Sunday Open Thread

Has anyone else noticed that the Bing translator is gone from Twitter? I can no longer read the Arabic posts, which is really a drawback when writing about ISIS. I hope lots of people are telling Twitter to bring it back.

I'm determined to get out of the house today, so here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Mexico Will Repeal New Sinaloa Law Gagging Journalists | ISIS Takes Mosul Dam and Wreaks Havoc in Yezidi Towns >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Climate troll feeding time (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 10:46:55 AM EST
    The Arctic Methane Monster Exhales: Third Tundra Crater Found

    A single event may well be easily marked off as a strange occurrence, but three look more like the start of a trend.

    Weather Underground notes:

    The holes may foreshadow bigger problems for our planet in the near future, scientists worry. Permafrost around the Arctic contains methane and carbon dioxide, and both could be dangerous to our environment if released, according to a report from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. As long as the permafrost remains frozen, the report adds, this isn't a concern, but climate models have painted a grim future for rising temperatures in the Arctic.

    Capt... (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 10:54:32 AM EST
    ...I have said this for years, we have surpassed the tipping point in which even if we emitted zero greenhouse gases, we can't stop the inevitable.  Which is the planet will warm to the point in which food become a scarcity and nations will be at war, not over oil fields, but tillable soil and fresh water.  

    It's a done deal.  The light energy Earth is absorbing is greater than the heat it can dissipate, even if there were no greenhouse gases being produced by man.

    I am just glad I never reproduced, and my lineage, a couple canines, will never have to live in the real life Thunderdome, where only the rich will have enough to eat while entire 3rd world countries will be in perpetual war over food.  Which of course will be good in that it will reduce the number people the planet will have to feed, but for humanity it will be a disaster.

    I wonder what Easter Island was like, were there rabid conservatives insisting that the tree scarcity was a hoax perpetrated on the people for no apparent reason.  Surely, the scientists types realized at some point there was no turning back, right before the lack of resources decimated their populations.

    The good news is the planet will survive, like it has over all the other non-human related significant climate changes, and it just might get lucky enough to have all of humanity destroyed, like the dinosaurs, and be one of the most biological diverse planets in the Universe, free of plight of mankind.


    They are like methane "burps." (none / 0) (#4)
    by desertswine on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 10:59:25 AM EST
    This has the potential ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 11:08:18 AM EST
    If We Release a Small Fraction of Arctic Carbon, 'We're F#cked': Climatologist

    ... to be very, very bad.

    "Methane is more than 20 times more potent than CO2 in trapping infrared as part of the natural greenhouse effect," Box said. "Methane getting to the surface--that's potent stuff."

    It's especially worrying because the Arctic is warming faster than nearly anywhere else on Earth. Now, along with melting sea ice and thawing permafrost, we have to add to our list of 'feedback loop' concerns that warming Arctic oceans may be releasing fonts of methane. That is, the warmer the ocean gets, the more methane gets spewed out of those stores on the continental shelf, and the warmer the ocean gets, ad infinitum.

    the craters (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 11:15:18 AM EST
    have the feel of the opening scenes of a disaster movie.

    Seeing as how none of the predictions (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 01:52:08 PM EST
    have come true... I don't worry about this.....

    but climate models have painted a grim future for rising temperatures in the Arctic.

    But this might turn into a problem.

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.



    James Taylor - heh (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 03:43:54 PM EST
    Even a wingnut denier with no expertise in climatology has to acknowledge the obvious:

    Of course, 10 years is hardly enough to establish a long-term trend.

    But if the issue was weather in the United States in the past 10 years - as opposed to global climate change/warming (over time) - Taylor (and you) might have a point.

    Of course, ... it's not.

    More on Taylor's silly claims:

    The Latest Climate Change Denial Fact Twisting


    Taylor claims that cigarettes (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by desertswine on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 04:06:30 PM EST
    don't cause cancer, too.

    He's on many payrolls (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 05:19:55 PM EST
    Taylor also claims that global warming ... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 11:09:36 PM EST
    ... actually decreases the risk of wildfires. Go figure.

    We have 14 burning here in NorCal atm. (none / 0) (#41)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 11:48:26 PM EST
    And I think there are more lightening strikes predicted over the next couple days, so who knows what's going to happen to that number. Brown has declared a SOE.

    Yman, you really should read (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 06:51:17 PM EST
    the link before you make yourself look bad.

    Second, for those who may point out U.S. temperatures do not equate to global temperatures, the USCRN data are entirely consistent with - and indeed lend additional evidentiary support for - the global warming stagnation of the past 17-plus years. While objective temperature data show there has been no global warming since sometime last century, the USCRN data confirm this ongoing stagnation in the United States, also.

    Physician, heal thyself (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 07:19:06 PM EST
    You should worry about yourself before worrying about anyone else making themselves "look bad", Jim.  First, you claim that children are only shot in "gun-free zones - laughable on its face.  Then, you claim the Bahamas were a Spanish colony - also laughable.  Now, you cite a wingnut citing another wingut (climatedepot), to support the laughable claim that global warming has stopped.  The best part?

    You're not even trying to be funny.


    Ever wonder if we're all just pawns in (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 05:36:35 PM EST
    jim's campaign to see how many liberals he can make dance to his crackpot tunes?

    I think there's a belief that if all jim ever gets here is opposition and pushback, eventually he'll slink off to more accommodating sites, but evidence would suggest that it is the attention  he gets via engagement  - no matter how negative - that keeps him coming back.

    I'm guilty of getting sucked into the quagmire, so I have no real room to talk, but there's something about standing back and reading the discussion all of a piece that highlights how easily we allow him to push our buttons.

    I can't speak for anyone else, but in the real world, I don't engage people like jim on these issues - so I think I'm going to make an effort to just pretend he doesn't exist.


    So you don't deny you didn't read it (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 03:38:21 PM EST
    And then you make things up.

    Typical Yman.


    Of course I read it (none / 0) (#85)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 07:23:53 PM EST
    I've read lots of silly links to baseless, opinion pieces you post.  But I base my conclusions on facts and scientific evidence and experts, not silly, wingnut opinion pieces spouted by fellow wingnuts.

    But I understand why you make things up rather than respond with actual studies.

    Typical Jim.


    So you can't refute it (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 01:20:45 PM EST
    Okay, glad you've made that plain.

    Of course I can't (none / 0) (#122)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 05:50:37 PM EST
    ... "refute it".  How do you "refute" silly, wingnut opinion pieces that are completely unsupported by facts, data and science?  You might as well say "You can't refute the Easter Bunny" therefore, he's real.

    You're funny.


    Not surprising (none / 0) (#14)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 02:20:34 PM EST
    because the latest data is that global warming hasn't taken place in a uniform manner:

    New research by a team of Florida State University scientists shows the first detailed look at global land surface warming trends over the last 100 years, illustrating precisely when and where different areas of the world started to warm up or cool down.

    The research indicates that the world is indeed getting warmer, but historical records show that it hasn't happened everywhere at the same rate.

