Sunday Night Open Thread

I didn't even realize the Golden Globes were on. There's an hour left, I hope I didn't miss much. Juliana Margulies is on now giving an award to George Clooney. His new wife is with him.

New seasons of Episodes and Shameless start tonight on Showtime. There's also Downton Abbey and a new episode of The Good Wife.

Update: The Good Wife apparently features the Ferguson and Eric Garner cases. It begins with a notice that it was it was written before the grand jury decision, and references to Ferguson are to events in August after the Michael Brown shooting. I wonder why they needed the disclaimer. (It's just starting here.)

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Almedy Coulibaly: Soldier of the Islamic State | Jury Selection in Tsarnaev Trial and Comparisons >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Cuba finished releasing 53 inmates (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 07:22:17 AM EST
    this weekend that the US deemed were political prisoners as part of the deal to normalize relations between the two countries.

    Progress continues, with a meeting in Cuba between the two countries set for January 21 & 22.

    I About had a Heart Attack... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 09:49:37 AM EST
    ...watching the Pack sneak out out yesterday.

    The call was the right one, not sure if I agree with the rule, but it was a correct call.  Doesn't matter, the pack was on a role and that TD would have put them 2 points down.  There is a very good chance that they would have gotten a FG to at least tie it up has the cowboys gone and gotten 2.

    But talk about Karma, last week the ridiculous picking up of a flag after the call is made, then this week, at least according to Bryant, a bad call that almost ensured a loss.  

    Doesn't matter because today, not a cowboy fan in the city, they all went back into hiding, well except for the whiners calling into sports radio to tell the world how they were robbed.  Like hearing your woman whispering in your ear, you don't know why, you don't care why, but it's just delightful to hear, for different reasons obviously, but there is something about cowboys fan whining that make me smile.

    Rogers was killing it in the second half.

    They can beat Seattle, and the Panther game is full of good tape on how to do it.  A team that had no business in the playoffs hung around never more than a score behind until the 4th Q interception.  The Pack lost the season opener to Seattle, but beat the Patriots at the end of November.  If Rogers is on, like he was yesterday in the 2nd half, they will beat Seattle.

    As a Lions fan (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 10:18:19 AM EST
    it was wonderful to watch that call and Dez Bryant (who also should have been called on a 15 yard penalty for running on the field and taking his helmet off to argue with the refs, but of course, wasn't) get his just due.

    Karma, baby.

    And as someone who picked the Packers to win it all in a friendly office pool, I'm rooting for them all the way.


    To Me... (none / 0) (#21)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 11:22:08 AM EST
    ...with the exception of that pass, the refs were being kind to Dallas like they were with the Lions.

    Dez Bryant whining about bad calls is the definition of hypocrisy.

    I hope you win your office pool.


    Am definitely rooting for Green Bay, Scott; (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 11:30:27 AM EST
    I have no interest in seeing any of the other 3 teams hoist the Lombardi trophy.

    At one point during the GB/Dallas game, I told my husband it felt like someone had decided the Cowboys needed to go to the Super Bowl, so I was kind of shocked they got that Dez Bryant call right.

    As for the AFC, I am so tired of seeing Manning's hangdog face every time his team chokes, I wish he would just retire already.  And don't even get me started on Brady and Belichick.

    Congrats to the Packers; I hope they go all the way - and win it all!


    I Was Cheering Hard... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 12:47:02 PM EST
    ...for the Ravens, thought they were going to pull it off.  It makes one wonder what they would done had RR been around and they had not had to deal with the controversy of the year.

    I watched a 30 for 30, I think, about the Baltimore marching band that stuck around after the Colts left town.  It was something else, they hid the stolen band uniforms in mausoleum and according to the show, ensured that they eventually got another team.  Excellent and on Netflix.


    Talk about a rollercoaster game, Scott... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:14:50 PM EST
    "we're winning!  we're tied!  we're winning! we're tied!"

    I'm just shocked that, given the drama of the Ray Rice situation, and how decimated our secondary was for most of the year, we even made it this far (that being said, our corners in Saturday's game might as well have been in flames, so badly did Brady burn them, jeez).  Turned out not to be so terrible seeing the departure of Ray Rice, but only because Justin Forsett's excellent play made us forget about him.

    Have decided it will be satisfying to see Brady go down in defeat, but not sure the Colts are the team to do it.  Guess we'll see soon enough.

    The marching band really is quite a story - will have to check out the film on them.


    When I moved to Baltimore (none / 0) (#63)
    by sj on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 02:40:44 PM EST
    One of the first things I heard about was how the Colts left like a thief in the night. My neighbor -- my authority on all things Baltimore -- never mentioned the marching band.

    Oh, yes (none / 0) (#68)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 02:59:54 PM EST
    We were in the process of moving to Maryland when the Colts left, as you said, like a "thief in the night."
    Everyone we met here at the time was absolutely upset about the whole thing.  There are still older fans here who would spit on the sidewalk if the Colts' move is mentioned.
    OTOH, I also have friends in Cleveland who feel much the same way about Art Modell relocating the Cleveland Browns (eventually renamed the Baltimore Ravens) to Baltimore.

    The people of Cleveland have their (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 03:32:23 PM EST
    team's name, their uniforms, and all their history; Art Modell may have moved the team, but he left the team's identity and history in Cleveland.

    Bob Irsay took it all to Indianapolis.  He took everything.  We had to watch a team wearing that iconic blue and white uniform with the horseshoes on the helmets play in another city for 13 years before Baltimore was allowed to have football again.  All of the Baltimore Colts' records say "Indianapolis" on them.  

    Cleveland had a new team three years later.  And all their history and records and trophies, and their ugly uniforms.  It wasn't at all the same as what Irsay did to Baltimore - or what the league did to Baltimore in denying it, year after year, a new franchise to bring football back to this city.  Jacksonville was a better candidate for an expansion team than Baltimore?  Carolina was a better candidate?  I don't think so.

    Bitter?  Yeah, there's still a lot of bitterness there when you get Baltimore Colts fans talking about the night the Mayflower vans stole the team.


    But both Jacksonville and Charlotte ... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 07:51:55 PM EST
    Anne: "It wasn't at all the same as what Irsay did to Baltimore - or what the league did to Baltimore in denying it, year after year, a new franchise to bring football back to this city. Jacksonville was a better candidate for an expansion team than Baltimore?  Carolina was a better candidate? I don't think so."

    ... offered brand-new stadiums to the NFL back in in 1994-95 when the decision to expand to 28 teams was made, while Baltimore still had the legendary but decrepit Memorial Stadium. Only when the city agreed to finance and build what's now M&T Bank Stadium next to the Orioles' park at Camden Yards, after having been rejected for expansion, did Baltimore again attract the interest of the NFL in pretty short order, and Browns owner Art Modell in particular.

    Lack of a modern state-of-the-art venue is the same excuse the NFL has used repeatedly for not granting an expansion team to Los Angeles. Only in L.A.'s case, city and county residents have simply gotten used to the idea of not having an NFL team in their midst over the last two decades. Thus, they shrug their shoulders at the league's entreaties, and have repeatedly refused to offer up the requisite taxpayer dollars to build a new stadium suitably appropriate for a modern NFL franchise.

    That's because, having been burned on multiple occasions by the NFL, L.A. residents eventually wised up to the league's shtick and knew that their own population numbers ultimately gave them leverage. Why should they have pay for a new football stadium, when most of them will never be able to afford the admission price? It's not that they're opposed to the concept of the NFL's return and a new football stadium per se; they just reject the notion that they should have to pay for any of it themselves.

    Now that a new, privately-funded stadium is apparently to be built on the site of the former Hollywood Park racetrack in Inglewood, it looks as though the Rams may be finally returning to L.A. -- perhaps as early as the 2016 or 2017 season.

    With the NFL, municipal loyalty to a given team has little or nothing to do with its members' corporate decision making about franchise locales. Because were that actually the case, Al Davis and Robert Irsay would never have respectively abandoned both Oakland and Baltimore in the first place back in the 1980s, given the fervent fan support in both those cities for their Raiders and their Colts.

    Rather regrettably, as the NFL's overall popularity has soared over the last four decades, it's become an entirely mercenary business. Now, it's about whether or not you currently possess or are willing to construct the requisite number of corporate skyboxes amid an opulent palatial-like domain, per the league's nouveau riche standards and increasingly extravagant tastes -- preferably at the public's expense.

