Monday Open Thread

Here's a new open thread, all topics welcome.

< Sunday Open Thread | Tone Deaf Dick Cheney >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Does anyone under 40 (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 05:01:12 PM EST
    Know who Archie is?   It's an honest question.  I was surprised this character was still around.

    Famed Comic Book Figure Archie Andrews To Die In Gun Control Storyline

    Via Addicting Info, some sad news about a longtime comic book figure, who goes out heroically in a story about gun control:

    Comic books are taking a political turn toward the serious. In two days, comic book star of Life With Archie, Archie Andrews, is going to die. Wednesday, the freckled hero will be shot down thwarting an assassination attempt on his best friend, newly elected Sen. Kevin Keller, over the gun rights issue.

    Archie Comics publisher and co-CEO Jon Goldwater said:

    "The way in which Archie dies is everything that you would expect of Archie. He dies heroically. He dies selflessly. He dies in the manner that epitomizes not only the best of Riverdale but the best of all of us. It's what Archie has come to represent over the past almost 75 years."

    Mashable reports:

    "[Keller] is a married military veteran and newly elected senator who's pushing for more gun control in Riverdale after his husband was involved in a shooting."

    The first gay character in the Archie Comics series, Keller debuted in the spinoff, Veronica in 2010, alongside traditionally known characters such as Veronica Lodge, Jughead Jones and Betty Cooper. Keller later even carried his own, separate comic. Now, lead character Archie will lay down his life to save him.

    Interesting times we live in.

    I remember Veronica. She was a hottie. (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 06:35:35 PM EST

    As for Keller:

    "[Keller] is a married military veteran and newly elected senator who's pushing for more gun control in Riverdale after his husband was involved in a shooting."

    PC running out of control.


    What is your problem? (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 06:46:25 PM EST
    I ask that seriously.

    No, jim (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 06:48:07 PM EST
    It is not "PC running out of control." What it is: A record of progress and change in our times.  It IS different than when you and I grew up ... Thank goodness that times have changed, in this regard, for the better.  Clearly for the better.  

    We all should buy the new Archie.  For old times' sake, and in honor of the human progress made to new times' sake.


    Uh, the new Archie is going out of business. (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:40:58 PM EST
    Perhaps I failed to understand that (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:51:35 PM EST
    what we have in Keller is a caricature.

    "[Keller] is a married military veteran and newly elected senator who's pushing for more gun control in Riverdale after his husband was involved in a shooting."

    Overstating a point is often used as a tool to teach and influence....but....

    I mean really...We are supposed to take that seriously?? Our kids are too smart for such. A gay married couple who were living quietly while running a small business who are active in their church and school would be more believable, and accurate characters.


    So why would someone shoot him then? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:41:48 AM EST
    I think making him a public person like we see today, makes him more of a target vs someone blending into the woodwork as you suggest.

    Trust me, nobody would be reading it if they lived as quiet as church mice . . . there's no story there.


    Well since we are writing for a (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:17:11 AM EST
    comic book, something I am sure we are both well qualified for....;-)

    Target in what manner? I don't see your point there. As in being shot??

    Of course since the purpose is obviously to push gay rights, etc., who is the audience? Given that gays are around 3% of the population, the answer must be that to survive, the comic must be purchased, assuming it is not being subsidized, by the general population.

    So a gay married Senator campaigning against guns, or as the Right will say, against the Second Amendment, should make better copy.

    OTOH, if we made Keller trying to qualify for a concealed carry license to protect his wife who was shot while leaving a meeting of the Log Cabin Republicans then the appeal is broadened.

    Probably get approved of by the NRA.

    Do I hear an Amen??



    I might be a little more qualified than you think (none / 0) (#21)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:00:09 PM EST
    and it's not necessarily to "push" gay rights. It seems comics are staying current with the times. Can't really stay stuck in the 50's and still sell comics and merchandise (yup, there's more to comics than the books). We have elections coming up, marriage equality is a daily news item and then there's the gun issue . . . Sounds like 2014 to me.

    BTW, Keller's husband would be shot leaving the LCR, not his wife as he didn't just 'turn gay' for this issue. And I'm kinda thinking they wouldn't be at that meeting in the first place, so, story rejected ;) Also, the comic folks know their (very vocal) audience, so your story line wouldn't necessarily broaden the appeal.


    The comment you responded to is (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:10:21 PM EST
    Weird and disturbing on so many levels.  Just reading it is disquieting

    Reading it while uncaffinated (none / 0) (#44)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 07:04:46 PM EST
    keeps the senses dull :P

    Of course the issue of gay rights, (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 10:07:38 PM EST
    which I support, is part and parcel. Otherwise why have Keller married and elected to the Senate??

    And you have confused me. Is Keller the husband or the wife? Either way you ramble when trying to ignore my point. But are you trying to say that his wife couldn't attend the LCR?

    And why couldn't they be at that meeting?? Seems a bit bigoted for you to decide they must Demo, or does the comic note their party?? Of course since its a comic book it must be Demo... lol


    It's 2014, Jim -- not 1964. (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 07:45:21 PM EST
    "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself."
    -- George Bernard Shaw, Irish playwright / novelist and Co-Founder, London School of Economics (1856-1950)

    I prefer the complete quotation (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:43:23 PM EST
    The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him. ... All progress depends on the unreasonable man

    All progress depends upon ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:13:01 PM EST
    ... the unreasonable man either giving up the ghost or being shoved aside and passed by.

    What Shaw means is that as an unreasonable man, you are not the agent of change. Rather, you're the one who is retarding the scene, not enhancing it, and that if we are to actually make progress, then we need to either stop paying attention to you, or rid ourselves of you.



    No, Donald; I think when one considers (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 10:29:07 PM EST
    the entire quote, it's very difficult to interpret Shaw's words the way you have.

    There are people who push against the status quo to move things forward, and those who push against progress to preserve the status quo.

    Those who feel safe and comfortable in the bubble of the status quo are going to regard those not content to run in place as "unreasonable," but I think you are mistaking "unreasonable" for "uncomfortable."

    I'm not surprised you are expressing this point of view; you are at your most prickly and agitated when the more liberal commenters here express their dissatisfaction with the "reasonableness" of the neo-liberal, DLC/Third Way conventions that seem to have taken over the Democratic Party.


    Um, yer kidding about what Shaw meant. (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 04:32:41 PM EST

    No, I'm not. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 05:08:36 PM EST
    It would be a stretch to interpret otherwise, given that George Bernard Shaw was a charter member of the Fabian Society and one of the more prominent Socialists of his day. In a 1909 letter to fellow writer Henry James, he wrote:

    "I, as a Socialist, have had to preach, as much as anyone, the enormous power of the environment. We can change it; we must change it; there is absolutely no other sense in life than the task of changing it. What is the use of writing plays, what is the use of writing anything, if there is not a will which finally moulds chaos itself into a race of gods." (Collected Letters. Dan H. Laurence, editor. Dodd, Mead & Company, 1972.)