    And that new information even took scientists by surprise.

    "Global warming was not as understood as we thought," said Zhaohua Wu, an assistant professor of meteorology at FSU.

    Wu led a team of climate researchers including Fei Ji, a visiting doctoral student at FSU's Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies (COAPS); Eric Chassignet, director of COAPS; and Jianping Huang, dean of the College of Atmospheric Sciences at Lanzhou University in China. The group, using an analysis method newly developed by Wu and his colleagues, examined land surface temperature trends from 1900 onward for the entire globe, minus Antarctica.

    Previous work by scientists on global warming could not provide information of non-uniform warming in space and time due to limitations of previous analysis methods in climate research.

    The research team found that noticeable warming first started around the regions circling the Arctic and subtropical regions in both hemispheres. But the largest accumulated warming to date is actually at the northern midlatitudes. They also found that in some areas of the world, cooling had actually occurred.

    "The global warming is not uniform," Chassignet said. "You have areas that have cooled and areas that have warmed."

    But wasn't that previously called weather?? (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 02:40:22 PM EST
    And weren't we told to ignore it??

    Why yes. Yes we were.

    The global warming is not uniform," Chassignet said. "You have areas that have cooled and areas that have warmed."

    The ability of the hoaxers to switch lines is better than anything ever seen in an old burlesque show.

    And say what???

    The group, using an analysis method newly developed by Wu and his colleagues, examined land surface temperature trends from 1900 onward for the entire globe, minus Antarctica.

    New? Minus Antarctica?? From 1900 onward??? I bet the guy writing that was laughing his behind off.


    But wasn't that previously called weather? (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 03:53:45 PM EST

    If you have a problem with the data and/or methods, you'll have to do better than that, James.  

    And yes, it was newly developed, and yes, they excluded data from Antarctica, but those are very weak reasons to doubt their results.  Hand-waving about these factors is very weak tea, indeed.


    Incredibly weak (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 04:00:30 PM EST
    But when they have no actual scientific studies to back up silly, denialist claims, they just have a non-expert "interpret" (aka twist) one, small piece of data to make claims that thousands of actual experts find laughable.

    Let me see (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 04:47:12 PM EST
    The INCOMPLETE global data (Antarctica) is backed up by a study ONLY since 1900 using a NEW method??

    Really????? Excuse my giggling but that doesn't pass the stupid test.

    And yes. Time and again when someone claimed about it being cold they were told it was WEATHER and had nothing to do with GLOBAL warming.

    So please don't try to parse your way out of it.

    The dog won't hunt. In fact, it won't get off the porch... too cold.



    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 04:59:34 PM EST
    The INCOMPLETE global data (Antarctica) is backed up by a study ONLY since 1900 using a NEW method??

    Well, if you read the article, for one thing, it used historical records, which, if you have two brain cells to scrape together, you realize is missing from the Antarctic continent before 1900 because there wasn't any life there besides penguins, and they are notoriously unreliable at keeping temperature records.

     Really????? Excuse my giggling but that doesn't pass the stupid test.

    And yes. Time and again when someone claimed about it being cold they were told it was WEATHER and had nothing to do with GLOBAL warming.

    Yes, the fact that it mentions cooling trends in some areas backed up by historical records is something to giggle about.

    The dog won't hunt. In fact, it won't get off the porch... too cold.

    If climate denialism was dirt, you'd just about cover 7 acres.

    Have any other Southern chestnuts to unleash, James?  Fire away.  That your mind can only think via cliche is to be expected when you don't have any facts on your side.


    The big black letters (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 11:42:30 AM EST
    many consecutive exclamation points and question marks, Hehs, and lols always compel me to believe everything Jim claims is the God's honest truth.

    I just can't help myself. It's like listening to Billy Sunday or the Reverend Ike.


    Um, actually (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:35:44 AM EST
    No, it wasn't previously called "weather" (excpet by those who don't know any better), because weather is different than climate.

    For the record: Weather is how the atmosphere behaves day to day, which is a highly chaotic system and impossible to predict beyond a few days because there are so many variables that can influence weather patterns. Climate is the long-term average of weather patterns tracked over many years, and far more stable

    But... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 11:16:03 AM EST
    ... I Always Look Forward to Senator Inhofe declaring climate change a hoax every time it snows in Texas.

    Wonder where lies on the droughts in the state he represents, Oklahoma:

    What's more ironic is that the Senate's leading climate denier bailed on the annual Heartland climate science denial conference this morning -- saying "I am under the weather" (!) -- just as his home state is being slammed by a record-smashing heatwave and a drought more severe than the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.

    That is not from the Onion as much as I would like it to be.


    Do tell (none / 0) (#16)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 03:04:04 PM EST
    What predictions has he made that have not "come true"?

    If you mean (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 04:48:17 PM EST
    HE in the collective sense

    Then the answer is NONE.


    No, it's not (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 05:09:00 PM EST
    The warming trends and causation "predictions" made by climatologists have been verified by thousands of peer-reviewed studies over the past couple of decades,

    ... as opposed the denier opinion pieces on wingnut blogs.


    Since I'm an old Oregon fighting duck (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by fishcamp on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 05:13:25 PM EST
    I gotta say you two guys really quack me up.

    Your velcome (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 06:41:13 PM EST
    Deputy Knesset Speaker (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 06:47:59 PM EST
    proposes removing all Palestinians from Gaza and "concentrating" them in "encampments."  Then Gaza is to be bombed into rubble and nests of resistance are to be "exterminated."  Then the Palestinians are to be sent elsewhere, or sign loyalty oaths.

    This would be of course a violation of international law.  But "camps?"  What has happened to Israel?

    Big Orange Diary on suject.

    Words fail.

    Words fail (none / 0) (#36)
    by Politalkix on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 07:06:32 PM EST
    Hamas is despicable but Israel is disintegrating into an amoral, right wing sink hole that is too painful to watch! I do not know where this will end.



    In an interview (none / 0) (#44)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 09:21:07 AM EST
    that I saw on the BBC with I believe the Israeli defense minister, when questioned about the human toll of the Israeli bombing campaign, he referred to the Allied bombing of Dresden as an antecedent.

    The BBC person had no comeback for that one.

    To my knowledge, the USA has never been held to account - suffered boycotts or sanctions or the like - for what it did to Iraq.

    The big guys set the standards. Regarding the targeting of areas which result in many civilian deaths, (oops - I mean "collateral damage") we have left ourselves with no moral ground from which to preach.

    Not that our government - or those of the rightwing governments in the region - even really care to condemn what Israel is doing. Certainly there is no comparison to the measured/mute US response to the Israeli campaign and the Palestinian death toll - and the relatively frenzied response to the downing of the airliner in the Ukraine.

    Basically, it seems to me, is that the only way to root out terrorists who may be in civilian areas is to send in ground troops to flush them out. This, of course, means putting soldiers at risk. Dropping bombs from on high, or launching missiles, do not involve those risks. So it is not with a light heart that I would suggest ground forces as an option.