    With L.A., the prospect of re-entry into the country's second-largest media market proved enough of an enticement that Rams owner Ron Kroenke is self-financing the new 80,000-seat stadium in Inglewood.

    But for smaller markets like St. Louis and Baltimore, the shakedown rule still applies. Either your city / municipality will fork over the bucks for new digs, or the league owners will surely find some other schmucks elsewhere who will gladly provide that form of corporate welfare.

    (Consider that even as they were financing the construction of  separate stadiums for both the NFL Seahawks and MLB Mariners, King County residents in Washington state were still paying off the bonds for having constructed the since-demolished Kingdome. Further, they were also recently willing to undertake financing a plush new arena to accommodate the relocation of the NBA Kings -- only Sacramento beat them to it in order to keep their beloved team in place.)

    And that's why, as much as I really enjoy watching major league sports, I find myself slowly detaching from it as the money involved becomes more and more obscene, and both owners and players become more and more obnoxious.

    Even the prospective resurrection of the Los Angeles Rams of my childhood doesn't really get me enthused, because in order to accomplish it, they're apparently willing to screw over a now-loyal fan base in St. Louis without batting so much as batting an eyelash. As Lily Tomlin once said, "No matter how cynical you get, it's never enough to keep up."



    Stadiums (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 10:13:55 PM EST
    Are always a terrible idea economically for the local taxpayers.

    Unfortunately not enough people realize or frankly care so they keep getting built.  A truly bipartisan and American tradition of screwing over little guy.


    Stadiums and arenas can and do offer ... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 02:42:09 PM EST
    ... some very real tangential benefits to the surrounding communities, in terms of opportunities for urban reinvestment, redevelopment and renewal.

    The area around Denver's Coors Field has enjoyed something of a renaissance since its construction. And Sacramento's downtown district along K Street can likely expect the same thing with the construction of the NBA Kings' new home on the site of what was a run-down and all but totally abandoned 1970s-era shopping mall.

    But as a publicly financed investment in and of itself, a stadium is at best a loss leader for taxpayers, while always an assured windfall for the sports franchise owners, who can reap enormous profits while the municipality absorbs a significant portion of the team's operating costs. At worst, it can be a white elephant, as happened with Montreal's Olympic Stadium.

    And in the case of the MLB Texas Rangers' ballpark in suburban Arlington, it proved to be nothing less than a wholesale giveaway by the city to a politically well-connected owners' consortium fronted by George W. Bush.

    Local taxpayers had absorbed the entire $135 million cost of first acquiring the site through eminent domain and then building the ballpark, only to watch and seethe as their own elected city officials then meekly signed over to Bush & Co. not only the title to the stadium itself but also all attendant property development rights to the surrounding acreage.

    Back in 1990 when he first became president of the Texas Rangers baseball club, George W. Bush had purchased a minority 1.8% ownership stake in the franchise for $100,000. When the consortium sold both the franchise and its stadium properties eight years later to developer Tom Hicks for a then-record $250 million, Bush received $14.9 million as his share of the proceeds.

    Suffice to say, realizing a rate of return that's nearly 150 times the amount of the original investment is a very handsome payout indeed. Meanwhile, Arlington residents had to absorb a one-point increase in the city's sales tax in order to pay for the Bush-led consortium's windfall.

    In 1999, the Rangers' new owner agreed to reimburse the Arlington sports development authority for the nearly $25 million in eminent domain costs, which that authority had incurred as the result of litigation with area residents over the seizure of their property by the city to build the Rangers' ballpark.

    That negotiated agreement ended a protracted dispute between the city and the Rangers which originated during the team's Bush consortium era, when the ball club had refused to reimburse Arlington after those residents who had lost their property had won a huge court judgment against the city.



    Now, now, let's have a little sympathy (none / 0) (#181)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 09:24:07 PM EST
    for the struggling owners too.

    It's those greedy players who are at fault.

    What's a few mega-millions extorted from those cry-baby tax payers compared to the $48.5 million, two year deal the last place Lakers are being forced to pay Kobe, or the $155 million six year deal Jon Lester made the Cubs agree to?

    Why can't today's athletes be more like Mickey Mantle, who, in spite of winning more awards (Home runs, RBI's, Batting average, Triple Crown, etc.) than just about anyone who ever played the game, and who packed stadiums wherever he played during his long illustrious career, he never made more than $100,000/yr, until the very end of his career?

    So, how can you expect a poor owner, who's toiling day and night just to put food on the table, and, who's only purpose in life is to bring a little fun and enjoyment to those miserable ingrates, those "me, me, me," citizens, who, now are annoyed because they're being asked to dig down a little bit, and meet the owners half way in building a new building?

    And, don't even get me started on what these greedy, tight fisted, so-called fans forced that Microsoft worker to do in getting rid of that other Clipper owner. Yup, you guessed it, they made him take out his life savings from the bank just so they could keep watching their Clippy Clippers.

    Can you even imagine how long it must have taken him to save up two billion dollars??

    So, knock it off with your owner bashing, already, o.k. buddy!!


    True, but (none / 0) (#114)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 07:08:46 PM EST
    my friends in Cleveland are still not happy about the whole thing.
    Although, I don't think that they are anywhere nearly as bitter as the Baltimore fans are, for the reasons you stated.   ;-)

    The Movie... (none / 0) (#76)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 03:36:12 PM EST
    ...goes into that aspect and how the glory was bittersweet knowing other fans were going through the same thing they had.

    A thief in the night is exactly what happened.  The band did the same thing, but you have to see the movie, it's was insane.  And pretty much set the standard as to not what to do when moving a team, ever.


    As someone who went to college in Seattle ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 02:28:01 PM EST
    ... for five years, I'm quite partial to the hometown Seahawks. But I won't be unhappy if the Packers somehow pull off the upset, because I've always held a soft spot for Green Bay as it competes against much larger NFL markets. (And I love Green Bay's neighbor, Door County, which I consider to be one of the most beautiful and picturesque places in the entire Great Lakes region.)

    And it will definitely be an upset if the Packers do win, because: (a) They're on the road in Seattle, and will be facing conditions that distinctly favor the home team; (b) As wonderful as QB Aaron Rodgers has performed down the stretch, he's definitely not 100% physically, and a QB without maximum mobility offers a prime target for the voracious and predatory Seattle defense; and (b) The Seahawks are peaking at the right time, and playing about as well as I've ever seen anyone play at this time of year.

    But if Green Bay's offensive line can protect Rodgers to the same extent they did in the second half of yesterday's game against the Cowboys, and the Packers can avoid turning the ball over, they'll enjoy a fair to somewhat decent shot next Sunday.

    Further, whenever Seattle has lost in recent seasons, it's because they've shot themselves in the foot and beaten themselves. So for the Packers to have a better than decent chance at going to the Super Bowl, they'll need a collectively subpar performance by the Seahawks while also bringing their own A-game.

    And while we're talking about pro football, I do hereby award this season's most dubious individual honor, the "NFL's Mr. October" prize, to Denver Broncos QB Payton Manning, a hands-down winner. Because with yesterday's pratfall at home against the Indianapolis Colts, Manning now holds the unfortunate distinction of having lost more postseason games than any other starting quarterback in NFL history, 13 in total. (He's won 11.)

    And in so doing, Manning finally unseats Dallas Cowboys QB Tony Romo, a perpetual "Mr. October" favorite who -- for the time being, at least -- shook off his long-deserved reputation for late-season / post-season futility, by actually winning some meaningful games this year in the clutch.

    (FYI, according to Wikipedia, the most proficient starting QB in postseason history remains the Packers' Bart Starr, who has a 9-1 record and five NFL championships to his credit. Currently running second is the Cowboys' Troy Aikman, who's 11-4 with three championships. And New England's Tom Brady is the best among currently active QBs, with a 19-8 record and three championships.)



    The NFL record Manning holds (none / 0) (#104)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 05:43:27 PM EST
    that is unlikely to ever be broken, is the "one and done" in the playoffs.

    In the Super Bowl era, Manning has lost in his team's first game of the playoffs a record nine times. No other QB has managed more than four. He is fast becoming a lookalike of the "end of his career Marino" who the Dolphin fans adored even when he had an inability to throw the ball more than five yards downfield.

    The scouting report for Manning is fast approaching the one Marino ended with...Can't run, can't throw the out pattern, can throw long.


    And speaking of the Denver Broncos, ... (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 08:58:07 PM EST
    ... team president John Elway has announced that John Fox is out as their head coach, one day after the team was eliminated from the playoffs by the Colts. All of Fox's assistants were also told that they were free to seek other employment, though the Broncos still hold contractual rights to their services.