    Shaw was hardly a cheerleader for conservatism and its perpetuation of the socio-economic status quo. Rather, he saw its proponents as inherently unreasonable in their never-ending quest for political relevance and self-preservation, which rendered them an active barrier to social progress.

    Thus, Shaw argues that our ability to achieve meaningful and lasting change in our society is entirely dependent upon our capacity to either change the mind of the unreasonable man, or find some means to bypass him altogether.



    Wow. You have it completely ack basswards. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:09:19 PM EST
    Shaw's quote says it is the "unreasonable" man who foments change. The "reasonable" man accepts the status quo, and the unreasonable man does not. The unreasonable man changes the world.



    We'll have to agree to disagree. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:42:49 PM EST
    I repeat: yowza. (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 07:12:44 PM EST
    Whatever. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:00:21 PM EST
    But Shaw didn't say "foment." (none / 0) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:04:12 PM EST
    He said "depends upon." Those two terms are not necessarily synonymous.

    Ya ought a quit while you're behind. (none / 0) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 11:15:40 PM EST
    Shaw is overrated (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 11:58:03 PM EST
    Best comment so far! (none / 0) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:02:24 AM EST
    Shaw's values were the best (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:27:51 PM EST
    but he is overshadowed by his Irish contemporary.

    SUO (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 10:08:59 PM EST
    No, Donald's not.

    He is smarter than everyone.

    Just ask him and he'll tell you.


    Now we know Jim's problem... (none / 0) (#12)
    by unitron on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:59:52 AM EST
    ...Sees the hotness that is Veronica, but utterly blanks on the "of lower socio-economic status but just as hot in her own way" Betty.

    : - )


    Hmmmm I was (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:23:10 AM EST
    a very intelligent socially aware youth....

    But I don't think I, as a 14 year old, was aware of

    "socio-economic status."

    But I confess that good looking brunette's with lots of money presented a great temptation.



    News flash (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:52:24 AM EST
    a very intelligent socially aware youth....

    Never read Archie comix any more than they do now.

    They were the ones you hid when your friends came over and no doubt they still are.


    Why would I hide a comic (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 10:10:20 PM EST
    with good looking girls pics in it???

    Actually... (none / 0) (#13)
    by unitron on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 01:49:38 AM EST
    ...it's the publishers doing what they think will bring in the greatest profits.

    You know, that free-market capitalism thing.


    It would (none / 0) (#19)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:56:24 AM EST
    be nice to see the demise of Mickey Mouse in a similar good cause.

    Of course Mickey comes from a right-wing establishment, so the cause for which his existence might be forfeited would probably not be to my liking.


    Oh god (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 10:01:25 AM EST
    I would pay to see that.  

    That'll never happen, Cap'n. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 03:00:42 PM EST
    Mickey Mouse is the anchor of the entire Disney franchise, and has long ruthlessly maintained an ironclad grip on power. Bambi once tried to displace him in a coup d'etat, and looked what happened to him.

    Freaky (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 03:13:33 PM EST
    It was raining today and as we were running to the door I started singing "Drip drip drop little April shower".  Josh says,"Is that some weird song from your youth?"

    I gasped, that song is from Bambi. Josh says he doesn't know anything about Bambi.  All he knows is that HER mother was killed by hunters :)


    You are a failure as a mother!! Get busy. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:45:51 PM EST
    Does Josh know about Babar's mother?  Whatever became of Curious George's parental units?

    I told him Bambi was male (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 07:47:37 PM EST
    Now he wants to know why then is Bambi such a popular female stripper name in Hollywood writer's minds?

    Thankfully, I set my drink down (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:30:37 PM EST
    before I read that!  :D

    It's a fair question (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:34:37 PM EST
    And you replied,... (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:12:16 PM EST
    It's just another one of those things (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 05:46:30 AM EST
    That recently he wants the answer to and I just don't know.

    Disney Emasculated Bambi (none / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:00:33 AM EST
    Origin and Meaning of the Name Bambi
    Meaning:Little girl



    They fell short (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:25:15 AM EST
    It didn't become gender neutral :)

    I suppose it could also be short for Bambino, but nobody else seems to agree.


    Disney did NOT emasculate Bambi (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:56:03 AM EST
    It was based on a book.

    But hyperbole on this blog makes for better copy.

    Bambi, a Life in the Woods, originally published in Austria as Bambi. Eine Lebensgeschichte aus dem Walde, is a 1923 Austrian novel written by Felix Salten and published by Ullstein Verlag. The novel traces the life of Bambi, a male roe deer, from his birth through childhood, the loss of his mother, the finding of a mate, the lessons he learns from his father and experience about the dangers posed by human hunters in the forest. An English translation by Whittaker Chambers was published in North America by Simon & Schuster in 1928,[1] and the novel has since been translated and published in over 20 languages around the world. Salten released a sequel, Bambis Kinder, eine Familie im Walde (Bambi's Children), in 1939.

    The novel was well received by critics and is considered a classic, as well as one of the first environmental novels ever published. It was adapted into a theatrical animated film, Bambi, by Walt Disney Studios in 1942, two Russian live-action adaptations in 1985 and 1986, and a stage production in 1998. A ballet adaptation was written by an Oregon troupe, but never released. Janet Schulman released a children's picture book adaptation in 2000 that featured realistic oil-paintings and many of Salten's original words.

    Maybe not bambi (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by ZtoA on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 09:34:21 PM EST
    tho it seemed"feminized" to me, but Disney substantially changed many stories they animated.

    Great example is the Disney version of "Cinderella". It was taken from an old tale collected by the brothers Grimm. It was called "Ashputtle" and there's no fairy godmother. And the prince carries away the wrong bride - twice. Each stepsister cuts off part of her foot to squeeze one into the slipper before finally getting the true bride.

    Then the special birds in a tree sing:

    Rook di goo, rook di goo!
    There's blood in the shoe.
    The shoe is too tight,
    This bride is not right!

    Until Ashputtle when they sing:

    Rook di goo, rook di goo!
    No blood's in the shoe.
    The shoe's not too tight,
    This bride is right!



    OK (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 09:04:43 AM EST
    Disney made the emasculation of Bambi famous.

    Just out of curiosity, jbindc, did you read the book before you saw or heard of the movie?

    If so, I believe you belong to a very small minority of people regarding Bambi.