    IOW, soldiers die first (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 10:46:45 AM EST
    We have "evolved" to become a world where, in real effect, civilians are expected to die first, while the lives of soldiers are treated as better than. Especially in the types of conflicts, with the types of weapons, we have now. Very weird. But, then again, maybe not. The cellular survival instinct, after all, is what keeps us going in the most dire of circumstances.

    I am reminded of a quote from FULL METAL JACKET, and perhaps I paraphrase, "Marines die. That's what we're here for."


    Greatest Generation (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 02:07:37 PM EST
    my John Wayne movie and ace..

    With the Holocaust and the so-called "strategic bombing" of WWII mankind crossed a moral-spiritual Rubicon in the wrong direction.

    Now every chickenhawk and butcher uses WWII as a justification for barbarism.


    cellular (none / 0) (#47)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 10:47:53 AM EST
    damn if i didn't even stop to think this word has MUCH different meaning than it did if, say, I'd written this yap twenty years ago.



    But in fact, Israeli troops are ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 11:50:37 AM EST
    ... presently operating on the ground in Gaza, and have suffered serious casualties themselves given the relatively limited scope of IDF operations. Further, the use of infantry and armor to root out and eliminate enemy targets and positions does not at all minimize the resultant risk to noncombatants who get caught in the crossfire, and in most instances actually enhances that prospect.

    I noted just a few days ago that somewhere between 10.000 and 15,000 French civilians lost their lives in the Battle of Normandy during the Second World War (June 6 - Aug. 14, 1944). Some of that grisly toll was due to Allied aerial and naval bombardments which accompanied the D-Day landings, but certainly not all, because the Anglo-American advance on the ground in northwestern France over the ensuing two months was both slow and painstaking in the face of vigorous and at times maniacal German resistance. More often than not, it involved some of the most intensive and vicious armored and hand-to-hand combat to occur at any time during the entirety of that conflict in the European theatre.

    (It's sobering to consider that some 70-75% of all U.S. combat casualties in Europe during the Second World War occurred during the final eleven months of that conflict, which attests to the rather vicious nature of German opposition. Further, about 75,000 U.S. airmen lost their lives in the air war over Europe, a figure which alone surpasses the entirety of the later U.S. death toll in Vietnam by nearly 30%. So, the conduct of aerial operations in WWII was certainly not bloodless for the Allies, by any means.)

    In more recent times, it has been conservatively estimated that the Russian invasion and subjugation of Chechnya (1994-2006) directly resulted in the deaths of some 300,000 people, of which only 15,000 of that total were Russian combat troops. The remaining death toll constitutes nearly 20% of Chechnya's pre-war population. At its height, the violence was arguably the worst ethnic bloodletting to have taken place in Europe since the end of the Second World War, and resulted in the near leveling of the Chechen capital of Groznyy during active combat operations.

    (If one includes the displacement of civilians fleeing the Russian invasion, the population of Chechnya has been effectively reduced by about 40-45% from what is was in 1994. One could argue effectively that the Russians engaged in an ethnic cleansing.)

    When one chooses to unleash the dogs of war for whatever the reason, only the truly foolish will believe that they can subsequently and logically control the events which will follow, because the very notion of armed conflict itself is mankind's ultimate irrational act.



    I Would Like to Think... (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 12:48:04 PM EST
    ...warfare is a different game than it was 70 years ago, namely because of technology like smart bombs and laser guidance systems.  People have written books about that last days of not only the German front, but the Japanese front as well and how the mass civilian casualties, for the most part, could not be avoided.  Or rather were pale in comparison that the estimated causalities of fighting door to door with armies that swore they would never surrender.

    Whereas a tank blast to a UN school holding one suspected militant and 3000 civilians including women and children, is not something governments in 2014 find as an acceptable form of 'warfare'.  

    IMO that is closer related to terrorism than warfare.

    But this is what happens when the 'moral authority' does the exact same thing, no one give a F what we think about civilian casualties or the actual civilian casualties.  And that is not limited to Gaza.


    Warfare itself has most certainly ... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 05:08:00 PM EST
    ... been modernized and adapted to meet the demands of present times. Unfortunately, the rudimentary thinking and the mindless xenophobia / nationalism which often serves as war's primary root cause, has not really evolved all that much over the millennia.

    For all our technological advances, with rare exception we've generally remained shockingly medieval in our capacity for facilitating conflict resolution in both international and internecine disputes.



    While I Agree... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 11:08:40 AM EST
    ...the public isn't exactly in the dark about these matters nor is there any meaningful delay from the time they happen until they are in our living-rooms. People don't like bloody babies and executions no matter the level of xenophobia.

    There will always be scared little chicken hawks around the globe, like Jim & the past two administrations, who have no regard for human life, putting winning at all costs the only goal of warfare.

    But the rest of us, the ones with souls, realize that winning at all costs is how savages operate and I would like to think most people are not OK with the over the top brutality and killing of civilians, especially children.

    Governments, sans a few with questionable motives, are stepping in and saying 'enough' with Israel, not because their leaders oppose war(funny), but because the citizens are appalled by Israel's tactics they see on the TV every night.  And maybe it won't make a difference right now, but Israel, much like the US is losing it's moral ground, and that, at some point, will have an affect on their future.

    But I agree, the people with the greatest desire to kill and maim always seem to float to the top in governments/militaries using fear and xenophobia to enact their fantasies of stomping out the 'enemies' in real life.  No level of technology will ever dissuade people who have no humanity, like Jim.  For them, it's blood and guts for all who don't buy into their moronic saber-rattling.  And much like Jim, they have never seen warfare, but love it to death.  They sit back and direct others to die for their own self gratification, going as far as to take pride in the number of kills they designed and executed.  Putting death above the welfare of the very citizenry they claim to protect.

    IOW, soulless cowards with big guns, who haven't won anything since before most of them were even born.  For all his blather, Jim and most hawks can't remember a time when America actually won at war, but hot damn if they don't know that killing women and children is no big deal so long as it means 'winning', too bad every single one remains winless at war.  Yet, the people they tromped over with the promise of a win, are still dead.  And the truly pathetic blame the folks who never wanted war to begin with, for their own inadequacies and failures as war 'masters', and as human beings.

    The really sad part is these are people who, as a whole, generally believe in some divine being that is going to judge them for their deeds while on Earth.  I don't know much, but any being worthy of worship isn't going to like the promoters, the planners, the profiteers, and the people who design machines that have only one purpose, mass death of their very beings their deity created, very much.  Especially the destruction of ones who have nothing to do with anything, and are, by all accounts including the hawks, innocent victims of their blood lust, paranoia, and greed.

    But the chicken hawk brain, while incapable of winning at war in 70 years, even with tens, if not hundreds, of trillions of hard earned tax dollars, has an almost limitless capability to rationalize every single bad deed, even the ones, like torture, that are illegal and immoral by any definition beyond the perpetrators own warped view of what it is to be a human being.  The deity is gonna come knocking and for folks like Cheney and Jim, it's gonna be sooner than later and Fox & Friends ain't gonna be there to spin all their bad deeds.  And that for me, is some very small sense, is satisfying.  To know people who spend their who lives hating and destroying might be judged without prejudice or the spin machine dismantling the truth.

