid from that chunky "air."

    But that was a long time ago. (none / 0) (#114)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 05:05:46 PM EST
    The air quality in the San Gabriel Valley and the entire L.A. basin has significantly and vastly improved from those years when you and I were growing up there. For myself, I became an asthmatic thanks in no small part to the air pollution that existed back then, and have never shaken that ailment as an adult.

    My mother still laughs heartily, though, remembering the time when I was four years old and first really noticed the San Gabriels on one of the then-rare clear days in Pasadena, and I excitedly dragged everyone outside to look at them. I mean, when you live in the San Gabriel foothills and can't see the imposing 5,000-ft. ridgeline to the immediate north, yeah, that was pretty effin bad!

    It's since gotten so much better there, literally like night and day. Now, when most longtime residents hear some right-wing ideologue rant and rail about the emission restrictions on automobiles and industry that were imposed by the EPA's South Coast Air Quality Management District, which have been in place since the 1970s and did so very much to clean up the region's atmospherics, they just shake their heads in bemusement at such willful ignorance.

    No way are people willing to go back to the old ways and days, especially when they remember the Stage One smog alerts that were issued by civil authorities on a near-daily basis during the summertimes.



    Believe me, I know it's better, but still... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 05:28:01 PM EST
    ...it's more atrocious than it should be by any measure used in supposedly the greatest nation on earth. Still horrible for kids growing up there. It's progress, sure, I can't deny that, nor would I want to diminish the significant legislation that aided this change. But the starting point was the problem. It had become almost unlivable in any sort of healthy sense. And LA, still, in 2014, is  so inexcusably idiotic about public transit. Yes there are a few subway lines, MetroLink, and tons of buses, but the overall benefit of these is FAR less than it should be at this point. Exponentially less. Something to be, IMO, kind of ashamed of. If EVER there were a city that could thrive on thousands of street cars and light rail trolleys (which is pretty much had at one time), LA would be it. When those red cars got bribed away by auto manufacturers, LA was doomed for at least a century. Until then, oy, the traffic is as bad as ever, and that's all that matters to me when I have to get from LAX to Los Feliz. ;-)

    To be sure, things can always be better. (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 07:50:42 PM EST
    But many of your valid observations and complaints are in fact being remedied even as we speak, and we need to recognize that it takes time to do so.

    As it stands, L.A. has made very real and significant progress toward correcting the transit mistakes of the past -- particularly with regards to the egregiously shortsighted decision made by city and county forefathers after the Second World War to do away with what was then arguably one of the finest municipal rail transit systems in the world, and instead pursue transit policies which favored the manufacture of automobiles and the construction of freeways.

    (Those shortsighted policies also include allowing the population of the greater L.A. metropolitan area to more than quintuple from 1946 to present day, which has no doubt contributed mightily to the transit gridlock you've so noted.)

    Whenever I'm returning to L.A. for a visit or business, I can now catch the Flyaway motor coach from LAX to Union Station, and from there, the Gold Line light rail to the Sierra Madre Villa Station in Pasadena, which is about five block's from my mother's place. I couldn't do that 20 years ago. Either I would've had to rent a car, or someone would have had to pick me up at LAX. And now, public transit is actually a much faster way to get to Pasadena from LAX, than by freeway.

    And further, the Gold Line has since been extended southeast from downtown into East L.A., and is also currently being further extended eastward from Pasadena to Azusa and Glendora, which is expected to open sometime next year. The recently opened Orange Line has basically extended the Metro Rail's Red Line from North Hollywood through Van Nuys out to Chatsworth.

    Also on tap, the Blue Line is being extended westward to Venice and the Purple Line to Santa Monica, and a spur on the Green Line will go to LAX proper. And much of this is being accomplished by using the transit rights-of-way first secured by the late Red Car and Yellow Car lines back in the early 20th century, and in the case of the Gold and Orange Lines, the 134 (Ventura) and 210 (Foothill) freeways.