    I knew it was a book (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:35:30 AM EST
    But had not read it.

    But even if only a small minority of people had heard of the book, it seems like a canyon-sized leap to say that Disney "emasculated" Bambi.


    Canyon? (2.00 / 1) (#89)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:07:17 PM EST
    Well at least you used the correct feminine metaphor as opposed to um.....monument sized..

    other than that the name Bambi is feminine and Disney made him a feminine caricature, unlike a boy named Sue.


    Cease and desist, you two. (none / 0) (#112)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:50:28 PM EST
    Whittaker Chambers? (none / 0) (#75)
    by unitron on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:38:28 AM EST
    The Whittaker Chambers?

    Google says "yes".

    The mind, she is boggled now.


    Since we are down this path (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:50:13 AM EST
    I looked it up.

    The Bambi Awards are given as the highest awards in media and television in Germany.

    The Bambi,[1] often simply called Bambi Awards and stylised as BAMBI, are presented annually by Hubert Burda Media to recognise excellence in international media and television "with vision and creativity who affected and inspired the German public that year,"[2] both domestic and foreign.[2] First held in 1948, they are the oldest media awards in Germany. The award is named after Felix Salten's book Bambi, A Life in the Woods and its statuettes are in the shape of the novel's titular fawn character.[2] They were originally made of porcelain, until 1958 when the organizers switched to using gold, with the casting done by the art casting workshop of Ernst Strassacker in Süßen.

    So it's not really embarassing or "emasculating".  It's considered an honor.


    The book was banned by Hitler. (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:30:35 PM EST
    Jewish author.

    And Whittaker, the translator spied for (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:44:40 PM EST
    the USSR.  Later he testified against Algier Hiss.

    Transgendered Bambi's (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:52:05 PM EST
    Mother gave her life to deliver an anit second amendment story line.   Archie continues this honored tradition.

    "HER"? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:39:42 PM EST
    Didn't Bambi grow up to be a stag in the film -- or was that merely indicative of an evolving transgender persona?

    Anyway, the offscreen decadence at Disney studios clearly belies its characters' scrupulously maintained public images. We all know about what happened to Lindsay Lohan and Miley Cyrus. But most people are completely unaware how Disney has long used its child stars for its own ends, only to callously dump them when they're of no further use.

    Further, there's documented evidence of other outrageous behavior exhibited by Disney veterans. If people only knew what really goes on there! It's positively shocking, a Hollywood scandal waiting to unfold.



    During the time I worked (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:45:08 PM EST
    For feature animation I was home for a visit and was asked to speak to a group of high school students.

    The first question was " what do you do?"
    To which I said " it's my job to insert the subliminal sexual messages."
    The kid who asked the question was like "oh! Cool".  And nods of approval went around the room.

    True story.


    Even zombie Walt (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 05:46:05 PM EST
    And then there's that public appearance ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 05:59:47 PM EST
    ... of a drunken Mickey and stoned Minnie, who apparently stumbled their way into an L.A. billboard advertisement for a Las Vegas resort and casino -- courtesy of street artist Banksy.

    I love that (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:02:26 PM EST
    It's exactly, of course because the guy knows exactly what he is doing, the kind of thing that drives the lawyers NUTS.

    Disney is right-wing? (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 03:11:42 PM EST
    Might want to tell the largest recipients of their political donations over the last four election cycles ...(I'm looking at you Cory Booker, Patrick Leahy, Harry Reid, Allison Grimes, Dick Durbin, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, and Barack Obama).

    ABC News routinely gets blasted as having a "liberal bias".

    Disney offered doemstic partnership benefits to gay couples way back before it was cool.

    Disney regularly has boycotts against it by evangelical religious groups for the movies they produce (see: Dogma).

    Do they act in every way that a liberal would love?  No, they have been routinely criticized for their environmental impact, and accused of human rights violations against the workers who make their products, as well as accusations of animal cruelty.

    But right wing???


    ... from the days of its co-founder (with brother Roy O. Disney, who initially financed the company) and namesake. Walt Disney the man wasn't exactly known for enlightenment in either his personal politics or his labor policies. There is considerable circumstantial evidence that while Walt Disney may have been a tolerant man in his personal relationships, he was very much racist and anti-Semitic in his business practices.

    (Indeed, Disney's animated 1932 short feature "The Three Little Pigs" has long been cited by cultural historians for harboring anti-Semitic overtones in its original form, with the Big Bad Wolf in one of his guises assuming the role of a Jewish street peddler, a then-common urban stereotype. That particular scene was subsequently re-animated years later in response to public complaints, so that the Wolf now appears as a Fuller Brush salesman. And don't get me started on what was wrong with the 1957 full-length feature "Song of the South.")

    Walt Disney was also one of the prominent founders of the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, a Red-baiting organization that unfortunately also proved virulently anti-Semitic when its members willfully failed to distinguish Jews from communists. And further, he was one of the very few Hollywood figures who proved a willing participant in the postwar political witchhunts conducted by the House Committee on Un-American Activities and Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

    To this day, many people still wrongly conflate Walt Disney the right-wing bigot with the company he co-founded, even though Walt's nephew Roy E. Disney, who assumed an active role in running the company after the former's death in 1966, proved a much more visionary artist and inclusive businessman than was his uncle.

    My own maternal grandmother was one of those who long refused to ever see Walt Disney the company and Walt Disney the man as anything other than one and the same. She despised Mr. Disney with a passion, because her younger brother was long a prominent cartoonist in the Disney fold for over 20 years until he died at work in 1961 from a heart attack -- and quite frankly, he was very poorly compensated for his considerable efforts, as were his peers.

    She blamed Walt Disney for having worked him to death -- admittedly, that's a claim fueled more by emotion than based upon actual evidence -- and for blatantly exploiting the labor of others to his own personal benefit, which is in fact well-documented. And even though she lived in Southern California, she refused to ever set foot in Disneyland or watch a Disney movie after her brother's death.



    Domestic Partnership (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 12:00:55 AM EST
    benefits almost a generation ago.

    I asked someone who worked at Disney howcome.  It was all those costume makers and artists.  Disney did not want to offend its employees.


    This happened in the 90s (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 09:10:30 AM EST
    When I was at Disney and it was because of the unions.   Not Disneys good will or progressive instincts.

    Disney is actually a Green Party... (none / 0) (#62)
    by unitron on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:17:23 AM EST

    As in they want to grab as much green as possible and party with it.

    But seriously, they have the same guiding philosophy as any other mega-corporation these days--make as much money as possible without the people at the top actually going to jail.