    Tough crowd to please, that Broncos management. Coach Fox departs after compiling a more than respectable 46-18 record in Denver, but was only 2-3 in the postseason.

    Given Elway's own playoff and Super Bowl faux pas during his career as a player, he should doubtless be thankful that the postseason standards he upholds for John Fox -- and likely, Peyton Manning as well -- were never applied to him during his first 14 seasons as the Broncos' quarterback.

    Let's play Jeopardy! The answer is, "39-20, 42-10 and 55-10." What's the question?




    Easy (none / 0) (#131)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 09:39:08 PM EST
    How badly did Elway get beat in his first 3 Super Bowls?

    End that with (none / 0) (#105)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 05:44:11 PM EST
    "can't" throw long.

    I always really liked Dan Marino. (none / 0) (#123)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 08:08:23 PM EST
    But I agree, he should've really hung up his cleats several years before he finally did. Frankly, it was embarrassing and painful to watch him go down in such ignominious fashion at the end of the 1999-2000 season, leading the Dolphins to a 62-7 immolation at the hands of the Jacksonville Jaguars in the AFC divisional playoffs.

    I'm very worried (none / 0) (#57)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 02:16:41 PM EST
    About Rogers and his bumb calf up in Seattle.

    That is not a place you want to go at anything less then 100%.

    The Cowboys were able to win up there by dominating the line of scrimmage on offense and running the football with Murray.

    If the Pack can get 80-100 yards out of Lacy and get some solid play from Starks they can keep Rodgers from having to throw 50 plus passes.   If they put it all on him they aren't going to win.


    Personally... (none / 0) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 02:43:49 PM EST
    ...I think they over hyped Rogers injury.

    First half he's skip/limping around like he needed a wheel chair, second half mobile, not 100%, but good enough to throw the ball.

    At first I was thinking they gave him a shot of the good stuff, but they would have done before the game.

    But he comes out for the second half and the skip/limp disappeared, and that falls right in line with his style, faking out the the other team like no other QB ever has, no reason to think he wouldn't do it with an injury, IMO.

    He's hurt, but not to the degree they are pushing IMO.

    And I swear if I hear one more person state you can't win against this team making mistakes or having everyone at 100% I am going to barf.  Carolina made so many mistakes and was basically one play away from tying up the game until the 4th Q interception.  No team to ever win a game has played error free or injury free, ever.

    Those are just carnival barker phrases used in damn near every game playing in the past decade.  All teams make mistakes and have player not playing 100%, and yet, right around, half seem to win.


    Rogers does need to be (none / 0) (#74)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 03:31:38 PM EST
    100% because his mobility and arm talent are what can allow him to buy extra time and put the ball were no other QB in the league can.

    He will need all that to beat a Seattle Secondary that is at full strength and will be ready to go.

    I would read zero percent into the Carolina game.  Seattle will be hitting on all cylinders when the Pack come calling and if Rodgers can't move around and be himself they aren't going to win.


    Is That Plagiarized... (none / 0) (#82)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 04:03:53 PM EST
    ...from ESPN loop, I mean seriously, like I didn't hear the exact same spiel at least 20 times this weekend.  First about the cowboys then with Seattle.  

    I get it, the word is the Pack will lose if Rogers can't move around, yet he was hardly mobile yesterday and won.  I am confused.

    Now Carolina doesn't matter because apparently Seattle only brings their A game for the important playoff games, it's a complete mystery they aren't 36-0 for the past two years and finish the season at 38-0.  The best team in the NFL should never lose, but in reality they lose a lot, as in 1 in 4 games this year, same as the Pack.

    I am not saying they are going to lose or win, but get some perspective, an immobile Rogers does not a game make just because ESPN says so.


    What is your problem? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 07:30:40 PM EST
    I'm offering my opinion and all you can say is I'm copying from ESPN and you are offering exactly zero analysis just that you're skeptical.

    Rogers is the best QB in the league because he is an athletic atom Brady.  He can make every throw and is a great athlete who extends plays.

    If he can't run then the DBs for Seattle don't have to cover as long and the Hawks can choose to rush four all game because they don't have to worry about him getting outside their rush lanes and causing havoc.

    The Hawks have allowed 8 pts per game the last 6 games.   They are ready for a healthy Rogers much less a gimpy one.  

    Maybe he's fine, maybe he warms up in the second half like he did against the Cowboys but they in my opinion don't want to get behind waiting for him to get loose.

    Not sure how you turned my sports opinion into an attack on my knowledge of football.



    That all depends on the Packers' o-line. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 05:07:48 PM EST
    From my perspective, I was very impressed by how well they adjusted to the Cowboys' pass rush during the second half of yesterday's game. Rodgers looked like he had all day in the pocket on those final two scoring drives, and Dallas paid very dearly for that.

    Green Bay will need a repeat performance on Sunday.


    The Cowboys won up there because ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 03:12:05 PM EST
    ... the Seahawks were actually quite banged up at that point in the season, with ten key players -- including six starters -- sitting on the sidelines injured and in street clothes. Even then, the Cowboys only eked out a 30-23 win.

    Ironically, that game was probably the pivot point upon which the Seahawks turned their season around. It started late in the 4th quarter when their gifted but emotionally immature wide receiver, Percy Harvin, refused to go onto the field for the team's final drive. Finally exasperated by his self-absorbed behavior, Seahawks management unloaded him five days later on the hapless New York Jets, where he became somebody else's headache.

    In retrospect, the Seahawks' reluctant but necessary decision to finally rid themselves of Harvin's divisive and petulant presence proved a godsend. While the lingering hangover from his issues likely contributed to an upset road loss two days later at the hands of the St. Louis Rams, Seattle then went on a most memorable tear afterward, winning nine of their last ten games to close out the season as NFC West champs and the conference's No. 1 seed.



    Good point (none / 0) (#77)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 03:37:16 PM EST
    But it doesn't change the reality that nobody beats the Seahawks by throwing it all over the field.

    Especially if Rogers is dinged up.

    Seattle is built around their secondary and you just can't expect to beat them without some sort of running game.


    That's true. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 05:00:23 PM EST
    Teams with a strong ground game can give Seattle fits. And Carolina was doing just that last Saturday, until they started turning the ball over.

    Seahawks will crush the Packers (none / 0) (#141)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 12:38:47 AM EST
    Seahawks crushed Green Bay early in the season and have only gotten better.

    They will put the heat on the QB the way that Dallas did not.

    Packers defenses is average.


    Captain... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 11:52:05 AM EST
    ...I see the Dish is blocking Fox News.  I find it rather humorous that Fox was all over the TV with commercials stating that Dish Network is censoring the news.  
    As Fox News enters its fourth week without carriage on the Dish Network, it is making a sensational new charge: "They're censoring what you see."

    Bill O'Reilly says so in a new commercial that Fox began to televise over the weekend.

    "Dish has dropped Fox News. Now you should drop Dish," O'Reilly declares.  The ad is a dramatic escalation in the war of words between the cable news channel, a unit of Twenty-first Century Fox (FOX), and Dish, the satellite company that delivers TV to 14 million households.

    Dish (DISH) declined to comment on Sunday.

    Fox News and its sibling Fox Business Channel were blacked out in Dish Network homes on December 22 -- the latest in a series of contract disputes between Dish and various channel owners. The two channels have been missing ever since.

    CNN, the parent of this web site, and other Turner Broadcasting channels were blacked out for a month in November. The channels are back now.


    Fox Claiming anyone is censoring the news is pretty GD funny.

    Yes, really funny also , and in line with the (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 12:15:49 PM EST
    Fox News playbook, to pretend what is essentially a contract dispute between the network and Dish is some kind of victimization and censoring of Fox News. these disputes between network and cable/satellite providers happen all the time - and always get resolved.

    Robert Stone, (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:03:42 PM EST
    award-winning novelist, died at home in Key West.  The hippie and beatnik author of novels including "Dog Soldiers," set in California and Vietnam of a heroin smuggling deal gone horribly wrong, and the thriller "Damascus Gate," succumbed to a tough course of emphysema--his punishment, he claimed, for chain smoking.  A very interesting character and major literary figure.  RIP

    "Dog Soldiers" made it to ... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 04:34:34 PM EST
    ... the big screen in 1978 as the critically acclaimed film "Who'll Stop the Rain," which was directed by Karel Reicz and starred Nick Nolte, Michael Moriarty, Tuesday Weld and Anthony Zerbe.