    So, if you look at a current map of L.A.'s rail network (which includes MetroLink) and take into account the extensions I've just cited, you can see the route system has actually become quite extensive, and within a few years will encompass much of Pacific Electric Railway's former Red Car lines. So, we should give L.A.'s current crop of urban planners some considerable credit.



    Yes (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:48:16 PM EST
    Love Saratoga, especially the jockeys sitting outside.

    Nothing like it.


    We went to Saratoga once, while ... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 04:38:30 PM EST
    ... while visiting Elder Daughter at U-Albany a few years ago. While I won't go so far as to say that there's nothing like it, because I think each of the great American racetracks has its own unique charms. I agree with you that Saratoga's really a most gorgeous place, and I thoroughly enjoyed the day we spent there playing the ponies.

    I'd love to go again, if ever we get back to northern New York to actually visit the Adirondacks, since we no longer have reason to just hang out in Albany. That's a really beautiful part of the country.



    Does racing season overlap w/the (none / 0) (#170)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 12:52:02 AM EST
    Philadelphia Orchestra's summer season?

    Can't see Chrome winning (none / 0) (#64)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:56:06 PM EST
    He was charged hard at the end of the Preakness, and another quarter mile he'd never have won.

    But that's why they load them into the gate and run.

    How you doing on Bovada, BTW?


    Chromie & Espinoza... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:16:59 PM EST
    had to make their move a little earlier than they would have liked in the Preakness...and still Ride on Curlin couldn't catch him.  They should have more time to wait as the pace should be slower.  

    The biggest reason I think this is the year is who is the rival?  Aside from Chromie this is a weak 3 year old class, imo.  


    The rival? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:23:29 PM EST
    Whichever horse is the best distance horse. If that is the longshot, bet him. The Belmont is death. Too long for American horses these days. Just my gut opine, but come on, I am a California Boy, you don't think I want to see him take it.

    Go Chrome!!


    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#82)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:43:45 PM EST
    I often think/thought we'd never see another Triple Crown...thinned bloodlines, 3 monster races in quick succession, a mile and a farkin' half on a sandy track.  It's murder.

    I just think Chromie might be the perfect storm...just off the pace versatile running style, humble breeding (which I think is a big positive, the "preferred" bloodlines are too thin/weakened), cool connections, and an unflappable people-loving horse.  Breeding for distance just isn't a priority anymore...it's all about speed speed speed. There is no horse bred for the distance in the field...they'll all be running into the unknown with a 1/4 mile to go.  

    All that being said, I would not bet on him unless I wanted a souvenir $2 win bet ticket I'd never cash...punters should pick a long shot, I wouldn't bet on any 2-5 horse in the Belmont;)


    You know the field better than me (none / 0) (#97)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 03:31:16 PM EST
    And if there aren't any clear distance ponies then, well, he has to have a better shot that most in the last who knows how many moons. I'll probably throw a few hundo down on someone after I study up a little later in the week.

    Go Kings!!!


    Cashed a little last night (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 02:47:16 PM EST
    Baseball season is awful for me.

    Can't figure it out.

    High hopes for the World Cup though.

    Plus, Jimmie Johnson winning the last 2 weeks very good for the account.


    My old roomie started ASN (none / 0) (#99)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 03:36:36 PM EST
    American Soccer Now website. Check it out if you haven't. He's going down to Brazil to report on the Cup for the site.

    Baseball is impossible. I'd rather bet boxing. Well, not really. ;-)


    A sport (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 01:42:23 PM EST
    I can relate to

    What if he's a traitor (none / 0) (#118)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 05:50:36 PM EST

    Not saying he is but I can't believe how the WH has bungled this from a PR perspective.

    So desperate for good political news was the WH they ignored the obvious questions and trotted out his parents (beard and all) for a celebration.

    Why not just bring him home and move on?  All the supporters claiming the republicans are playing politics ignore the blatant politics put out by the administration this past weekend.   They hoped they would be celebrated and now it's blown up in their face.