    This week in Roman Catholicism: (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 10:36:39 PM EST
    Let's just say that Archbishop John Nienstedt of Minnesota is dealing with some very serious allegations that have been leveled against him, and let it go at that. It makes me simultaneously sad and furious to even have to discuss it -- but discuss it, we must.

    Oy (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:39:50 AM EST
    His defenders say he is being pilloried because of his staunch opposition to homosexuality, spending more than $650,000 in church funds in 2012 to campaign for a state constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage. The amendment ultimately failed.

    In his previous post, as bishop of the New Ulm Diocese, he advised parishioners against seeing the film "Brokeback Mountain," a story about two gay cowboys, which he saw as a "human tragedy" about succumbing to lust.

    Besides being a lousy (none / 0) (#87)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:40:22 PM EST
    film critic, Archbishop John Nienstedt appears to be a flawed advocate for the signature issue of his episcopate: homosexuality.  Moreover, his obsession for oppression, including his failed campaign against "so called same sex marriage" has been sidetracked by sexual abuse allegations and cover-ups, including his own.  

    "Multiple allegations" against the Archbishop, himself, were reported in the Catholic Commonweal. And, these allegations (which were denied by Nienstedt as "absolutely and entirely false") are subject to an internal diocese investigation.  This investigation is ongoing.  

    These allegations are not to be confused with the investigation into allegations that Nienstedt groped a boy during a public event--a Confirmation.  Ramsey County Attorney found insufficient evidence following his investigation of that matter.  However, the County prosecutor has re-opened that investigation.    It seems, to me, that the signature issue of the Archbishop's episcopate is hypocrisy.


    Many dioceses across America have endured ... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:05:28 PM EST
    ... similar embarrassments. Back in 1998, we had an attention-loving Catholic priest who as Vicar General of Honolulu led the charge in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and he was constantly on TV arguing about respecting the "sanctity of the sacrament of marriage." A few years ago, he resigned his post, after a male parishioner at St. Mary's (where he also served as pastor) held a press conference in which he publicly accused the good vicar of having an affair with his wife, which both guilty parties confirmed was in fact the case. It was the stuff of grand farce, if it wasn't so pathetically sad.

    From our "Big Yellow Taxi" file: (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:51:04 PM EST
    Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone:

    Miami Herald | July 13, 2014
    Walmart planned for endangered forest lands in South Florida - "One of the world's rarest forests, a section of Miami-Dade County's last intact tracts of endangered pine rockland, is getting a new resident: a Walmart. About 88 acres of rockland, a globally imperiled habitat containing a menagerie of plants, animals and insects found no place else, was sold this month by the University of Miami to a Palm Beach County developer. To secure permission for the 158,000-square-foot box store, plus an LA Fitness center, Chik-fil-A and Chili's restaurants and about 900 apartments, the university and the developer, Ram, agreed to set aside 40 acres for a preserve. Ram also plans to develop 35 adjacent acres still owned by the university. But with less than 2 percent of the vast savanna that once covered South Florida's spiny ridge remaining, the deal has left environmentalists and biologists scratching their heads."

    Oy caramba.

    Donald (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:14:36 PM EST
    Not supporting the venture, but it should be noted that "forest" is an odd word for less and an 1/8th of a square mile of slash pine scrubland in the middle of a residential and commercial area. It's privately owned and they are abiding by the rules set forth by the County 30 years ago.

    It's been a blimp base, military housing, and now most of it is a zoo. If you drove by you wouldn't even notice as you'd be past the "forest" in less than 15 seconds.


    South Florida's your home turf, so ... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:02:08 AM EST
    ... I'll have to defer to your judgment and opinion. Thank you for the clarification.

    Wish I could gloat... (none / 0) (#114)
    by unitron on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:53:09 PM EST
    ...but the idiots at NC State are doing their best to sell off Hoffman Forest, so pot, kettle, stones, glass houses.

    A tidbit of Iraqi history... (none / 0) (#9)
    by desertswine on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:53:49 PM EST
    That was new to me...  Gertrude Bell...

    Linky... (none / 0) (#10)
    by desertswine on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:55:50 PM EST
    Lovely (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:14:24 AM EST
    Bell also became honorary secretary of the British Women's Anti-Suffrage League. Her stated reason for her anti-suffrage stand was that as long as women felt that the kitchen and the bedroom were their only domains, they were truly unprepared to take part in deciding how a nation should be ruled.

    Clearly be right at home in the modern GOP


    Ironically, Gertrude Bell would later ... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 03:13:50 PM EST
    ... return to Baghdad and succumb to an overdose of barbiturates in July 1926, and it is said that she had never really recovered emotionally from the death of her married paramour, Major Charles Doughty-Wylie, at Gallipoli in 1915.

    Therefore, one can argue that Miss Bell's role as an anti-suffragette was merely a self-projection of her own personal inadequacies, since she herself was obviously unprepared to take part in deciding how a nation should be ruled.



    That chick was so weird (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 03:23:42 PM EST
    Can't we just say, too weird to diagnose postmortem?  Multi axis or whatever they call it.  From what I have read, she does not seem to be someone most could understand.  Deeply troubled at best.

    Very weird summer (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:12:12 AM EST
    For a couple of weeks it's been miserable triple digits, normal, but we have been having spells, like right now, of very cool weather.  
    It was 55 when I woke up this morning.  I almost turned the heat on.  In freakin mid July.  Several days of record low temps expected.

    Weird summer.  Weird winter coming no doubt.

    Highs (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 05:42:35 PM EST
    Possibly in the 60s on Thursday.  The 60s.  For highs.

    That's just weird.


    Polar vortex in July (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:03:41 PM EST
    Sorry but this is strange.  I just had to close the window I am sitting next to because it was chilly.  Chilly. On July 15th.  That is very strange.

    So it is with the polar vortex. Since Friday, television news anchors and meteorologists on TV and online have been warning about a polar vortex that was crashing down from the Arctic across Canada and would bring record cold temperatures into the upper central U.S. today, tomorrow and Wednesday. Yes, the very same polar vortex that put the same region, as well as the Northeast, into a deep-freeze this past winter.

    The one difference: the record lows would be 52 degrees F, or maybe 50 or 48.

    In the name of science, other meteorologists went on Twitter and began to plead with their colleagues to not call this drifting southward of cool air a polar vortex, a few adding their cries to the hashtags #StopPolarVortexAbuse and #NotPolarVortex. Some of the admonishments present serious science. Others are just funny.

    Performance capture (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:26:08 PM EST
    We had a a conversation once about how much of this is performance and how much is animation -
    Seems like this is one of those questions that will go on being answered for a while.