    Honestly, I have no idea why the producers changed the title from "Dog Soldiers," which to me never really made much sense, other than the fact that the memorable '60s hit by the Creedence Clearwater Revival was used in the film's score during the closing scene and final credits.

    That said, from my perspective the film nevertheless stands as one of the very best action-thrillers of the 1970s, right up there with "The French Connection." Per the late Roger Ebert's review:

    "When it played at Cannes, indeed, it was titled 'Dog Soldiers,' but it was retitled 'Who'll Stop the Rain,' maybe because the producers didn't want people to think this was a war movie, or maybe because they thought the song title would help at the box office. And yet it is a war movie, in a way; a story of people at war with themselves after the one in Vietnam screwed them up. The merchant seaman (Nick Nolte) made a vow in the Marines that he would never again allow himself to be ordered around by morons, and that vow leads him into a lot of trouble in this movie. The husband (Michael Moriarty) didn't know beans about the drug scene when he went off to Vietnam, but, as Nolte tells the wife, 'he made some new friends.' And the wife (Tuesday Weld) did her part on the home front, by getting hooked on pills. [...] You gotta be careful about making new friends."

    Robert Stone's novel is actually a lot more complex than the film from both an emotional and psychological standpoint. And according to Ebert's review, the author reportedly had a falling out with the film's director over the latter's choice to focus more on the action, rather than the characters' various quirks and hang-ups.

    But ultimately, it can be said that both the book and the film work their magic in their own respective ways, and in this regard, each can and should be appreciated on their own merits. Stone was a marvelous storyteller, and he'll be very much missed.



    Oh man, I loved Stone's novels... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 12:59:25 AM EST
    Nixon's the One (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:23:54 PM EST
    Do yourself a favor, go to YouYube on the device of your choice and look up 'Nixon's The One'. Harry Shearer has produced video depictions of some of Nixon's actual recorded conversations. He plays it straight up, just actors in costume in in an oval office set reproducing the conversations as the occurred, like a fly on the wall. Amazing to see. this was the most powerful man in the world.

    MAD magazine certainly had ... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 04:58:19 PM EST
    ... Nixon's number forty years ago. My older sister had had one particular MAD poster taped on the outside of her bedroom door, which for obvious reasons gave my right-wing uncle fits back then when he saw it. But I remember my mother answering her older brother by defending my sister's right to her own opinion about the president -- an opinion which, she further stated, she also happened to share.

    Thanks for the head's up. Shearer's work can be sheer genius.


    "There will be no pictures of pigs... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 07:22:28 PM EST
    The weekend has passed (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 07:51:52 PM EST
    The national championship has begun...

    and still no BTD.

    We demand an explanation. (none / 0) (#140)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 11:52:22 PM EST
    What a coincidence! (none / 0) (#148)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 03:08:16 AM EST
    The Oregon Ducks we saw in the Rose Bowl didn't show up, either. Congratulations to the Ohio State Buckeyes, NCAA national football champions.

    But honestly, was punching in that final TD from the one-yard line with 26 seconds remaining in the game -- when the Buckeyes already held an insurmountable 15-point lead -- really necessary?

    The Ducks had been very soundly beaten by that point, and they undoubtedly knew it. There was absolutely no need to rub their faces in their own Schitt like that, when taking a knee would've been the classy and sportsmanlike thing to do.

    That conscious failure to show some grace at such a moment of triumph really says a lot about head coach Urban Meyer's character, and none of it is flattering.



    Don't agree (none / 0) (#155)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 05:42:19 AM EST
    Urban allowed his players the opportunity to finish the game the way they had played and won the game in the 2nd half.  They just ran the ball and asked Oregon to stop them. No passes, no sweeps or end arounds, just lined up and ran it.

    The reason they had the ball that close to the goal line was because Oregon had gone for it on 4th and long deep in their own territory still trying to win the game even though the outcome was no longer in doubt.

    If Oregon had instead punted the ball away to OSU then you would have seen them run out the clock.

    I also doubt that if the situation was reversed your have seen anything different from Oregon.   Frankly in today's college football what happened last night is the new norm.   Especially for the coaches on both sides last night.

    Congrats to both teams for great seasons.

    Congrats to the Buckeyes for completing a post season run in college football that will never be matched in terms of what the Buckeyes had to overcome to win it.   A 3rd string QB won as his first career starts...

    The Big Ten Championship (against a Heisman finalist)
    Sugar Bowl agsinst SEC champ (and another Heisman finalist)
    National Championship (against this years Heisman winner)

    An amazing and historical outcome that will never be matched.


    Rewatched the end (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 07:35:05 AM EST
    This morning and OSU had it for the last 4 minutes running out the clock with run after run.

    Urban let them pay it off with a TD.  Don't think that was bad sportsmanship.


    flag football game, it was the college national championship.

    I agree (none / 0) (#168)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 12:07:01 PM EST
    Many, if not most, of these college players will not wind up as professional football players.
    Let the winners have their glory.

    Well, I disagree with you. (none / 0) (#169)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 12:09:13 PM EST
    They were up by 15 with only seconds remaining, and the game was clearly won. In that instance, most coaches would tell their QB to take a knee and let the clock run out.

    Meyer chose instead to run up the score, and it served only to cheapen what was otherwise a tremendous effort and game by his team. I found it akin to kicking someone in the head for good measure, after you've beaten him to a pulp and he's just lying there prostrate and helpless on the ground.

    This season's over, and what's done is done. But that's the sort of thing that can come back to haunt future Buckeye teams, especially should they ever find themselves playing Oregon again. Because while you might forget about what you did and moved on, your opponent likely will not and will channel that memory as psychological motivation.

    After he had long retired, the legendary Nebraska coach Tom Osborne was asked by a reporter if he had any regrets about his career. Osborne then lamented in obvious retrospect that back in 1983, he had allowed his Cornhuskers to run up the score on Syracuse in a 77-7 rout in Lincoln.

    Because, as he recounted, Nebraska traveled to Syracuse the following season, ranked No. 1 and all full of themselves. Only this time, they ran into an unranked but hyped-up team of angry Orangemen and a Carrier Dome full of very loud and boisterous Syracuse fans, all of whom remembered the previous year's humiliation and were determined to avenge it.

    Nebraska lost that afternoon in a huge upset to an inspired but otherwise outmanned and inferior Syracuse squad, 17-7. And as Osborne noted, that early-season defeat likely cost the Cornhuskers any real chance at that year's national championship, which was eventually won by unbeaten BYU.



    While I was pulling for Oregon (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 01:36:29 PM EST
    I sense your disdain is because a Pac-12 team was taken to the cleaners. Be happy it wasn't much worse. It easily could have been a 30+ point loss.

    Indeed the final margin of 22 points was less than the average margin of victory put up by Oregon this year (27.4 pts). You'll have to give me quotes from back when you surely claimed the Ducks were running up the score.

    I love the Ducks but they were out of their league.


    While I'm a Washington alum and Husky fan, my loyalty doesn't necessarily transfer to other conference teams, particularly with regard to archrivals like Oregon, Oregon State, Washington State and USC.

    I was actually rooting for Ohio State last night, because I wanted to see the Buckeyes prove wrong all those naysayers who had insisted that they didn't belong in the playoffs. So, had the Buckeyes been playing TCU or Baylor last night and done the same thing, I'd have felt the exact same way.

    Were there several minutes remaining in the contest, that would obviously have encompassed an entirely different scenario, because you don't want to tell your players to stop playing or worse still, start playing not to lose.

    But that clearly wasn't the case here, because OSU's final touchdown occurred with only 26 seconds left on the clock. By that point, the Buckeyes had already won the national championship, both decisively and emphatically. There was no reason for Urban Meyer to have then rubbed Oregon's face in it any further as he did.

    I'm sorry, but I think that's what someone does if he's a real d--k-swinging a--wipe. And that's why I found that to be an a--holish call on Meyer's part, because I find nothing admirable about running up the score on a clearly beaten opponent when your victory's already firmly locked away and secured.

    With Washington leading USC in the 1990 Pac-10 opener, 31-0, and the Huskies inside the Trojans' ten-yard line with seconds to go after steadily driving the ball downfield during the final five minutes of the game, Coach Don James told Husky QB Mark Brunnell to take a knee and let the clock run out.

    When Hawaii was up on Boise State with one minute to go in the 2007 WAC championship game, 39-27, with the Rainbow Warriors sitting 1st-and-goal on the Broncos' five-yard line and Boise State out of timeouts, Hawaii Coach June Jones told QB Colt Brennan to take three straight knees and call it a day.