    It's obvious that he at the least deserted his unit and we'll see if it's worse.  

    For people to claim the criticism of this is not legitimate is just blatant partisanship.   You are basically saying the soldiers speaking out are partisan.  Only the people who benefit from this being a happy ending seem to be defending him.   Throw on top the stories showing the Army sought to cover this up and I simply marvel at those taking shots at republicans for questioning the president.

    At best this is a PR mess.  At worst it's the president rescuing a traitor for political benefit.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 07:17:15 PM EST
    despite Obama's untimely rose garden reception Frank Luntz has warned the GOP that they continue along this line of attacking the guy the voters are going to put a hurting on the GOP.

    See Anne's link above. It's not even for certain that he deserted. There's a lot of information we are not privy to at this time. Frankly, the GOP has created another monster ratcheting up the hysteria about this. The people in the town he resides in are getting the results of some of the hysteria. It's jsut PLAIN AWFUL. Do these people deserve to have their lives threatened because Obama had a Rose Garden reception for the guy?

    I frankly do not understand the GOP's complete meltdown over this. They are making things a lot worse for themselves than it has to be. They could have said a few things about his service and gone on their way but they have gone completely swiftboat batsh*t crazy over this one.


    What the frig is your problem (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 07:43:43 PM EST
    With dad's beard?  He looks like he walked off of Duck Dynasty.

    The Army did not attempt to cover this up either.

    5 yrs ago a wingnutter on talk radio self determined that Bergdahl had deserted, and he hit the airwaves saying the Taliban should do the United States a favor and cut Bergdahl's head off.

    The military already had radio intercepts of the Taliban discussing how valuable Bergdahl really was with some suggesting that he be decapitated.  In an attempt to not fuel fires that could lead to Berdahl's wingnutty devised death the military made everyone sign non disclosure agreements.


    OMG, this just makes me so crazy I can (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:57:29 PM EST
    barely read these threads.

    I don't care if he was Charles Manson himself that somehow got to Afghanistan and captured by the Taliban.  An American. held prisoner. by the Taliban.  was released.  And by the right's own admission, it was hard enough to do that we had to pay what they call a high price. Why is it a PR nightmare to announce it in the Rose Garden?  

    Oh, I know, because wing nuts will make enough noise about ANYTHING to tarnish it. John Kerry's war service was a PR nightmare too according to your ilk.

    Now he is delivered into our hands and will face what comes. But at least it is delivered by American authorities and not the freaking Taliban.  You are all just proving once again you have the mental capacity of 12 year olds.


    What?!? (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:27:01 PM EST
    At best this is a PR mess.  At worst it's the president rescuing a traitor for political benefit.

    Do tell - what is this imaginary "political benefit"?  Is this more of that silly, VA-distraction garbage or some other rightwing fantasy?

    "obvious" and "deserted" ??? (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:31:59 PM EST
    slado: "desertion" is a legal term ... that determination has not and cannot be made until the investigation.  Why are you--and a few others here--in such a rush to state a legal and military conclusion before there is one?  You do respect the rule of law, don't you???  A number of people, including retired General McChrystal, have urged that people do not jump to conclusions on this matter.

    Why not back off a bit, because the prematurity of claims and assertions is telling.  It is telling about your own partisanship.


    I suppose all the (none / 0) (#161)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 10:19:34 PM EST
    Soldiers going on multiple networks are lying?  What is their motivation exactly?

    I suppose the Rolling Stone article written in 2012 was packed full of lies?

    Standard Obama doctrine is to "wait for more facts" and then hope the media gets bored.

    See what you want to see.  If you can't see a PR mess then you don't want to.   I don't understand the knee jerk reaction by some to defend Obama at all costs.   All Presidents screw up and this one is on quite a roll lately.

    In truth I imagine his motivations will never be truly known but the criticism is legitimate because without going around Congress this deal would never have happened.   Wonder Why?