    Andy Serkis Vs. Visual Effects Animators: The Wrong Fight For Both Sides

    For those joining this fight in the middle, here's a summary of the action so far: Serkis gave an interview to a website in which he offered his take on the state of performance capture. He talked about the improvements in the process, saying "It's a given that they absolutely copy (the performance) to the letter, to the point in effect what they are doing is painting digital makeup onto actors' performances."

    Serkis's quote was picked up by an animation website that ran a story with the headline "Andy Serkis Does Everything, Animators Do Nothing, Says Andy Serkis."  Incendiary headline? Well, if so, it set exactly the fire it was meant to. Serkis became a pariah among many vfx artists and an object of ridicule on social media.

    Look, I know you vfx pros are feeling disrespected. And you are disrespected. Probably no craft in Hollywood history has ever received so little for contributions so great. Your compensation has shrunk and your fringes have withered. You face many of the same problems as itinerant actors, but without the protections of a union or guild.

    But in this argument, you are asking for a level of respect no craft gets.

    Film actors have never been solo authors of their performance. They don't choose the takes that make it into the film or what's left on the cutting room floor. They don't write their words or stage their scenes. That line that everybody still remembers? Written by some schmuck with an Underwood, er, Macbook. That shot that created a sex symbol? The d.p. hid the blemishes. That hilarious reaction shot? Could have been cut in from another scene. That tear rolling down their cheek? Might be digital.

    Requiring the singularly awsum (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:29:22 PM EST
    Review of the movie in question from the Onion.



    Just int hat one quote form Serkis (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:43:51 AM EST
    I don't see anything for the animators to get riled about. He is just talking about the capture process, isn't he? Not saying they don't do anything.

    I don't think so (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:49:20 AM EST
    But as the guy in the article says it's the pent up anger and resentment of an industry that constantly struggles to get the recognition it deserves.
    Think about it, if you ever hear a movie maker talk about digital effects it usually to bad mouth them.  How much they hate them and will try to avoid them in their movies.  While relying on them more and more.
    The one non unionized profession in Hollywood.  The Rodney Dangerfield of film making.

    Governor (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 07:24:43 PM EST
    Rick Scott



    Sanpaku gan (三白眼?) or Sanpaku (三白?) is originated from a Chinese term, as well as a Japanese term means "three whites" and is generally referred to in English as "Sanpaku eyes". The term refers to eyes in which the white space above or below the iris is visible.

    When the bottom of the white part of the eye, known as the sclera, is visible it is referred to as 'Yin Sanpaku' in Chinese lore. According to the myth, it represents physical imbalance in the body and is claimed to be present in alcoholics, drug addicts and people who overconsume sugar or grain. Conversely when the upper sclera is visible this is called 'Yang Sanpaku'. This is said to be an indication of mental imbalance in people such as psychotics, murderers, and anyone rageful.

    Listening to Rick Scott talk a mile a minute (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:45:16 AM EST
    and making little sense, it is easy for me to conclude he is over-consuming sugar or otherwise unbalanced!

    How is the weather (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:51:44 AM EST
    In your neck of the woods.   It's weird here and no one else is talking about it.  It feels like fall here.  In mid July.  I turned the heat on for a few minutes this morning.

    I saw your post last night and was jealous! (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:57:02 AM EST
    It is still hot and steamy here. I heard a meteorologist say that the cold front you are experiencing is going to be too high up in the atmosphere in our parts to cool us down much, but it will bring a lot of rain today and tomorrow. High of 86 projected today - I will take it! Anything under 90 in July can be considered a cold front. I may have to take a walk around the outside of the building this afternoon and enjoy.

    Still, it's weird. (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 12:05:20 PM EST
    I am 62.  I have never turned the heat on in mid July.  Never.

    It would be ok but the weather people say we will pay for the lovely summer with a brutal winter.   Way worse than last which sucked.

    My friends on the west coast say shut up and enjoy it.  Fine, but they have to come and visit in February.


    It rained here all day yesterday (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:08:53 PM EST
    And towards evening the rain felt cool and you get a bit of a chill outside in it.  That was very odd to me, since moving here summer rain is bathtub temperature day or night and you don't get cold standing in it, just soaked.

    We have the remnants of TS Fausto ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:13:46 PM EST
    ... over us at present. The windward sides of the Big Island (Hilo) and Maui (Hana) have gotten inundated with violent thunderstorms and flash floods, but while we've had our share of rain on Oahu, it hasn't been anything like it's been over in the eastern part of the island chain.

    I like the rain -- just not all at once.


    Record low temps this morning (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:45:17 PM EST

    Sounds normal to me :) (none / 0) (#105)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:18:02 PM EST
    Our temps are usually in the 50's/low 60s at night, even when it flirts with 90 during the day. Of course I live where you don't need AC and humidity is rare :)

    If I might ask (none / 0) (#113)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:52:09 PM EST

    Sounds pretty nice.


    I am in very north Arkansas (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:06:42 PM EST
    Just a bit farther north it has been in the 40s

    Bay Area (none / 0) (#118)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:37:56 PM EST
    lower Napa Valley where the river meets the bay. Which is why the weather is so nice. I'm in one of the micro-climates that stays cooler in the summer (but warmer than SF) and doesn't get as cold in the winter. My Mom is 40minutes south of me. It was close to 100 degrees at her place and flirting with 80 at mine :) In the winter, she gets a lot more of the freeze than I do. I think Oakland and Berkley are similar, but may get more fog. Basically, we have good sleeping weather!

    I have cousins there (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:47:55 PM EST
    I agree about the great weather.  

    It's a nice break after 20yrs in NYC (none / 0) (#123)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:54:35 PM EST
    Aside from the drought issue, this past winter was pretty amazing. I was walking my dog along the marina in a t-shirt in late Nov and again in Jan! I think every time the country plunged into extreme cold, we were in the 70's. I was pretty sure we were going to have a hotter than norm summer, but it doesn't seem that way now.

    Sounds great (none / 0) (#125)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 09:05:50 PM EST
    Amazing what a difference 40 minutes can make out there.  I love living at the beach, but in NJ we get pretty d@mn hot and humid in the summer and fairly cold in the winter, too.

    Gotta figure out a way to live in the Virgin Islands ...


    It is not normal here (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:05:42 PM EST
    This is hot and humid time.  And you die without air conditioning here

    I am SO over hot and humid! (none / 0) (#119)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:42:28 PM EST
    And freezing a** cold. I did some serious weather research before I moved this time, since I had a bit of a choice as to where in the BA to live. I would live in NY again if I needed/wanted to/good enough reason, but I'm pretty picky about any other places I would live. My list isn't very long for a variety of reasons, lol!~

    I seriously could not live here (none / 0) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:49:48 PM EST
    Without AC.  After a point I just can't sleep when it's hot.  This is normally that time.  Until about the end of September

    I got that way in NY (none / 0) (#124)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:57:16 PM EST
    Waiting for the thunderstorms to roll through to cool my roof off so I could sleep after too many days of H&H. Spring and Fall seemed to get shorter every year . . .