    I'm definitely old school in that regard, because that's the way I was taught to compete in sports. I played for coaches who would not have hesitated to bench you for what they perceived to be poor sportsmanship, regardless of how well you were performing at the time on the field or court.

    Thus, I've come to believe that when you're up by two or more scores with less than a minute to go, and you have the ball 1st-and-ten deep inside your opponents' end of the field, there's really nothing left for you to prove to anyone. You've won. At that point, you should always take the high road, show some class and let your magnanimity in victory speak for who you really are.

    In such situations, taking a knee inside your opponents' own five-yard line and letting the clock expire actually says volumes about the quality of your team's character -- especially when you're facing an obvious "take no prisoners"-type of team like Oregon, who I'd think would likely not have accorded Ohio State the same courtesy, had the scenario somehow been reversed.

    In such a moment, the sharp contrast between the two teams would have proved striking to everyone who was watching last night's game. But unfortunately for the Ohio State Buckeyes, such a character-defining public moment was forever lost to them in Urban Meyer's last-minute fit of blind combativeness.

    And when we start celebrating in-your-face dickitude at the ultimate expense of gracious sportsmanship -- as we apparently seem to be doing, more often than not of late -- I think we're likely not only losing something that's important to us as a civilized society, we're throwing it away with both hands.



    Thus is such a non issue (none / 0) (#180)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 06:03:21 PM EST
    I have seen zero commentary in the media saying what you are saying.  

    Don't forget the coaches are friendly having spent time together talking and sharing football.  

    Every one in the stadium knew what play OSU was going to run.  How about stopping them?


    Obama Getting Hit For Not Showing Up (2.00 / 1) (#13)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 08:39:29 AM EST
    at the Je Suis Charlie rally.  I think his critics have a point.  Obama's public protestations of outrage are more associated with "Je suis Trayvon".  :-)

    I think his critics have no point (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 09:01:39 AM EST
    And I would be willing to bet a college savings account this was all discussed through State Departments.  Obama inherited the Iraq War, but he IS the existing icon of American power.  The Iraq War of Lies wound is still fresh, and some nations had enough soul and intelligence to tell the leaders of this country NO! even though we really were stricken and pitiful.  France deserves credit for that!

    We are with France.  Everyone knows that.  It was best psychologically for the world as a whole though and particularly France that the U.S. sat out that photo op.


    Agreed. This appears (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 12:11:57 PM EST
    to have been a studied decision for American representation to be set at a lower profile (the US Ambassador to France). Eric Holder was in Paris, but did not participate in the rally.  The rally may have been underestimated in turnout. And, of course, there is the serious matter of security.

    There is a mix of dynamics at play, only some of which we know. French  President Hollande's goal was for unity---and, for support among European nations in which a pattern has emerged for a radicalized minority of European Muslims, whether they have gone abroad or not, to become angered and inspired by wars the West has waged in the Arab world, and have sought to bring the costs of those conflicts back home.

    The war against Iraq in 2002 destabilized the middle east and placed the US at the cynosure of ire.  It likely that, in consultation with Hollande, President Obama agreed to the course taken.  (It has been reported that Hollande did ask that Prime Minister Netanyahu and  President Abbas not attend, but they decided to come after all.)

    The criticisms of President Obama in this matter can be expected as a knee-jerk from the likes of Marco Rubio and other wingers.   However, in weighing the knowns and unknowns, it is my view that a better judgment call would have been for the US to have been represented, if not by President Obama, Vice President Biden or Secretary Kerry. And, it was well that Netanyahu and Abbas decided to attend.  

    It would, at this point, be responsive and responsible, for Secretary Kerry or Vice President Biden to attend memorial services for those killed by the terrorists at the Hyper Cache market and Charlie Hebdo.  Or, to make a visit to Paris as soon as feasible.


    Obama Goes Out of His Way (1.17 / 6) (#37)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:02:58 PM EST
    to show solidarity with blacks who have been in conflict with whites.  His comments about Henry Louis Gates and Trayvon Martin were totally uncalled for, ignorant of the facts, and did him little political good.  I say touché to the critics who contrast his behavior in those cases with his absence from the Paris show of solidarity.

    Let's be honest about this, shall we? (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:43:34 PM EST
    With your crowd, Obama was damned if he did, damned if he didn't, because if there's one thing we can count on - much as we count on the sun coming up every day - it's that the right-wing will always - always - have a negative spin they can put on anything Democrats do or say.  

    I know as sure as I'm sitting here that if he'd gone, you'd be raking him over the coals for doing exactly what you're here criticizing him for not doing.

    ::rolling eyes::


    If not Obama then someone (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 02:23:07 PM EST
    From the administration should have been there.

    I'm sorry Anne but if the shoe was on the other foot the left would be screaming.

    You had the head of the PA and Israel not ten feet away from each other and America is a complete no show.   Kerry, Biden, Susan Rice?

    No one could squeeze this into their schedule?

    It just didn't look good and one doesn't have to be of any political persuasion to see that.


    The WH agrees with you (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 02:24:36 PM EST
    I suspect profound embarassment (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 02:41:41 PM EST
    was involved.

    The U.S. didn't just break a few plates in the Pottery Barn.

    It bombed the Pottery Barns, all of them. It bombed the Pottery Barn warehouses.  It bombed the Pottery Barn Suppliers, from the largest to the smallest.  It even bombed the very mention of the Pottery Barn, whether in print or in the most private conversation.

    The Pottery Barn is no more.  


    There he goes (none / 0) (#67)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 02:59:42 PM EST
    apologizing for America again. To the cheese eating surrender monkeys no less.

    The French Amb to the U.S. (none / 0) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 10:47:32 PM EST
    Told MSNBC today that this whole ruckus is being reported by the French press as only a U.S. scandal.  The Amb. said that nobody in France doubted for a minute that the U.S. wasn't with them.

    The United States press apparently gets verklempt on the spot over anything they hope is verklempt worthy.  Will my baby nation ever grow beyond a 14 yr old mentality, emotional intelligence, and sexuality?  One can only hope


    The Ambassador said???????????????? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 01:36:23 AM EST

    Seems to me the Ambassador (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 02:57:52 AM EST
    would be in a good position to know.

    If everything is all about us (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 05:55:55 AM EST
    The French Amb is a lowly peon when weighing in on the subject.

    Nobody in doubted for a minute the U S. (none / 0) (#183)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 01:27:10 AM EST
    wasn't "with" the French people????

    Slado, my point wasn't whether Obama (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 03:18:27 PM EST
    or someone at a high level should or should not have been there, it was that the RickyJims of the world would have found fault no matter what the decision.

    I don't disagree that it looks bad that we sent no one of any importance to the rally, but how much weight are we to give how things look?  Is this a case of each leader has to show up for some other leader's tragic event?  Are we keeping score on this now?

    For me, I suppose I would have found it somewhat hypocritical that the American president, who has shown little respect for freedom of speech and the press in this country, should have gone to Paris to hold hands with other world leaders.  When our security apparatus is combing social media for people to question and arrest, I think that doesn't say much about our commitment to freedom of speech.  When we're prosecuting members of the press for publishing things the administration doesn't want out there, how do we have any moral authority to stand with those protesting the attacks on Charlie Hebdo?

    I don't just care about how things look, I care about how things are, and right now, I find the show by world leaders of solidarity with the victims of the attacks to be just that - a show.

    But that's what we do, isn't it?  We show up to pay our respects, and then go on about limiting, repressing and chilling all manner of speech that the government objects to.  All in the name of safety and security.

    My question is, why are we making a bigger deal out of who showed up at the rally than we are in how the governments these leaders represent are limiting freedom of speech?


    Yes (none / 0) (#72)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 03:26:24 PM EST
    You have definitely cut to the essential point, Anne.

    One could find serious fault (none / 0) (#79)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 03:46:01 PM EST
    With every leader that was there.

    It seems by your standards none of them should have stood up for freedom of speech.

    It was a strictly political statement about freedom of speech by Western and some Islamic leaders and it would have been nice for the US to participate.

    I give Obama a pass because no way does he get security set up on tha kind of notice and actually could have kind of ruined it but Biden or Kerry should have gone.


    Rowson did a cartoon about the march (none / 0) (#128)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 09:10:35 PM EST
    "L'etat c'est Charlie!"