    One can only hope there is a just god, because it would be nice to to have a place, even if this non-believer is excluded, where innocent people can be without hatred and killing and fear and all the other stuff the hawks declare as necessity for their safety.


    The last 11 months of WWII (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 12:40:45 PM EST
    in Europe was for the U.S. the largest time period of our combat operations against Germany.

    The last 11 months would include Normandy, Market Garden, the Bulge, and drive across the Rhine....basically our entire invasion of Occupied Europe except for Italy and Sicily.


    Exactly. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 04:10:53 PM EST
    And it was a remarkably brutal and bloody affair. Most people don't realize that until July 1944, the British Empire actually had more troops on the front lines in active combat than did the United States.

    (And that was actually the case in both theatres of war at the time! The largest land battle of the entire war with Japan took place in the spring of 1944 in India at Imphal-Kohima, between the British 14th Army and the Imperial Japanese 32nd Army. The British acored a decisive victory, and the Japanese invasion of India was thwarted.)

    Basically, we spent over two years deploying a massive preponderance of American force to Great Britain, nearly two million troops, all told. Our presence in the southern end of that island was such that local residents took to describing their region tongue-in-cheek as "Occupied England."

    Then, starting on D-Day, we proceeded to deliver a powerful roundhouse punch to the Third Reich's chin, breaking their armies in a two-month battle of attrition in Normandy, and overrunning the whole of France and Belgium. Then, after being initially repulsed and stalled at the German border in the autumn of 1944, we proceeded to overwhelm the enemy with our superior numbers and resources. Not to minimize the very significant contributions of our British and Canadian allies in the field, but that final year of war in western Europe was primarily an American-led effort.

    That said, the Third Reich died very hard, and the Germans certainly went down swinging to the end. The Battle of the Ardennes (aka "The Battle of the Bulge") in Dec. 1944 - Jan. 1945 stands as the largest and bloodiest single battlefield engagement in the history of the U.S. military. We lost over 19,000 men killed, 47,000 wounded, and 23,000 missing or taken prisoner in five weeks of intense combat. Those are staggering casualty figures to consider, even in light of the over 600,000 U.S. infantry and armored troops which were brought to bear against the last great German offensive of the war.



    And, while those numbers are tragic, (none / 0) (#109)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 11:17:39 AM EST
    the Russians suffered two and a half million casualties driving the Germans out of Russia after the German failed siege at Stalingrad.

    That, I Beleive, is Total Casualties (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 12:02:11 PM EST
    The Axis suffered 850,000 total casualties (wounded, killed, captured) among all branches of the German armed forces and its allies; 400,000 Germans, 200,000 Romanians, 130,000 Italians, and 120,000 Hungarians were killed, wounded or captured.

    The USSR, according to archival figures, suffered 1,129,619 total casualties; 478,741 personnel killed or missing and 650,878 wounded or sick.

    In all, the battle resulted in an estimated total of 1.7-2 million Axis and Soviet casualties.

    But this is what i was trying to find:

    Before the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, researchers who attempted to count the number of people killed under Stalin's regime produced estimates ranging from 3 to 60 million. After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives also became available, containing official records of 799,455 executions (1921-1953), around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulag and some 390,000 deaths during kulak forced resettlement - with a total of about 2.9 million officially recorded victims in these categories.

    Stalin killed nearly 3 million of his own people (officially) all without a war, one has to wonder what the actual number is.

    I also found this interesting entry about Americans:

    Mass operations of the NKVD also targeted "national contingents" (foreign ethnicities) such as Poles, ethnic Germans, Koreans, etc. A total of 350,000 (144,000 of them Poles) were arrested and 247,157 (110,000 Poles) were executed. Many Americans who had emigrated to the Soviet Union during the worst of the Great Depression were executed; others were sent to prison camps or gulags.

    That's correct, my figure of (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 01:03:54 PM EST
    2,5000,000 was total casualties; your 850,000 was, I believe, just for the battle of Stalingrad.

    The point was that the numbers were almost beyond human comprehension. In all, Hitler's war, WW2, resulted in roughly 50 million total deaths, approximately 1/2 military, 1/2 civilian.


    OK (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 01:56:55 PM EST
    I wasn't trying to refute it, I was trying to see how many people Stalin killed and saw the numbers.

    The numbers are like the national budget, too large for a human mind to comprehend.  50M, I had never seen that number, jesus.


    ... were actually far worse. The numbers you cited were just military casualties from combat after the Battle of Stalingrad. Before that battle, the Red Army suffered staggering losses. Soviet casualties during the Stalingrad campaign itself (Aug. 1942 - Feb. 1943) were 1.13 million, including 480,000 dead.

    Now here's where any discussion about Soviet casualties in WWII gets very sobering. According to a 1993 study by the Russian Academy of Sciences, the estimated Soviet resident population in January 1941 was 196.7 million persons. The January 1946 census put that number at about 170.5 million. The Soviet Union's population had thus been reduced by about 13.5%, as a direct result of its four-year war with Germany and its Axis allies. Further, there were 7.8 million more females than males in the prewar U.S.S.R.; after the war, that gap had mushroomed to over 22 million.

    To place those horrific numbers in some perspective, the official U.S. death toll from the Second World War was 405,399. Were our losses to have been comparable to those suffered by the Soviet Union, we would've had to have lost 17,842,217 dead, out of our pre-war population of 132,164,569.



    I'm confused, (none / 0) (#129)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 02:30:15 PM EST
    I said:

    "The Russians suffered two and a half million casualties driving the Germans out of Russia after the German failed siege at Stalingrad."

    To which you said,

    "Soviet casualties in the Second World War were actually far worse. The numbers you cited were just military casualties from combat after the Battle of Stalingrad."

    Where's the difference, did I miss something?

    But, I do appreciate your putting WW2 casualty figures into their proper perspective, which was the thrust of my post.

    More on that later.


    One wonders what kind of post-WWII (none / 0) (#130)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 04:07:02 PM EST
    curtain would've fallen on say, Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean if they had been used as staging areas for an invasion of America that resulted in millions of American casualties..

    The figure you cited ... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 05:02:53 AM EST
    ... was just the Soviet Union's military casualties after Stalingrad. The figures I cited reflects the fact that twice as many Soviet civilians (17.9 million) as Soviet military personnel (8.7 million) died in "The Great Patriotic War" against Nazi Germany.

    I think it's important to note that not everyone who was actively fighting / resisting the Nazis in Russia were members of the Soviet military. An estimated 550,000 partisans were operating behind German lines in the summer of 1943, and they were especially active in Belarus. While they inflicted significant losses on Axis forces, they suffered grievously as well.

    Red Army soldiers who were taken prisoner by the Germans tended to fare poorly; out of the nearly 5.7 million Soviet POWs, an estimated 3.3 million of them subsequently died in captivity, likely from starvation and epidemic -- and in more than a million cases, they were simply sent to Nazi death camps for exterminations. But partisans who were captured by Axis forces behind the lines were treated as common brigands and executed on the spot.