    Open your windows and enjoy the gift of cool night air!


    I absolutely adore San Francisco, but ... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 12:28:43 AM EST
    ... it's always so chilly there, even in mid-August. Were we to live up there in the Bay Area, it would either be over in Oakland, or farther down the peninsula around San Mateo. In the North Bay where you live, I like Sausalito, but were we to be residing north of the Golden Gate, we both really like the Santa Rosa area.

    Harold and Maude (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 09:31:42 AM EST
    A cappuccino and a joint


    The jag/hearse just went off the cliff (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:28:49 AM EST
    What a great movie

    Love that movie, and the Cat Stevens music (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:39:39 AM EST
    Good pick!

    Six Californias ? (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:04:32 AM EST
    Not gonna happen. (none / 0) (#84)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 12:17:50 PM EST
    Some of the details he's missing are kinda key. Idiot be he.  :)

    ... a few years ago to basically expel from that state the three counties comprising the greater Chicago metropolitan area (Cook, Lake and Dupage), which had garnered lots of press and steam -- until the State House minority leader (who represented a portion of Dupage County) rightfully pointed out to her Republican colleagues that those three counties accounted for nearly 75% of Illinois' gross state product, and basically subsidized the rest of the mostly rural state.

    Right off the bat (none / 0) (#96)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:51:22 PM EST
    The State of Silicon would have a water problem, not to mention their Napa wines would about double in cost (see NYS Ca wine prices!) and then there's that lil' issue called agriculture, ya know the central valley that would be another state!

    Me, I would be living in the wine state!  :D


    It's nuts (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 04:29:55 PM EST
    But watching a long discussion of it on Facebook among otherwise reasonable people it really seems to me to have enough support to pass if it's on e ballot.
    For some reason people who should know better seem to like this idea for some strange reason.

    It won't pass, because ... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:22:58 PM EST
    ... it's an inherently stupid proposal that's laughable on its face. Right now, the people who are laughing are the CEOs who just pocketed a cool couple million dollars when their companies were contracted to gather signatures in an effort to qualify this patently insane idea for the Nov. 2016 ballot. But in due time, I'm sure that lots of other CA residents will also be in on the joke.

    Now, I'm going to put on my legislative analyst's hat. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that you are correct that CA voters may well approve such an initiative to split their state into six autonomous entities.

    At that point, according to the terms of the initiative, Gov. Jerry Brown would be required to submit the voters' proposal for dissolution of California and its reconstitution into six separate states to Congress by no later than January 1, 2018. Congress would then have exactly one year to act on the proposal and pass it, or it expires on January 1, 2019. Assuming that it then passes, it would then require the approval of the White House, and a congressional override should the president veto the measure.

    Once all that happens, each new state would have to convene a constitutional convention to draft a state constitution, which must also be accepted by Congress before statehood can be conferred.

    Wait a minute, I'm not done. Through November 15, 2017, the measure would also allow any county --- subject to the approval of that county's voters via referendum --- to adopt an ordinance allowing it to be reassigned from the state in which it is placed by this measure, to one of the other five proposed states.

    This could only occur, however, if the reassigned state's borders are immediately adjacent to those of the county in question, and then, only if a majority of the boards of supervisors of the all the other counties in the reassigned state approve of that change.

    Further, each of California's 58 counties would have to adopt entirely new charters relative to the new states of which they'd be part, all of which would be subject to respective county voter approval, and then, as those counties are assigned to their respective state, approval for that would have to be obtained as well, most likely from the county boards of supervisors.

    Hold on, I'm still not done. The California State Legislature would have to provide for the creation of a 24-member Board of Commissioners for a term of no more than 24 months, which would be required to "settle and adjust the property and financial affairs" between the existing state and the six new states.

    This would require the disposition of each of the State of California's physical and other assets --- as well as division of the former state's financial and other liabilities --- among the six new states. As an example, California has two statewide university systems, the University of California and the California State University. Each of those systems would be required to dissolve.

    If the Board of Commissioners fail to reach resolution before the end of that 24 months, the measure states that California's state debts would be distributed among the new states based on population and the assets of the former California within each new state's boundaries would become an asset of that new state.

    We're now in the home stretch. There will be the inevitable court challenges, by which litigants would question the validity of this proposal along several lines, including ones related to the distribution of California's assets and liabilities, the provision of public services among the six states, and constitutional issues related to congressional approval of the new states.

    Such court cases will persist for an awfully long time, and probably last beyond our own lifetimes. The protracted legal wrangling between Virginia and West Virginia over the latter's share of state debt, which dated back to its 1863 secession from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Civil War-era statehood -- was never completely resolved until 1916, and several cases went to the U.S. Supreme Court for adjudication.

    Additionally, a probably lawsuit would concern whether this is an initiative measure -- as the text of this measure clearly states -- or an actual revision of the California Constitution, because for our purposes here, the two are not one and the same. A revision is often much broader in scope than an initiative measure, and any change or amendment that substantively alters the basic governmental framework of the State of California is considered a constitutional revision.

    Under the California Constitution, such revisions may only be proposed by either the State Legislature or by a duly convened state constitutional convention. Further, any proposed revision that is initially approved by either body is then further subject to public approval via a statewide voter referendum.

    Does your head hurt yet? If not, then wrap it around this: According to the California Legislative Analyst's office, the plan would also lead to the creation of the richest state in the country (Silicon Valley) and the poorest state in the country (Central California), which would have a per capita personal income well below even that currently found in Mississippi. These income disparities would also translate into widely divergent tax bases, and the regional disparities would invariably affect various fiscal and policy decisions of each of the six states.

    Good luck with wading through all that. If anyone would like to hear more, I'd be happy to discuss the vast and obvious disparities in education, health and human services, etc., water rights, which would exist in the new states. I love talking about this sort of stuff. This is my turf, so to speak.

    That said, I think you know as well as I do that none of this is ever going to happen. The latest poll from the Public Policy Institute of California shows that 59% of California voters already disapprove of this prospective measure. And that number can only go up, as people like me begin to explain to those voters exactly what they'd be in for, should they collectively drop acid and decide to embrace the stupid.

    So, this silly idea is really nothing but a complete waste of everyone's time -- including that of Tim Draper, that dim bulb of a venture capitalist who's about to learn the validity of an old adage about a fool and his money soon being parted. And while we're on the subject of fleecing, I'm sure kdog probably has a couple of bridges spanning the Hudson that this clown might be interested in, as well.