    The "ironies" mentioned being that virtually every politician marching "in support" had been at one time or another thoroughly skewered by Charlie Hebdo's lampoonist cartoonists.


    Easy answer (none / 0) (#84)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 04:07:24 PM EST
    My question is, why are we making a bigger deal out of who showed up at the rally than we are in how the governments these leaders represent are limiting freedom of speech?

    now that we are past the anger/sadness/outrage of this tragedy we go back to silly finger pointing, just reverting to the norm. Meaningful discussion?
    Unpossible on this planet, much less this country. Meaningful (non-destructive) actions even more unpossible.

    Our ambassador to France was present. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 04:36:10 PM EST
    I recall Saudi royalty being spirited out of the US immed. after Sept. 11 by the W admins.  I don't recall foreign dignitaries flocking to the U.S.

    True (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by sj on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 11:31:06 AM EST
    I don't recall foreign dignitaries flocking to the U.S.
    Hard to "flock" when nothing is flying. How long were planes grounded again?

    Not saying they would have, had they been able. But not saying they wouldn't either.


    Did they flock when flights into the U.S. (none / 0) (#173)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 01:33:58 PM EST

    Was there anything (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by sj on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 02:59:12 PM EST
    for them to flock to? Honest question: I haven't looked it up. But memory doesn't call to mind any mass marches.

    True confessions (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 02:38:08 PM EST
    My brain now processes the word RickyJim as Lime Rickey.  I can't help it.  It does it on its own.  When I see a RickyJim comment now a voice in my head says, "Oh, Lime Rickey weighed in on this :)"

    As long as we're confessing things... (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 03:48:52 PM EST
    my brain translates "RickyJim" to "Jim Bob."



    My Brain... (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 04:06:04 PM EST
    ...always see Ricky Bobby, the Will Ferrell character in Talladega Nights.

    I'm dyin (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 04:31:12 PM EST
    My Crowd? (none / 0) (#56)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 02:01:38 PM EST
    To set the record straight, Anne.  I voted for Obama in both presidential elections.  I also am a firm believer that nobody is perfect.

    The views you express here would be (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 02:18:31 PM EST
    more at home on the conservative websites for which you seem to have quite an affinity, which is why I placed you in that crowd; your views are parroting those being expressed by the hard right/Fox News contingent.

    Telling me you voted for Obama, twice, is a non-sequitur.


    Obviously not goose stepping (none / 0) (#159)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 06:59:21 AM EST

    For Someone Who Votes D... (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 04:10:29 PM EST
    ...you sure spend dig up a lot of R websites for links.  One even might think you spend a lot fo time there.

    I voted for O twice as well, and not really a fan, but I feel dirty after going to your, what I would call, very conservative and obvious bias, links.

    When you post R talking points and link to R websites as proof, it's pretty hard to believe you aren't an R, it doesn't make sense IMO.


    It's important to remember (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 09:57:38 PM EST
    ...That Obama was not running against Jesus, he was running against a moron and a fascist, each of which had a backup moron and fascist.  I forget which was which.

    Having a solid three-digit IQ and not wanting to shoot Black people on sight is a pretty low threshold.  Voting for Obama was a no-brainer, but as a liberal, I wish he was a Democrat.


    "touche?" (none / 0) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:18:01 PM EST
    Worked for D' Artagnan, but then fencing no longer has the 1884 luster of Alexandre Dumas.  

    That, of course, (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by desertswine on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 09:56:05 PM EST
    reminds me of my favorite Thurber cartoon.

    Shedding crocadile tears (none / 0) (#107)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 05:50:53 PM EST
    at a STAGED photo op (see Digby) is hardly a show of solidarity. Very few of these leaders are paragons of human rights and more than a few of them have blood on their hands.
    That being said Obama made a huge blunder, he should have sent Dick Cheney.

    Wouldn't it be great... (none / 0) (#153)
    by unitron on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 05:34:36 AM EST
    ...if on the way there or back, the plane had engine trouble and had to set ol' Dick down at The Hague?

    Good Gravy... (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 12:36:34 PM EST
    ...now Obama is not walking hand and hand with the French and that bad, what happen to freedom fries and the right's goto blather about the French only be able to do anything because we defeated the Nazi's.

    Next week it will be slamming Obama because he's getting too friendly with the French or trying to turn the US into the socialist armpit of the world, France.

    So to answer you question, no they do not have any point, because let's face it, this is a made up controversy started by the very folks, who until yesterday, didn't really like the French and presumably starting tomorrow still won't.

    And for the record, I don't believe Obama every stepped foot in Stanford, FL or Ferguson, MO.  This 'controversy' should be called "Je suis a partisan hack".


    Yes, Scott (none / 0) (#33)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 12:47:53 PM EST
    Exactly ^this^.
    It didn't matter what he did, they were going to find a way to criticize Obama.

    Both they and you have no point whatsoever. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 03:30:24 PM EST
    No doubt you'd likely still boo and hiss at Obama, were he to preside personally over the White House's annual Easter Egg hunt for kids.

    And why not? After all, your crowd still continues to stoke white-wing resentment over the Obamas' annual Christmas trips to Oahu, even though Honolulu is his birthplace and old hometown, and he has family and friends here. Clearly, you have nothing else to offer the country, except white rage.

    So, enough with the sniping, already. It serves no purpose, save to provide fodder for all those "Mandingo"-type fantasies / nightmares which populate your own fevered white-wing imaginations.



    You're right, Donald (none / 0) (#87)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 04:22:22 PM EST
    But you're not going to persuade RickyJim and his ilk.
    I do not recall that they set their hair on fire about all the (many more) days G. W.  Bush spent on his Crawford ranch.
    In any case, Presidents are never really "on vacation."  They are still "on duty," as it were.

    RickyJim and his ilk. (none / 0) (#96)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 05:04:58 PM EST
    Will only be happy when Obama leaves office flys to Syria and joins ISIS forcing us dirty hippies to bow to his great wisdom.

    you don't have to be (4.00 / 3) (#126)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 08:42:02 PM EST
    of RickyJim's "ilk" (as that notion has been articulated here) to agree with his point

    here is a comment i posted on another thread yesterday, in response to someone else who made a similar observation:

    i too think it was bad form - downright embarrassing, imo

    Obama can speechify in Cairo (& then quote himself speechifying), but it seems that showing up in Paris is just not on

    Benjamin Netanyahu, with antisemites on the French right & abundant antisemites on the French left, had the courage to stand front & center in Paris today, whatever else one may think or say about him

    as for disagreement with RickyJim's point, the great majority of what i see here is a festival of ad hominem piling-on, not reasoned disagreement

    rather illiberal for an ostensibly liberal website, n'est-ce pas? unless "left" no longer means "liberal"

    i once spent a good amount of time at TL - thanks to some of you reflexively intolerant commenters for the reminder of why i seldom come around these days


    For "reasoned disagreement" ... (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 09:35:17 PM EST
    ... you first have to have a "reasoned" point.  All RickyJim is offering is his opinion that Obama should have gone to the protest in Paris, along with a silly analogy to the TM case that fails miserably.

    And "liberal" doesn't mean you have to silently tolerate such BS.


    Perhaps you should spend a little more (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 09:40:40 PM EST
    time considering where RickyJim started his criticism: by stating that "Obama's public protestations of outrage are more associated with "Je suis Trayvon."

    He then went on to whine/complain that Obama spends too much time showing solidarity with blacks like Henry Louis Gates and Trayvon Martin, going so far as to state that his comments in those situations "were totally uncalled for, ignorant of the facts, and did him little political good."

    That's what people were responding to, RickyJim's interest in comparing Obama's responses to situations only involving black people with what happened in France.  If you can find a free speech issue in that comparison, please enlighten us, would you?  

    Perhaps if you spent more time here, you'd be more familiar with RickyJim's commenting patterns; those of us who have dealt with him on a regular basis know where he's coming from, and I can assure you it isn't from as nearly an honest and genuine place as you seem to think.

    Several things: one, if Obama had gone to Paris, Ricky would have found a reason why Obama was wrong to do that; people don't hang out at the right-wing websites he likes to get his information from without learning that very familiar tactic.  Two, when I look at the staged photo of those heads of state, I don't see a large group of free-speech advocates, I see a lot of politicians going for the cheap photo op.

    All of those so-called leaders showing up in Paris will do what, exactly, for free-speech rights?  And as I pointed out, I for one didn't need to see Obama out on the front lines of that rally pretending to be a leader on free-speech issues when he has been slowly and steadily chipping away at those rights here in the US.