    Further, civilians in the occupied territories were repeatedly subjected to German reprisals for partisan activities in their region, and the reprisals were particularly harsh if towns and villages were found to be harboring partisans. It was not at all uncommon for the entire populations of select Russian and Belorussian villages to be completely exterminated.

    The conflict on the Eastern Front was a true race war.


    Moshe Feiglin (none / 0) (#74)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 05:11:33 PM EST
    may be the "Ted Cruz" of the Knesset so it is not known to me how deep his sentiments for people and land clearance run. But, his public proposal, alone, is indicative, at least to an extent, of concurrence among some of the Likud party.  And, it is disheartening to have to hope that Netanyahu will rise to the occasion of  severe admonishment.  

     It should be easy for the Israel government to condemn, out-of-hand, a proposal teaming with ballastexistenzen--eliminate the dead weight, the lessers in the human hierarchy--and make way for the superiors.  And, Feiglin says it all "with God's help."  

     Clearly, ideas of genocide go beyond arguments of self-defense and broach the most extremist ideology and theology, picking up along the way the support of some Evangelicals on their road to Armageddon.  Peace is not wanted since it is not part of God's plan--following Prophet Ezekiel for the ingathering of the Jewish people so as to bring about their conversion (or else) and the end of the world.  


    Loser At Movie All By Himself (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 02:08:19 PM EST
    From  ONION.  Made me laugh out loud.  Always have occasionally gone the movies alone.   Some think it's weird.  I've heard "well, he worked on movies".  True but I went to movies alone before that.  

    Sources are confirming that a sad f&$king loser, who many speculate has no friends or anyone in his life to talk to, is currently attending a 1:30 p.m. screening of the film Red 2 all by himself.

    "I like going to movies alone, especially during the day when it's not too crowded," said the sad man, who attended the first Red movie by himself three years ago, just last week saw World War Z alone, and, good Christ, made plans with himself to see Before Midnight on opening day last month. "It's relaxing."

    Staring utterly and completely alone at the movie screen in front of him, onlookers confirmed that the man opened his pack of Twizzlers, began eating them one by one, and seemed visibly engaged with the pre-movie trivia as well as the behind-the-scenes look at the new Showtime series Ray Donovan.

    In a sight that many later called "devastating," the sad-as-hell individual who wasn't sharing his moviegoing experience with anyone was the only one in the theater to laugh out loud at the preview for Martin Scorsese's The Wolf Of Wall Street and looked visibly surprised and intrigued when the words "Directed by Woody Allen" appeared toward the end of the trailer for Blue Jasmine.

    In addition, sources confirmed the poor sonofabitch acted slightly upset--as if his moviegoing experience had been disturbed--when he had to sit up in his chair and make room for two other patrons who wanted to get by him to get to their seats.

    I Used to Go All the Time... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 02:57:22 PM EST
    ...all by myself.  I worked downtown Milwaukee and one of the original old school theaters on 3rd had matinees for a buck or two.  Complete with balcony and all the other cool decorations 'real' theaters used to have.

    I never felt so alone as the time I went to see Mississippi Burning and realized that I was the only white guy and plenty of, and rightfully so, angry black folks.  Nothing happened, but it was awkward as he11, at least in my mind.  

    But most of the crowd was loners, maybe like me, people with odd jobs that allowed them to sit in a theater at noon.  I cannot remember the last time I walked out of a theater and the sun was blindingly bright because it was the middle of the afternoon.

    I can't imagine going to a prime time movie at prime time alone, but then again I rarely go anymore.  The last movie I went to was a Batman marathon, ending with the latest release.  Which, coincidentally, was the same time an Aurora theater was under a gunman's siege.

    My home theater is infinitely better than the box theaters and the Dots are free.

    Watched Noah last night, WTF is all I can say.  Still not sure if that was plus or minus for religion, but it was fricken weird not what they taught me in sunday school.


    You mean, Noah DIDN'T really bear an ... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 04:14:17 PM EST
    ... uncanny resemblance to Russell Crowe?



    The story bore little resemblance (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 06:00:49 PM EST
    This made me laugh -

    NRB boardmember Phil Cooke, who has seen the movie and spoken with Paramount about it, told TheWrap the disclaimer was necessary due to "the controversy in the Christian community about [Aronosfky's] telling of story." Cooke has encouraged the religious community to be more open to the film, which is "more of an inspired movie than an exact retelling."


    "encouraged the religious community to be more open"

    Have you met the religious community?


    Ah, Hollywood license! (none / 0) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 07:28:27 PM EST
    That reminds me of the 1929 movie version of Shakespeare's "The Taming of the Shrew," which originally contained the infamous credit line, "By William Shakespeare, with additional dialogue by Sam Taylor."

    My favorite story like that (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 07:47:51 PM EST
    is about the composer Jullien, as related in the Memoirs of Hector Berlioz:

    Louis Jullien, conductor and composer of dance music, decided to set the Lord's Prayer to music. Many of his friends pointed out to him that the public would find the combination of composer of popular music and so sacred a subject somewhat incongruous. With his usual self-sufficiency, Jullien replied that a composition bearing on its title page two of the greatest names in history could not fail to be a success.

    Was his pen name "Malotte"? (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:58:14 PM EST
    Nope (none / 0) (#93)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 09:36:09 PM EST
    unfortunately, Jullien went insane and died in an asylum in Paris in 1860.

    Per wiki, he had 36 Christian names! (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 10:01:46 PM EST
    Also per wiki:

    He died in an asylum at Neuilly-sur-Seine, Hauts-de-Seine, but was still remembered in London twenty years after his death: he was described as "Jullien, the eminent musico" in W. S. Gilbert's libretto for Patience (1881).[2]

    My grandmother had 10 (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 08:57:53 AM EST
    Link? (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 11:19:27 AM EST
    Ha (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 11:24:59 AM EST
    I don't even know them all.  Let's see -

    Naola Jane Simone Rachel Ann .......

    That's it.  I may remember more.

    And of all those choices show went by Naola?


    Been there and done that (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 03:45:27 PM EST
    I never felt so alone as the time I went to see Mississippi Burning and realized that I was the only white guy and plenty of, and rightfully so, angry black folks.  Nothing happened, but it was awkward as he11, at least in my mind.

    We went to see "The Liberation of Lord Byron Jones" in downtown Chicago.

    Never felt awkward but a mite ancy.


    The part about Ray Donavon made me laugh (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 05:08:07 PM EST
    I would have paid attention too.  
    Just caught up with Ray this weekend watching all the episodes on the DVR.  
    great season so far.  Data from the Next Generation( joining Tasha Yar), Ann Margret, Hank Azaria, that guy from True Blood with no dentures.  
    Great series.  

    And may I just say (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 06:33:14 PM EST
    God willing we will all look as good as Ann Margret at 72.

    Still a beautiful lady.