    I do not doubt or necessarily disagree (none / 0) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:43:43 PM EST
    With any of that.  But the last time I was dismissive f a rich guy collecting signatures for a dumb thing in California we ended up with Governor Arnold.

    And candidate Gary Coleman.


    That was eleven years ago. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:14:12 PM EST
    California is presently in a very different place politically, than where it was in the spring of 2003. For one, the state's electorate has clearly been well-sobered by its earlier infatuation with Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose administration was nothing short of a disaster.

    Current Gov. Jerry Brown, who's led California out of the fiscal weeds into its present robust recovery, presently enjoys a very healthy approval rating, and has a nearly 30-point lead over his GOP opponent, Neel Kashkari, in the polls. That race has "landslide" written all over it. Hell, even the friggin' California Legislature has a positive approval rating these days -- 46% yea, 40% nay!

    Secondly, -- well, I think I'll let the man speak for himself. Meet Tim Draper, the man behind the proposal. You should post this link on that Facebook page you were talking about, and let people there just absorb and contemplate the ooze. Is this a guy they'd trust with the state's future?



    That link (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:07:51 PM EST
    Was posted

    What was the reaction? (none / 0) (#130)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 12:48:31 AM EST
    I can't believe there wouldn't be a serious "Eeewww!!" factor. Any guy would have to be pretty vain and self-absorbed to think that women would appreciate his disrobing online like that, as though he was doing them a favor.

    A toast to Tim Draper, a real grade-A fruitcake.


    This is your typical GOP gimmick. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 04:39:58 PM EST
    With a few rare exceptions, Republicans tend to embrace simplistic answers to complex problems, and they've shown increasing disdain for the art of practical governance. So in lieu of any real effort in that regard, they'll resort to and rely upon cheap gimmicks and political stunts like this, in order to call public attention to themselves and pretend that they're, you know, actually doing stuff.

    This silly initiative might well qualify for the ballot, given the relatively low number of signatures required, but it'll certainly be laughed off by California voters in November and get shot down in flames. And afterward, all these clowns will have to show for their wasted time and effort will be bank accounts emptied of a few precious million dollars, which was spent to gather signatures in the first place. That's money which could've been much better spent elsewhere on other things, where it would have done the CA GOP a lot more good.

    The problem is, after the consecutive disasters that were Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Meg Whitman's subsequent self-financed ($180 million!) 2010 gubernatorial campaign, California Republicans are no longer fooling anyone in their state with this sort of nonsense, except their own increasingly delusional base and themselves. And yet, they'll continue to wonder why and how they've slipped so precipitously from majority party status only 20 years ago, to practically irrelevant today. Rule No. 1 when you find yourself in a deep hole: Stop digging.



    So which of the 6... (none / 0) (#111)
    by unitron on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:50:02 PM EST
    ...gets to keep the California name?

    Four of them. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 12:53:12 AM EST
    Well, at least I would still live in North(ern) (none / 0) (#133)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:13:05 AM EST
    California. Kinda funny, the rest of my family would be in another state.  My niece lives about 15 minutes from me . . .

    Should make tax time fun for some commuters . . .


    Arizona State Rep... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:28:59 PM EST
    and GOP candidate for Congress is so blinded by hate, every school bus is a threat to the republic in his warped little mind...even the YMCA day camp school bus.

    Too funny.

    What a hateful fool. (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Angel on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:21:18 PM EST
    I can hear the non-apology apology... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:38:08 PM EST
    now...DHS told me if I saw something I should say something, and a school bus full of kids is something, is it not?

    WTF is wrong with these people? (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:24:16 PM EST
    I mean, seriously, kdog, that sort of public behavior is way beyond delusional and in the realm of totally deranged crackpottery. Mr. Kwasman is not only unfit to serve as a state legislator and run as a congressional candidate, he would really have no business working as a 7-11 clerk or Wal-Mart greeter. The guy needs psychotherapy and drugs -- lots of drugs.

    Someone over at Charlie ZPierce's place... (none / 0) (#144)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:20:38 PM EST
    ...opined that the proper pronunciation of "Kwasman" is "Klansman".

    Donald if you think he is unelectable (none / 0) (#147)
    by ZtoA on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:35:06 PM EST
    then why do these nuts run? Is is just for publicity?

    I didn't say he was unelectable. (none / 0) (#149)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 02:02:12 PM EST
    I said that based on his behavior, he was unfit to serve in public office and needed psychotherapy and drugs.

    That said, this bozo's certainly electable. By all rights, this sort of noxious stunt should otherwise turn most sane voters off, but after all, this IS Arizona we're talking about -- and as I've noted before, you can't spell "CRAZY" without the "AZ."

    But were he running in a blue or purple state, he's be considered as way out there on the fringes, and treated accordingly by voters at the polls.



    Oh I know you didn't say he is (none / 0) (#151)
    by ZtoA on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 06:49:51 PM EST
    unelectable. But I was wondering IF not electable then what might motivate him? I just keep getting shocked by what has become electable these days! It's hard for me to get my head around.

    Even funnier . . . (none / 0) (#99)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:15:30 PM EST
    it's on the Bay Area news tonight. This idiot's hate is being broadcast all over it seems . . .

    Conservatism is (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:07:40 PM EST

    Hibbing and his colleagues make an intriguing argument in their latest paper, but what's truly fascinating is what happened next. Twenty-six different scholars or groups of scholars then got an opportunity to tee off on the paper, firing off a variety of responses. But as Hibbing and colleagues note in their final reply, out of those responses, "22 or 23 accept the general idea" of a conservative negativity bias, and simply add commentary to aid in the process of "modifying it, expanding on it, specifying where it does and does not work," and so on. Only about three scholars or groups of scholars seem to reject the idea entirely.

    That's pretty extraordinary, when you think about it. After all, one of the teams of commenters includes New York University social psychologist John Jost, who drew considerable political ire in 2003 when he and his colleagues published a synthesis of existing psychological studies on ideology, suggesting that conservatives are characterized by traits such as a need for certainty and an intolerance of ambiguity. Now, writing in Behavioral and Brain Sciences in response to Hibbing roughly a decade later, Jost and fellow scholars note that

    There is by now evidence from a variety of laboratories around the world using a variety of methodological techniques leading to the virtually inescapable conclusion that the cognitive-motivational styles of leftists and rightists are quite different. This research consistently finds that conservatism is positively associated with heightened epistemic concerns for order, structure, closure, certainty, consistency, simplicity, and familiarity, as well as existential concerns such as perceptions of danger, sensitivity to threat, and death anxiety. [Italics added]

    Back in 2003, Jost and his team were blasted by Ann Coulter, George Will, and National Review for saying this; congressional Republicans began probing into their research grants; and they got lots of hate mail. But what's clear is that today, they've more or less triumphed. They won a field of converts to their view and sparked a wave of new research, including the work of Hibbing and his team.