    I think it's kind of amusing that people have been so caught up in lauding the appearance of all those world leaders that very few have noticed that over the years, Charlie Hebdo skewered many of them for the authoritarian, anti-free speech positions they have imposed on the people they govern.


    heh (2.17 / 6) (#145)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 01:13:26 AM EST
    i saw how you went straight from deciding what RickyJim thinks and is therefore likely to do ("I know [sic] as sure [sic] as I'm sitting here that if he'd gone, you'd be raking him over the coals for doing exactly what you're here criticizing him for not doing") to condemning RickyJim for what you decided he thinks and is therefore likely to do

    you used to be better than this, Anne - you've become a bully

    maybe it's time for you to start your own blog instead of abusing Jeralyn's hospitality with your passive-aggressively suggestions that other commenters' views would be "more at home" on other websites

    just a thought


    Ricky wanted to make this a racial thing, (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 06:49:07 AM EST
    or was that not obvious from several of his comments?  

    You can call me names if that makes you feel better - oh, wait, that would be an abuse of Jeralyn's hospitality, since she doesn't allow name-calling here.  Oopsie.

    I tried to explain that we've all seen enough episodes of the RickyJim show to know where he's coming from, and what he wants to get started, and experience tells us that if you don't call him on the BS, pretty soon you have not just RickyJim, but regular jim and several others, taking over with nasty racial comments.

    There are plenty of honest reasons why someone would have wanted Obama to join the other world leaders in their fake photo op, but making it about Trayvon Martin, Henry Louis Gates and Obama's solidarity with blacks aren't among them, in my opinion.  


    I can't remember if you use to be (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 07:33:46 AM EST
    better than this  Probably not.

    You also could start your own blog and name it The Whiner's Gazette.


    So, you think (none / 0) (#165)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 11:30:41 AM EST
    that Anne has a mote in her eye?  Perhaps you should do something about the log in your own eye before you start in on the ad hominem attacks.
    Just a thought.

    LOL, or we could drop the ad homs entirely (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 12:40:51 PM EST
    They.  Don't.  Work.

    Did Jim Bob, or Ricky Bob (none / 0) (#142)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 12:43:59 AM EST
    or Doo Dad Bob, say that Obama hates white people?

    The Daily News and CTH? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 09:04:51 AM EST
    Not much of a surprise they're criticizing him.  

    I don't recall Obama traveling overseas (it even to Florida) to participate in a TM protest.  He did make a statement about both events.


    To be fair (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:26:10 PM EST
    The White House says they screwed up and should have sent a higher ranking / higher profile official.

    Maybe, although .. (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 03:17:30 PM EST
     .. their reasons for not sending a higher profile official are certainly legitimate.

    OTOH - The comparison to his statement about the TM shouting is ridiculous.


    Silly (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 04:12:08 PM EST
    Not sure why Obama's security detail and planning would be any greater or harder to pull off than any of the other world leaders.

    Really? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 05:55:49 PM EST
    You're knowledgeable about the security requirements of the POTUS as compared to other world leaders and the difficulties involved in making them on short notice?



    Here we agree (none / 0) (#110)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 06:44:13 PM EST
    The POTUS is the most at risk leader security wise on the planet by a large margin.   Secret service spend weeks and months planning security for visits to Iowa, let alone a quick lol in to Paris were there has been decent terrorist activity.

    Biden in the other hand....


    OTOH - what? (none / 0) (#113)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 07:05:26 PM EST
    You think they just wing it?

    No (none / 0) (#118)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 07:31:37 PM EST
    Just being snarky

    'Nuff Said (none / 0) (#78)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 03:38:07 PM EST
    During the White House briefing, Earnest suggested security challenges were a factor in not having the president travel to Paris. But Earnest acknowledged the Secret Service could have pulled it off. An agency official noted previous "last minute" presidential trips have happened during the Obama presidency, including a hurried visit to South Africa in December 2013 for the memorial service for Nelson Mandela.

    I read about it on the CNN and CBS websites (none / 0) (#98)
    by McBain on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 05:08:41 PM EST
    It's not a big deal to me but it's another one of the Obama administration poor RP decisions.

    Optics (none / 0) (#101)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 05:27:36 PM EST
    has never been a strong point with this admin. Don't they realize that show trumps substance in the wacky world of American politics. Even if you have a serious agenda you got to put on a serious song and dance number to sell it to the rubes.

    Gerlado Rivera (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by McBain on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 05:43:01 PM EST
    Who's an Obama supporter, describes him as "too cool for school".  I think there's some truth to that.  This President doesn't feel he needs to do the signing and dancing that other politicians do. I wonder if the enormous hype and praise he received while running for office has come back to bite him?



    The too cool for school line of b/s (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 12:44:48 PM EST
    isn't much different from the guy you could have a beer with b/s that put dubya in power.

    Like R. Crumb said in his Charlie Hebdo interview, we don't have journalists in this country, we have 250,000 PR flaks.


    I also surmise (none / 0) (#109)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 06:41:11 PM EST
    That Obama disdains that old song and dance. I think he came into office thinking he could transcend all that nonsense,  but just like his dreams of working with the Republicans it proved to be impossible. It took him 6 years to see the light about the Republicans. I don't think he will ever get that slick political two-step that Americans demand of their politicians.

    Really? (none / 0) (#134)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 09:51:57 PM EST
    Were CNN and CBS attacking him for not going - or just reporting facts?

    And what the F is wrong with that? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Palli on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 09:14:00 AM EST
    Power and prejudice is at the bottom of most situations. GZ used power to define who should or should not be walking on sidewalks he somehow thought belonged to "his" people. DW killed Michael because he had the power to do it and one young black man didn't matter.
    The Paris Massacre happened because some people thought their deity was more important than anyone or anything.

    If we all humanized events with empathy and meant it: We are all everyone.


    Did GZ begrudge use of the sidewalks... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by unitron on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 05:41:10 AM EST
    ...to Eloise Dilligard?

    Maybe he thought "his people" were the ones who actually lived in the neighborhood regardless of their race, religion, politics, favorite sports team, whatever, and he was looking to keep them from being victimized any more than they had been already.


    Obama has repeatedly (none / 0) (#34)
    by toggle on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 12:49:46 PM EST
    Criticized Americans who have made similar provocations, and blamed them for inciting terrorist attacks against Americans. I imagine he doesn't want to open himself up to the charge that he's in favor of free speech for the French but not for us.

    "Imagine" being the key word (none / 0) (#42)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:12:27 PM EST
    Being in favor of free speech does not mean someone will not be critical of those who's speech, while protected, is incendiary.  Not does it mean that you approve of any terrorist reprisals against the person.

    I have no idea what Obama thinks about the cartoons in question, but there is no hypocrisy here.  


    Plus of Course... (none / 0) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:33:52 PM EST
    ...he is the President of the US, not France, so it stands to reason he might treat events the right perceives as the same, differently.

    But it's interesting to the see the right so pro-marching, guess they did a 180 in a month.  And I am positive, they will do another one and end up at the same place they were last month.


    As expected, Patricia Arquette won ... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 11, 2015 at 09:39:31 PM EST
    ... in the best supporting actress category, for her 12-year-long turn as Olivia, the feisty mother in Richard Linklater's "Boyhood." And veteran character actor J.K. Simmons was named best supporting actor for "Whiplash," as the demanding and emotionally abusive music instructor whose piano wires are strung a little too tight. Both are considered virtual locks for Oscar nominations, which will be announced this coming Thursday morning.

    Good to see Simmons win (none / 0) (#2)
    by McBain on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 12:35:32 AM EST
    I've always liked him, even when he was the voice of the yellow M&M.  My favorite of his films was Burn After Reading.

    I wasn't all the impressed with Arquette in Boyhood but I'm also a fan of hers.... ever since True Romance.


    "Desparately Seeking Susan." (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 12:49:21 AM EST
    That film starred Rosanna Arquette, ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 02:50:05 AM EST
    ... who is Patricia's older sister.

    You're one of the few people who weren't. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 03:53:42 AM EST
    McBain: "I wasn't all the impressed with Arquette in Boyhood but I'm also a fan of hers.... ever since True Romance."

    Film critics have been nearly unanimous in their effusive praise for Patricia Arquette's work in "Boyhood," and she's already being talked about as a prohibitive favorite to take home Oscar gold next month.