    Many defenders of Obama are clinging to the hope that all the critical printed and spoken media about this guy is untrue.

    Stories on CNN, NYT's no less.   Just don't get it.


    Oh yes, this is really a blog that (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 10:35:18 PM EST
    supports Obama at all costs. laughable.

    He did the right thing here.


    Dear slado: Consider what constitutes (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 10:37:31 PM EST
    testimony; consider what constitutes a witness(es.)  Under oath and with cross-examination, for starters.  That people talk to their buddies or to news outlets or appear on TV means next to nothing ... testimony that supports a legal finding is much different and much more scrutinized than stories, tales, and gossip.  What you seem to be engaging in is gossip and calumny.  (Perhaps, you are doing this unwittingly; if not, then you might want to hark back to your faith conversion and reflect on what that means.)

    BTW, I "cling" to no more in this matter than that the truth will come out ... and, I believe that it is right, prudent, and just to await the investigation's determination.  To do otherwise would be to cling to spin.


    I don't know what happened (none / 0) (#180)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:45:16 AM EST
    But there is a report that this probably wasn't the first time Bergdahl walked off base without permission. Now,m aybe he was just doing it to see if he could, maybe he just made a mistake -who knows? But this is the kind of thing we need an investigation for.

    An internal military investigation found that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl intentionally sneaked away from his forward operating base in Afghanistan just before he disappeared in 2009 -- and that may not have been the first time he left the post without permission, according to officials familiar with the probe.

    "We have no indication that he intended to leave permanently," one government official familiar with the investigation told Military Times. However, the official noted, the investigation did not have potentially critical input from Sgt. Bergdahl himself.

    Several soldiers in Bergdahl's unit told investigators that Bergdahl talked about his desire to leave the base unaccompanied and that he may have done so and returned unharmed at least once before the night he disappeared for good, the official said.

    The internal investigation, known as an AR15-6, was completed in 2010 and remains classified, but several officials familiar with it have disclosed its results under condition of anonymity.

    The investigation determined that there was little doubt Bergdahl walked away from his unit before he was captured.

    But as for a court-martial?  Probably not likely:

    Yet many legal experts say a prosecution of Bergdahl is unlikely. There is an "unwritten policy" to avoid court-martialing service members who have spent time as POWs, said Eugene Fidell, a military law expert who teaches at Yale Law School and is a former president of the National Institute of Military Justice.

    "I don't think they'll do that in this case," Fidell said. "Unless something comes to light that suggests that he was a turncoat or joined the other side or assisted the other side in some way. ... There is no public indication that any of those things are true in his case."

    Greg Rinckey, a former Army judge advocate who practices at the New York law firm Tully Rinckey, agreed.

    "There's going to be an investigation, I'm sure, but do I expect to see a court-martial? No," Rinckey said in an interview.

    Responsible Reporting NOT (none / 0) (#185)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 10:22:29 AM EST
    The internal investigation, known as an AR15-6, was completed in 2010 and remains classified, but several officials familiar with it have disclosed its results under condition of anonymity.

    and from Leatherman whose credibility is in question:

    Former squad leader says Bergdahl 'left' his post: Greg Leatherman, who says he was in charge of Bergdahl's unit the night he disappeared says Bergdahl deserted his unit because 'he was tired of the establishment' and does not consider him a hero.

    army times

    The reporting seems just as biased as the Jake Tapper story, imo,

    It appears to be a piece that is largely fueled by GOP operatives, IOW a hit piece.

    These guys are justifiably angry, and their only duty is to their own experiences, their own points of view. That doesn't make it right for Republicans to exploit them for political purposes, and it also doesn't make it right for journalists to uncritically broadcast everything they say. These interviews haven't just been about the facts surrounding Bergdahl's capture, but also a great deal of extremely reckless speculation, again, which these guys have no duty not to do, but which journalists have a duty to at least contextualize. That has not been happening.



    Why are you quoting (none / 0) (#189)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 11:00:40 AM EST
    the same story I linked to to argue with me and then calling the reporting "not responsible".