    Okay....the end of the article implies Liberals (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:32:33 PM EST
    Are in a constant search for new experiences.  I call bull.  I am not in a constant search, I call my new experiences a vacation.  I am in search of a life more attainable.  Conservatives have succeeded in making a good life almost unattainable for the average person.

    And how does wanting clean air and clean (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:35:25 PM EST
    Water assured for all not equate to Liberals wanting certainty?  I think Liberals want different certainties, this article IMO is a little bunky.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:48:19 PM EST
    I don't handle uncertainty very well and I'm certainly not a conservative. Though I think they do hit on some very good things that I commonly see in conservatives the main being their desire for structure. I think it's one of the reasons they are so in love with the 50's and earlier because everyone knew their "place" and most of them had a "place" at the top of the structure.

    We want a living wage for all (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 09:33:33 PM EST
    That is a security, a kind of certainty.  We want healthcare affordable and for all, that is a certainty.  We want corporate corruption reined in so that they can no longer abuse consumers and individuals, that is a security and certainty.

    Happy Birthday, Linda Rondstadt. (none / 0) (#134)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 02:15:26 AM EST
    In September 2013, Ms. Ronstadt sat down for an hour-long conversation with a longtime friend of my aunt's, Patt Morrison of the Los Angeles Times and KPCC-FM Public Radio, which was recorded in front of a live audience at the Ann & Jerry Moss Theatre in Santa Monica. It's a fascinating and revealing interview that touched on any number of subjects, and it's definitely worth a listen.

    Part I

    Part II

    Part III

    Part IV

    Why would a spammer (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 07:45:06 AM EST
    Post their junk in year old threads?  

    Don't get that.  Do they have a quota or something?

    It's the equivalent of computer-generated (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 09:02:11 AM EST
    telephone calls - mo way for sender to know these posts are current or old.

    Speaking of this sort of thing, and despite being on the Do Not Call list, we get a lot of computer-generated, robo-call-style calls coming into our house, for everything from alarm systems to mortgage interest reductions to home improvements.  The "calls" are just messages - there is no human on the other end - so in order to get them to stop, you have to call them back.  

    When I called one company back to ask them to please stop calling us, I asked how they could get away with calling when I put all our numbers on the Do Not Call List in order to avoid being badgered and bothered like this.  I was told that these calls don't violate DNC because they are simply offering information, and leaving it up to the recipient to respond if interested.

    It still annoys me that it just never seems to stop.


    I have not answered (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 12:10:58 PM EST
    A call from a number I do not recognize in years.
     "Not available"?  Voice mail is.  Be my guest.  I do check it at least once a day.

    One thing I have noticed is that probably more than half the calls I get - at least the ones that leave messages- are for someone else.  Seems to be a couple different names.  I assume they had the cell number before me.

    Anyway, since I just don't answer they don't really bother me that much. .


    That said (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 12:15:55 PM EST
    I would like it if they did not call.

    I missed a call this morning, looked up the number (none / 0) (#142)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    and it was from one of the state correctional institutions about 50 miles north of here.  No message was left. To my knowledge I have no friends or relatives residing there.  :)

    I just discontinued my land line (none / 0) (#146)
    by ZtoA on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:33:25 PM EST
    phone service. On that phone the voicemail message was to please call me on my cell phone - number not given. So all the messages were recordings from call machines and I got sick of it. good riddance.

    Perfect example... (none / 0) (#137)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 09:20:09 AM EST
    of when "see something, say something" goes terribly wrong.  

    Shame shame shame on the dime-dropper and the authorities...if this kid was "abandoned", I was abandoned for my whole damn childhood, and look how good I turned out.  "Concerned citizens" have me concerned y'all.

    New day and age, kdog. (none / 0) (#139)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 12:12:15 PM EST
    When I was that girl's age, I was riding my bike all over east Pasadena with my friends, and only the truly paranoid parents kept their kids on a leash, and there was a few of those but not many. But today, paranoia seems to be the rule rather than the exception.

    Me too bro... (none / 0) (#141)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 12:20:20 PM EST
    in the summer, out the house in the morning and not to be seen or heard from till dinner, then back out till the streetlights came on.  

    A very harmful dose of paranoia this is...the poor working mom locked up, and the poor daughter traumatized for no good reason.


    Same thing (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:11:25 PM EST
    with me and my brothers.  We were outside all day in the summer.  And during the school year, we would come in, do homework, and then go outside until dinner time.  Often we'd go back out after dinner, especially when the days were longer, and then come home when it was time for our baths and bedtime.  (And, btw, I walked home from elementary school about a mile, starting in first grade.  By myself.  She did come and walk with me when I was in kindergarten though.)
    My mother had no idea exactly where we were most of the time.
    And, OMG!  I let my kids at that age go outside and wander off in the woods, picking berries, collecting leaves, trying to build tree forts, or just hiking.  We have 40 acres of woods, so they could have been anywhere.  They had watches, and were told when to come home.  No cell phones in those days (wouldn't have mattered, we get little or no reception up here, anyway).

    Who knew... (none / 0) (#145)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:33:12 PM EST
    you and my moms belonged in orange jumpsuits? ;)

    Well, there were no (none / 0) (#148)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:59:37 PM EST
    Nosy Parker adults in our woods to report me.   ;-)
    Most of the people up here did the same with their kids.  It's a very rural, farming community.  The kids were outside all the time.  Of course, the kids (including mine) were expected to do their homework, during the school year, and their chores first.  Feeding and watering the cattle, for instance, helping with the haying, weeding, etc.  (No doubt child abuse, since they were expected to work!)
    And I guess we were bad parents, because they were also taught to drive the small tractor when they were about 12 or 13.  Couldn't drive the big one until they were 16, though.
    They also helped when Mr. Zorba was castrating the young bull-calves.  He did the castrating (we used an elastrator- Google it).  But they stood by with a cattle cane to fend off the mother, because most of the cows were understandably upset when their offspring were being fooled with.
    Ah, well.

    BREAKING: A Malaysian Airlines B-777 ... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 02:16:20 PM EST
    ... with 295 people aboard has crashed near the Russian border in Ukraine. Wreckage and bodies are reported to be scattered over a 20-km area, lending credence to allegations that the airliner was shot down by a Russian Buk SAM system while cruising at an altitude of 10,000 meters (about 32,800 feet) from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. Are Russian forces responsible for this atrocity, as Ukrainian officials are now claiming?