    Ann M (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 06:41:21 PM EST
    Yes, and all (none / 0) (#84)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 06:54:33 PM EST
    the more impressive in her courageous course of facial reconstruction following a 22 foot fall from an elevated platform to the stage while performing in 1972.   She took a painful route, including wiring the mouth shut, to minimize lasting problems.  

    Ann-Margret! (none / 0) (#87)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 07:33:19 PM EST
    A very talented and underrated actress, whom I will forever associate with baked beans.

    Have you seen her on Ray Donavon (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:01:39 PM EST
    She's great.  Her character is a rich attractive older woman who has a wild side apparently.  

    Saw her, almost couldn't believe it (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 12:20:57 AM EST
    She looks amazing, and her acting abilities do not seem to have dimmed either.

    We just got home from 'Guardians of the Galaxy', one of the best movies I have seen this year.  Horrible trailer for a great movie.  We almost passed because of the trailer and went to Planet of the Apes until we read some reviews.


    Went to see "Lucy" (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by desertswine on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 12:56:27 AM EST
    Silly but entertaining. Lots of loud noises.  Sometimes its just for fun, no thinking involved.

    I wanted to see Lucy (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 08:15:52 AM EST
    But Josh did not because Morgan Freeman in the trailer claims we only use 10% of our brain.  He told me he did not want to see a movie based on a false premise.

    He kind of gets to call the shots right now, his dad just arrived home for the surgery.  Guardians was a good stress reducer :)


    10% (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 10:12:56 AM EST
    Was reading about this.  Scientific American -

    What's not understood is how clusters of neurons from the diverse regions of the brain collaborate to form consciousness. So far, there's no evidence that there is one site for consciousness, which leads experts to believe that it is truly a collective neural effort. Another mystery hidden within our crinkled cortices is that out of all the brain's cells, only 10 percent are neurons; the other 90 percent are glial cells, which encapsulate and support neurons, but whose function remains largely unknown. Ultimately, it's not that we use 10 percent of our brains, merely that we only understand about 10 percent of how it functions.

    IMO It's scarier to think that people are using 100% of their brains and still acting the way they do.


    I saw it, (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 06:48:05 PM EST
    And I was tempted to stand up in the theater and shout, "No, no, that premise is false, you idiots!"
    I've been married to a scientist way too long.  
    Josh is right.  He is definitely a proud member of the Loyal Order of Nerds, which Mr. Zorba also belongs to.  
    And I guess, from long association, so do I.    ;-)

    As a Lifelong Nerd... (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 09:03:16 AM EST
    ...I don't think Bradley Cooper as a car stealing, machine gun firing, raccoon in outerspace, is based on less of a false premise than Lucy.

    Just sayin'.


    LOL! (1.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 09:31:24 AM EST
    Too true.  But I didn't see "Guardians of the Galaxy."
    I don't think I'd like Bradley Cooper as a raccoon.  Or, the voice of a raccoon.  He's way too cute in real life.    ;-)

    "Lucy" was terribly silly fun (none / 0) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 01:12:21 AM EST
    I loved it.

    Supposed to see Lucy (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 08:56:13 AM EST
    This week.  

    Just saw (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 09:06:10 AM EST
    Under the Skin.  Which was very good.

    I see that got great reviews also (none / 0) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 09:52:54 AM EST
    Hubby took (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 06:19:33 AM EST
    youngest to see it this weekend. Both of them just loved it. I'm guess Josh liked it too?

    He did (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 08:11:33 AM EST
    Or pop art paint (none / 0) (#88)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 07:43:16 PM EST
    I always shake my head at the term (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 05:36:49 PM EST
    "moviegoing experience"

    It's just a bleeping movie.


    When I hear that (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 05:41:49 PM EST
    It makes me think of the time I flew to LA to see the premier of King Kong with my friends who worked on it and we ended up sitting right in front of a bunch if a-holes that didn't shut up for one second in three hours.
    THAT was a" moviegoing experience".

    And why I like to go to empty matinee .


    I probably go myself more than I go with (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 02:57:58 PM EST
    friends these days. Just too hard to agree on films and schedules. And when I really want to see something, I don't want to miss it in the theater. AND films I really want to see only stay in the theater for about 2 weeks in Orlando.

    I don't normally feel awkward...but of course I'm not going to go on Saturday night...but really would it be any more pathetic than staying home and watching TV with the dogs?


    Exactly (none / 0) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 07:05:34 PM EST
    but really would it be any more pathetic than staying home and watching TV with the dogs?

    Ummmm . . . . (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 07:02:31 PM EST
    staying home and watching TV with the dog is pathetic?! Oh dear . . . .

    Rikers Island (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 03:26:03 PM EST
    The city's juvenile jails are extremely violent and unsafe, the result of a deeply ingrained culture of violence in which guards routinely violate constitutional rights of teenage inmates and subject them to "rampant use of unnecessary and excessive force," the federal government said in a scathing report released Monday.


    In one August 2013 case detailed by the investigators, four unidentified inmates suffered broken noses, perforated eardrums, head trauma and facial injuries during a "brutal use of force" involving multiple guards in a trailer where school classes are held -- and again later when they were handcuffed in a clinic holding area.
    There is no video of the encounter and, nearly a year after it occurred, corrections investigative reports were not completed, the federal government lawyers noted.

    Last fiscal year, there were 489 adolescent inmates, down from 682 in fiscal year 2013, when the average jail stint for 16- to 18-year-olds was 76 days. More than half had a mental health diagnosis. When they break jailhouse rules, such as refusing to obey orders or being verbally abrasive, they are sent to punitive segregation, a 23-hour lock-in essentially the same as solitary confinement.

    In one 21-month period, an average of 150 inmates received such punishment each month, resulting in a total of 143,823 days in solitary.

    That is juvenile inmates in solitary confinement.

    New York City has such a dark side that it's hard for me to equate with it being the epicenter of anything positive.

    You ain't kidding man... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 06:15:03 PM EST
    We like to turn our noses up at Texas, Arizona, and the South...but we're just as backwards, and in some ways so much worse. Especially our brand of criminal justice...nothing enlightened or progressive about it, but we like to pretend or ignore how f#cked up we are.

    As a people, we are good bullsh#tters, and our authorities are no exception. Your current state is much more honest about it's intentions...we like to pretend we're better than we are. We buy our own bullsh#t. Being a NYer is probably why I'm so down on Democrats...when the "good guys" roll this dirty, who needs bad guys.


    No doubt you've see this already: (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 09:08:37 PM EST
    Orange is the New Black, season 2 (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 11:35:20 AM EST
    IMHO...it mostly sucked. Morphed into caricatures of the writers' mad desire to escape their own limitations as thinkers. Just weak tea to me.  

    Same, pretty much IMO, with what I've seen so far of Masters of Sex season 2. Flailing. Both these shows should have been single season experiences, it seems clear, with a few more episodes padded on.

    But that's just my opinion. I need laughter, truthfully, laughter by the truckload.