    Seems you need to check b fore you post.


    It Is a Hit Piece, IMO (none / 0) (#195)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 11:13:00 AM EST
    And my quote of the hit piece you quoted but did not provide a link to, was meant to supply missing quotes that show bias.

    the second quote I linked to is not from the same source as your quote. It backs up my opinion that the reporting on this subject is poor and politically motivated. The usual verification process of "facts" is absent.


    Of course you find a bias (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 11:26:22 AM EST
    It doesn't comport with your pre-conditioned view.

    The first quote you posted I included, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

    The second quote I did not include because a) you can all read, b)as you point out - it's Leatherman's opinion, and c) it wasn't germane to what I was saying.

    The AR15-6 is an official report - which is what matters.  Should there be an investigation, that, then that, along with Leatherman's official statements, are what will matter.

    You have already made up your mind about Leatherman and those soldiers who have spoken out, without any real facts, except for someone connected with Mitt Romney helped them get their message out, yet to those who provide additional information to the discussion, you are quick to accuse of promoting "hit pieces".  Maybe you missed the part where I said things like, "I don't know what happened," and "But this is the kind of thing we need an investigation for." (I guess I was wrong - maybe not everyone here can read).

    But it's ok.  I know you prefer to live in "squeaky-land" where only your myopic view of the world is acceptable and you don't want any dissent.  Really very much like Bush/Cheney world.


    Why are you quoting (none / 0) (#190)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 11:00:44 AM EST
    the same story I linked to to argue with me and then calling the reporting "not responsible".

    Seems you need to check before you post.


    Speaking of checking before I post (none / 0) (#192)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 11:01:06 AM EST
    Sorry for the double post

    My friend (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 08:45:01 AM EST
    It is a total PR mess.  The O administration has once again shown that in the PR game it's amature hour at the White House.  This president has many shortcomings but his naive belief that if he just does the right thing, or his interpretation of it, everything will work itself out has left many of us pulling our hair if not setting it on fire.  Having said that is PR what we really want?  W was great at PR.
    I can't speak for anyone but me but I am certainly aware of all the things this guy is accused of.  And I understand that I never wore a uniform so I can't feel what you feel about those charges. I have no doubt he will be held to account for anything he did wrong.  I think what people are saying is let that process play out.  Let his family and friends have a moment to just be glad he is home.  I'm curious how you feel about the homecoming party cancelled because of multiple death threats to his family and friends.
    Consider this.  I have linked upthread to long articles showing dozens, hundreds of conservatives and service members calling for his release and berating Obama for not doing more to make it happen.  Then within a few hours those very same people doing a total 180 and calling the president a traitor for doing it.  Do you honestly think this is all about releasing 5guys who would have had to be released in a few months along with about 70 or 80 others if we don't want to be in flagrant violation of international laws adopted to keep our soldiers safe?  
    And consider the sh!tstorm that would have been if it had become known an American POW who was in failing health, who's rescue was being breathlessly screamed for - until he was released - was allowed to die or worse to be killed by the Taliban probably on tape and the president had the opportunity to extract him and did nothing.

    Well thought out post (2.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 11:10:17 AM EST
    but you can forgive critics for not wanting to "wait" because "waiting" for this administration later develops into arguing that this is old news.

    Also color me skeptical that this administration is not above keeping certain unflattering records and papers away from the media if it suits their needs.

    The more I read about this the more I get the impression Obama doesn't care what the soldier did.   He wanted him back.   The majority of his administration thought the deal was too good for the Taliban and the soldier in question was not enough of a win to justify it.

    Obama then decided he didn't care what most of his advisers advised and what he knew congress would say and made the deal.

    That's it.   I guess if he doesn't care that this soldier might or might have not done or didn't want to know then in his mind end of debate.

    All the criticism is fair but ultimately Obama is the president and if the Army is willing to do his bidding and Congress won't hold him responsible what does it matter?