    Planning to get to (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 11:47:49 AM EST
    The DVRed episodes of Masters of Sex this week.   I will be disappointed if I agree.

    Dangit... (none / 0) (#115)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 12:23:38 PM EST
    ...I am nearing the end of season one.  It's OK, seems like the first 5 or 6 episodes were really good, but started slippin' near the end.

    And I can't get out of season one Breaking Bad, everyone is like wait until season 3.  It's just not good, as someone who has had some dealings in this area, I find the plots weak and outlandish at times, rather, most of the time.

    And damn if I didn't start watching Terra Nova, not realizing it was a one season wonder, or flop.  I found the bad acting and ridiculous plots humorous, plus I love dinosaurs, especially ones that eat wayward settlers on the TV.

    Trying to figure what add next.

    Watched 'Lizzie Borden Took an Axe' last night, my gf was telling me about the limerick, which I had never heard.  Very off that kids would sing about someone who hacked up her parents with an axe.  I thought she was a do-gooder, not sure why.

    It was good, cheesy and dark, but there is a part where for like a minute they bring up a axe murder in the same town, but it's never explored or mentioned in court.  I did not understand that.


    I think the problem, if you could call it a (none / 0) (#117)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    problem - with Masters of Sex this season is that it's a little "soapy;" much more about the complicated lives and loves of the cast of "characters."  Entertaining, sure, but I was kind of hoping for more about the work on human sexual response than this season is providing.

    But, since the work didn't proceed smoothly or easily, I suppose it's appropriate that the show convey the difficulties encountered with it, and the effect on the people involved.


    I watched (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 01:11:27 PM EST
    about half of the first show of the first the season and turned it off. I simply could not get into it.

    Were the rest of our comments offensive (none / 0) (#128)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 10:53:57 AM EST
    in some way? Not sure why they got deleted...really did not mean to be.

    Pretty amazing (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 09:15:15 AM EST
    In the meantime, Jeralyn, ... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 10:50:09 AM EST
    ... you can use the Bing Translator app directly with your own browser to translate whatever page your viewing. You don't have to wait for Twitter to re-install.


    Well, I'll tell you about machine translations (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by scribe on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 04:32:24 PM EST
    in two words:  they suck.

    I work on bilingual litigation projects.  (Right now, it's a German-English patent matter.)  We who do this kind of work laugh at the poor quality of the machine translations of some of the documents.  Even simple news items get mangled by the machine.  So much so, we don't even bother with machine translations.  It's quicker and easier to do it yourself, even if it means hitting the dictionary and staring at the sentence structure for a bit.


    Yes, I agree (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Zorba on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 04:47:59 PM EST
    I am fluent in Greek, having been raised bilingual Greek and English, and also having gone to Greek school when I was young. I have occasionally, out of curiosity, looked at the computer-available translations (Bing, Google, Babelfish, whatever) of Greek texts.
    Totally mangled, to the extent that at times, I almost roll on the floor with laughter.

    Any use of an auto-translator ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 10:08:16 PM EST
    ... is going to be quite problematic at times, IMHO, because the translation is literal and not reflective of local idioms and colloquialisms. And I agree with Zorba that at times, it's going to be good for a hearty laugh.

    But with most languages, you can usually get the gist of what's being said when you use the Bing Translator app. For those passages in which the literal translation makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, it's perhaps best to consult with someone who actually reads and understands the language of the original document.



    Sounds Like... (none / 0) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 11:21:09 AM EST
    ...that world news stories shouldn't use these translators to regurgitated Twits to a blog that many folks read and assume the information is accurate or at least not accurate because of a bad translation.

    You make a good point. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 12:04:15 PM EST
    But it's not necessarily a recent phenomenon. Many times throughout history, serious international misunderstandings and disagreements have arisen due to shoddy translation.

    The Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 came about as a result of a mistranslation of the Prussian response to French government demands, which led to a French declaration of war -- an event which the French came to bitterly rue, because they subsequently got crushed very quickly in that conflict.



    They Had a Twitter Translator in 1870 ? (none / 0) (#63)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 03:00:03 PM EST
    Just Kidding.

    LOL! But seriously, it has been suggested ... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 04:55:25 PM EST
    ... by many historians that the bumbling "Twitter Translator" was none other than Prussian Foreign Minister Otto von Bismarck himself, who desired war with France as a means to unite all of Germany under Prussian leadership, and whose "bumbling" proved quite purposeful to that effect. He apparently mistranslated the June 1870 response of his own King William I to French Emperor Napoleon III, in order to spark outrage in the French court and in public opinion.

    No doubt, if that was indeed his intent, then he succeeded beyond his wildest expectations. And as a direct result, nearly 170,000 men on both sides were killed in battle over the ensuing nine months (July 1870 - April 1871), which ended in a decisive Prussian victory when the mayor of Paris finally surrendered after a five-month siege of that city. As for the French Army, it had been annihilated in only three months, and Emperor Napoleon III himself was taken prisoner at the Battle of Sedan in Sept. 1871. It was the civilian population of Paris which held out the longest.

    But unfortunately, by so humiliating the French as he did, Herr Bismarck also unwittingly laid the foundation for the First World War, the centennial of which is presently being commemorated across western Europe this week. Because in the aftermath of their shockingly abrupt 1871 military collapse, the French spent the next four decades plotting vengeance upon Imperial Germany, which did in fact unite that same year under Prussian leadership, just as Bismarck had foretold.

    And sadly, the French would eventually find a most convenient and troubling scapegoat for their military rivalry with Germany, in the person of the hapless Army Capt. Alfred Dreyfus, which proved to be one of the most truly shameful legal dramas in modern French history.



    Donald, Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 05:46:47 PM EST
    for the review.  I always found Otto von Bismarck to be a fascinating historical figure.  His diplomatic and political achievements were the result of brilliant strategic concepts. His tactics in unifying the many German sovereign states and overcoming the German princes was intriguing.

    As you note, his very successes sowed the seeds of the 20th Century tragedies, from the Paris Commune of 1871 (an insurrection owing to the defeat in the Franco-Germanic war and the fall of Napoleon IIi) to the antithesis of Bismarck's general sense of limits and equilibrium to Hitler's absence of measure and rejection of any restraint.  But, we still owe Bismarck for his vision for social security and his arbitrary, at the time, setting of age 65 for retirement.


    Bismarck was a very complicated man. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 01:22:22 AM EST
    He had an enlightened vision of a modern German state, and yet he was entirely ruthless in his pursuit of it, starting successive wars with Denmark, Austria and France in only six years' time.

    Your knowledge of history is impressive. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 05:00:23 PM EST
    It was always my favorite subject in school. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 05:11:03 PM EST
    Thank you for the compliment.

    I Love History as Well... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 10:46:16 AM EST
    ...but I don't have the brain capacity to remember anything other than the very basics.

    For me, Wiki was a godsend.

    I always love reading your odd and insightful historical accounts.  You remind me of a history teacher I had in college for Medieval History I & II.  She made it enjoyable by relating content and making history more of a story, rather than just memorization of dates.