    It's another note on his legacy and partisans and Americans will take their respective sides and we'll all move on.

    Obama's approval is already tanked on foreign affairs and his executive ability so what does he care?   I get the sense he feels he has 2 1/2 years to force through whatever he wants and popularity be dammed.  

    He'll trot our the Obama scandal playbook, his supporters and some in the media will play along and he'll deal with he consequences.

    We shall see.


    Obvious? (none / 0) (#120)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 05:53:28 PM EST
    It's obvious that he at the least deserted his unit and we'll see if it's worse.  

    Yes if you are a GOPer frothing at the mouth to make Obama look bad.


    No (2.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 11:14:11 AM EST
    it's obvious that he did based on the mountain of evidence.

    If one chooses to treat this like a murder trial then yes we can give him the benefit of the doubt but no one who follows this can come away thinking he didn't at least leave his post willingly.

    The administration is hiding behind the "waiting" angle to make this go away.   Like all their scandals they play the long game and hope another news item knocks the current one off the front page.


    Waiting? (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 11:19:43 AM EST
    Usually you sip on the kool-aid but this time you appear to have been guzzling it.

    Obama has done his job and gotten the last POW in Afghanistan released as is his duty.

    It is irrelevant nonsense, and pumped up GOP politics to change the subject, and making it tantamount to Obama bringing home a hero.

    That is GOP framing, and it appears that the leaders leaking out "facts" on this story have an agenda second to any military considerations. Their agenda is to discredit Democrats and in particularly Obama at any cost.


    Bwahahahahaha (none / 0) (#125)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 07:00:50 PM EST
    For people to claim the criticism of this is not legitimate is just blatant partisanship.

    How about waiting until we all learn the true facts?  


    What facts are you expecting? (2.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 11:22:55 AM EST
    The multiple personal testimonies, news reports etc.. aren't enough for you?

    Soldiers speak out

    Rolling Stone

    Daily Mail

    This is not a trial.   This is reporting of the news and the news collectively has shown this guy deserted.   Conveniently supports of Obama will wait for the "facts" to come out from the administration itself.

    How convenient.


    Slado, I do not think (none / 0) (#132)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 07:42:13 PM EST
    you can say with anything but sordid uncertainty that it is "obvious that he at least deserted....  "    Your opinions, while they may differ from my own, are usually more carefully formed and cause pause for consideration.

    While I do not expect you to worry about my disappointment, I do hope that you will give a soldier who has been in captivity for five years a chance besides corrupt speculation fueled with political hay.  If you are determined to speculate, why not think that, as an Arab-speaker, he volunteered for a counter-intelleigence assignment that went wrong?  Just as valid, at this point.  

    If the Obama Administration made a mistake, it was, once again, underestimating Republicans and forgetting the historical contributions from Lee Atwater as carried forward by his successors, which appears to be the entire Republican party, including  Id, ego, and super-ego (the Tea Party, Koch Brother #1,  and #2, respectively).


    Yes I can (1.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 11:25:07 AM EST
    There is a mountain of evidence showing this guy walked away.

    Multiple stories, personal accounts etc...

    It is only those who want it to maybe be true that he didn't that are denying it.

    If you want to wait for facts put out by the administration by all means wait.  

    I'll take the word of dozens of soldiers and accept the multiple media accounts of this now and previously before the exchange ever happened.


    You last (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 07:58:37 PM EST
    paragraph makes me hope Hillary runs. She knows these nutters inside and out and how to deal with them.

    The only good thing I can say about what they are doing now is they are shooting themselves in the foot and at least they're screeching about something other than Benghazi.


    Beard? (none / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 01:05:50 AM EST
    You heard the Jon Stewart joke about the beard, no?

    RIP, Don Zimmer (none / 0) (#153)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:18:32 PM EST
    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#173)
    by ZtoA on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 01:19:17 AM EST

    The Strandbeest Archives (none / 0) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:41:32 AM EST

    Christo meets Jim Henson