    Yes, well done, Donald (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 10:55:16 AM EST
    I always end up slapping myself in the forehead and going "what!? they did what?!" when I read history. I really have to force myself.

    Pan's People (none / 0) (#7)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 11:21:09 AM EST
    This just cracks me up.  I never heard of this dance troupe.  But they were apparently quite the phenoms in Britain.   They performed weekly on the Brit version of American Bandstand in the early 70s.

    Here is one example.   Disco at its height.

    The Hustle

    And here, they show a lot of "heart."  Can a bump and grind and with lots of suggestive looks be "G" rated?

    Love's Unlimited.

    And, quite hypnotizing.

    My Sweet Lord

    The early 70s, which many think of when they think of the 60s, was fun.  Roger Moore's James Bond was fun and campy.  Now Bond is very serious. Batman of the late 60s was fun and campy.  Batman is now very dark and serious.

    Your Bon Jovi Watch for Sun., Aug. 10: (none / 0) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 11:22:45 AM EST
    Jon Bon Jovi pens an open letter to NFL Buffalo Bills fans (via The Buffalo News), publicly acknowledging for the first time that his Toronto-based owners' consortium is seeking to buy the team, and dismissing as unfounded recent rumors that they'll relocate the Bills to Toronto, instead reaffirming their commitment to keep the team in western New York. The Bills were put up for sale after owner Ralph Wilson died last March.  

    Donald Trump... (none / 0) (#9)
    by desertswine on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 12:00:47 PM EST
    Hmmmm. Bon Jovi or Donald Trump? (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 01:37:07 PM EST
    I think NFL owners -- upon whose approval any sale of a franchise is subject -- will take the rocker over the a$$hat.

    "Does not work well with others" (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 01:43:43 PM EST
    along with being a braggart aren't what they're looking for in an NFL team owner.  It's a very exclusive club, and they're probably looking at the NBA and the Donald Sterling episode like "Damn, we can't let that happen to us."  Because you know that with his egotism, he'd probably sue a fellow at the drop of a hat if things weren't going his way.

    Donald Trumph, a legend in search of a mind.


    All right, it's time for the steel cage (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by scribe on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 04:34:54 PM EST
    Ego and Crazy Death match:  Trump vs. Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys.

    Being an as*clown does not disqualify you as an NFL owner, it just makes for more off-field entertainment.


    Put you money on the Bills being purchased by (none / 0) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 05:25:24 PM EST
    Terry Pegula.

    But he isn't talked about as much, because he doesn't try to put his name in the news the way the other two are curently doing.


    As a hockey fan, I know who Terry Pegula is. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 10:14:35 PM EST
    He's the owner of the NHL Buffalo Sabres, and a local guy. And given his steady and low-key stewardship of that franchise, I think he'd make an excellent owner for the Bills. Thanks for pointing him out, because as you noted, his name's clearly been overlooked amid the showboating of the other two candidates.

    Funny... (none / 0) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 11:32:58 AM EST
    ...watch the ESPN's 30 for 30 "Small Potatoes: Who Killed the USFL?", which should have been called "How Donald Trump's Ego Killed a Pro Sports League" or "Donald Trump Murdered the USFL, Brutally and Without Remorse, and Then Urinated on the Corpse."

    I stole both those titles from various sources, but if there is one place DT should not be it's the NFL.  Buffalo I believe is the only team that plays in Canada once a year, but not this year strangely enough.


    Truth of the matter (none / 0) (#10)
    by Politalkix on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 12:46:43 PM EST
    Absolutely... (4.67 / 3) (#58)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 01:11:33 PM EST
    The Obama administration has catered to Wall St, the Banks, and Corporate America as well or better than Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, or Reagan.

    Too much is not enough for the 1%.


    From our "Auspicious Debuts" file: (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 03:34:17 PM EST
    The very first sporting event to take place at brand-new Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, CA -- an MLS match between the San Jose Earthquakes and the Seattle Sounders -- apparently brought about substantial gridlock last night throughout the San Jose area, even though the announced crowd of 48,765 represents two-thirds of the facility's capacity as new home of the San Francisco 49ers.

    (Of course, the 49ers won't be playing on Friday nights when Bay Area commuters are trying to head home from Silicon Valley, but still ...)

    Oh, yeah -- the Earthquakes won the match, 1-0.

    ISIS on move again (none / 0) (#21)
    by Green26 on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 04:05:50 PM EST
    Have captured 3 more cities. Pushed out the Kurds. More executions. With these advances, have displaced several hundred thousand people, largely the Yazidi minority (don't know who or what they are). Have gotten closer to Iraq's largest dam (Mosul). Now are close to the 2 largest dams in Iraq. I assume ISIS will eventually take the dams, and either open them (causing severe flooding and loss of power) or destroy them. The Kurds, a long-time US ally, recently asked for US help in fighting off ISIS. The US appears to be continue to stand by. This is turning into a huge humanitarian problem.

    Why would ISIS, (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 10:25:15 AM EST
    regarding the dams, "open them (causing severe flooding and loss of power) or destroy them?"

    If they have intentions of conquering Iraq, and, ruling it, why would they destroy the infrastructure?


    Don't know but ISIS (none / 0) (#57)
    by Green26 on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 01:10:16 PM EST
    took control of a dam near Fallujah earlier this year, and closed all of the dam's gates in order to flood areas above the dam (both areas and crop lands), and cut off water to areas down the Euphrates below the dam.

    I see that ISIS has now taken the Mosul dam. Don't know where the power from that dam is used, but if it's mainly used in Baghdad, I supposed ISIS might try to cut off power to Baghdad in order to facilitate taking Baghdad.


    Many believe that they (none / 0) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 10:52:24 AM EST
    Would flood Baghdad using the Haditha dam, because the city is predominantly Shia.  It would cripple a Shia stronghold. I don't see why they would destroy Sunni stronghold cities though like Mosul, and before any city would be flooded using the Mosul dam, Mosul would be destroyed first.

    I love The Strain (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:26:52 AM EST
    I really do.   But I love this aparrently regular feature on previouslyTV almost as much -

    The Fart Faces Of The Strain

    James Brady, former White House press secretary, (none / 0) (#59)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 01:53:04 PM EST
    passed away at age 73.  

    Cliven Bundy 1 Evil 0 (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 06:26:31 PM EST

    Bundy told an Independent American Party gathering in St. George, Utah, that God provided him with "personal inspiration" to steal federal land from the tax payers and put the lives of government officials at risk over a few damn cows he was too lazy to move:

    "The Lord told me ... if (the local sheriff doesn't) take away these arms from federal agents, we the people will have to face these arms in a civil war. He said, `This is your chance to straighten this thing up,'" Bundy said, according to The Spectrum of St. George.

    ... of the day the iconic cover photo for The Beatles' Abbey Road album was shot. So, in honor of that occasion, here's the Abbey Road webcam, a live stream of the famous London crosswalk taken from the legendary Abbey Road studios. There are a lot of tourists and Beatles fans out and about this evening (GMT), getting their own photos taken at the spot.