    As for myself, I found Arquette's performance both honest and real, offering everything I could ask of an actor. Her heartbreaking final scene with her college-bound son (played by Ellar Coltraine), in which she's suddenly overwhelmed by her own maternal emotions, really resonated with me as a parent of two young adults.

    She effectively conveyed what I think so many of us feel at that initial moment of filial detachment and parental transition, when we watch the children we've raised and nurtured finally spread their wings and take flight, so ready and eager to live on their own without us.



    Wife and I are very (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 04:02:49 AM EST
    excited to see this movie.  Almost watched it last night but couldn't resist the urge of Downton Abby.

    What is the Donald 5 star rating of this film?


    5 stars. I highly recommend it. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 04:33:06 AM EST
    "Boyhood" is rather lengthy at 2 hrs. and 45 min., but it moves quickly and draws you in. Frankly, I've sat through 90-min. movies that felt far longer.

    You come to really care about these people. Further, because the film was shot over a period of twelve consecutive years with the same cast, it's rather astonishing to see the characters age in place, which only adds to the realism of the film's storyline. It's being touted as a cinematic tour de force, and for very good reason in my estimation.

    Two emphatic thumbs up.


    LOL; I miss Siskel & Ebert (none / 0) (#24)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 11:28:38 AM EST
    Those guys saved me a lot of pointless squirming in theatre seats.

    Did you see the Roger Ebert documentary ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 03:54:26 PM EST
    ... "Life Itself," which was recently broadcast on CNN? It certainly pulled no punches in its stark depiction of the writer's physical struggles during his final year, which admittedly can be rather hard to watch and is probably not for the truly squeamish.

    But its core message is ultimately life-affirming and further, the film offers a highly amusing but enlightening behind-the-scenes look at the Siskel & Ebert show "At the Movies," including archival footage of that program's outtakes, which shows them sniping at one another like a couple of old queens at a bar when the video cameras were off.

    Apparently, the two Chicago-area newspaper rivals didn't like each other much as people, yet they managed to maintain a sincere and healthy mutual respect for one another's work which ultimately overrode whatever personal differences they had, and allowed for their collaboration on the hit show.

    As related in the film, Gene Siskel once told a media critic of Ebert's, "Yeah, I agree, he's an a$$hole -- but you know what? He's MY a$$hole."



    I enjoyed "Life Itself" (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by McBain on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 08:04:14 PM EST
    I agree, the scenes of Ebert in the hospital were tough to watch.  I made the mistake of trying to eat during the film.

    I loved the outtakes scenes.

    I wish they could have included interviews with Richard Roeper.  He replaced Siskel for around 7 years and I believe they were good friends.  The movie made it seem like he never existed. I actually preferred Siskel and Roeper's reviews more than Ebert's.  

    I always held a grudge against Ebert for his negative reviews of Blade Runner and Blue Velvet.  He later came around to admit he was wrong about Blade Runner.


    Boyhood is a genius masterpiece. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Angel on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    I wasn't asked, but (none / 0) (#39)
    by toggle on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    Four stars.

    The movie has a lot going for it, but the popular praise is mostly driven by the gimmick of how it was shot and the way film critics relate to the dope-smoking, philosophizing, slacker genius protagonist. Otherwise the movie is full of stock characters and the plot (to the extent it has one) is just a series of cliches.


    Take away the pot smoking, ... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 08:24:27 PM EST
    ... philosophizing and slacker ingenuity of Hollywood's new and interesting filmmakers, and American entertainment today would otherwise be summed up in two words: Reality TV.

    so, bongs away, dude.


    Ridiculous. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Angel on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:08:01 PM EST
    the popular praise is mostly driven by the gimmick of how it was shot and the way film critics relate to the dope-smoking, philosophizing, slacker genius protagonist

    Well said (none / 0) (#51)
    by McBain on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:43:12 PM EST
    There's a lot to complain about in this film but somehow it worked. The professor/husband character was ridiculous, the ending scene was interesting but unrealistic.  

    It 's a movie to enjoy because of the process and a likeable cast.


    The professor character was an integral part of (none / 0) (#54)
    by Angel on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:51:03 PM EST
    the story.  The beautiful thing about this film was that it's about true life, warts and all, including characters such as the professor. What was unrealistic about the ending?

    As soon as he gets to his dormroom (none / 0) (#100)
    by McBain on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 05:26:25 PM EST
    he meets his super cool roommate who's girlfriend has a cute friend and they immediately go on an awesome hike where the cute friend is dying to make out.

    It reminded me of the grotesque movie Hostel where two young male travelers find at a hostel full of beautiful women who seem ready for anything. It was too good to be true.

    As for the professor, he was a stereotype.  The scene at the dinner table was laughable.

    Despite all that, I agree that most of Boyhood had a "true life" feel to it.  I could relate to most of what the main character experienced.  I enjoyed the film enough that I'll probably watch it again at some point.. but it's not a masterpiece.

    Great filmmakers often need someone to critique/edit their work to bring out their best.  The script needed a little bit of reworking.


    This is where you don't get it. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Angel on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 09:30:20 PM EST
    There was no real script in the traditional sense of film.  This was a very organic unfolding, meaning that it was only loosely scripted and the unfolding was a more natural process which incorporated the real lives of the actors, especially Ellar Coltrane (Mason) as the years passed and he became a young adult.

    As for the scene at the dinner table, the only thing I can say is that you've led a very sheltered life.  Many, many people can relate to having a controlling and alcoholic father a la Bill the Professor/Husband/Father/Stepfather.

    I can tell you that when I was in college making out with a cute guy was pretty high on my list of things to do.  


    How do you know what kind of life I've led? (none / 0) (#138)
    by McBain on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 10:32:21 PM EST
    I already said I could relate to many of the things Mason experienced. I did not have a perfect childhood. This is part of why I enjoyed Boyhood. But that doesn't mean they couldn't have done a better job with some of scenes in this good but not great film.

    The dinner scene reminded me of a Will Ferrel sketch on SNL.  The professor character was unintentionally funny.


    WTF? You thought that scene was funny? (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 03:33:40 AM EST
    Mason's mother had been abused physically in front of him by his stepfather, who then threw a glass which barely missed hitting Mason -- and yet you found that to be reminiscent of a Will Ferrell sketch, and the stepfather to be "unintentionally funny"?

    (Sigh!) I'll have to take you at your word that you've not led a cloistered life. But if that's true, then either you lack any ability to empathize with another's misfortunes, or you've obviously been binge-watching way too many Quentin Tarantino films.



    Or maybe I've seen that scene and character (none / 0) (#170)
    by McBain on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 12:29:13 PM EST
    so many times in other films that it lost the impact the director was trying to make.  "This Boy's Life" comes to mind.  The abusive stepfather is like the police chief who's a jerk or the wacky neighbor on a sit com.  Overused.

    Then I guess I must've had ... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 08:30:28 PM EST
    ... an unrealistic experience my first weekend as a freshman at the University of Washington, because my super-cool roommate's girlfriend also had a cute friend, and we all went to the Huskies' football game that Saturday, and -- well, I'll just leave the rest of the story to your imagination.



    I enjoyed Boyhood (none / 0) (#48)
    by McBain on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:35:40 PM EST
    It didn't feel like a three hour movie but I didn't think any of the acting or writing was exceptional.  There were a couple terrible scenes (the restaurant/waiter scene at the end) and some family drama cliches.   I think I enjoyed the film because it was cool to see characters actually age in front of our eyes.  Maybe that's a gimmick but it worked for me.

    The Good Wife disclaimer was lame (none / 0) (#3)
    by McBain on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 12:44:28 AM EST
    Are they saying, we're hip, we're topical, we're cutting edge.... but please don't be offended?

    The Alicia for States Attorney story line is getting old.  I like the episodes that deal with the legal issues of new clients not old ones like Chum Hum or Lemond Bishop.

    I agree on the story lines (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:50:37 AM EST
    that the rehash of the old divorce case was boring. So is the one dimensional character of lawyer David Lee. They should have a fresh case every week.

    I also thought the editing was very choppy and the whole episode was hard to follow.

    I have no idea what the disclaimer was supposed to signify.


    I'm just getting to the point with (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 08:36:06 AM EST
    this show where it feels like slapstick - there's just no depth to any of the story lines, and I feel like that's deliberate.  What better way to keep people coming back than making them believe that maybe this is the episode where we'll find out...all the things they just hint at from week to week?

    A debate in a hotel kitchen?  A kitchen where, apparently, nothing else is going on except the two candidates for State's Attorney making sandwiches.  Right.  The governor giving his lover the heave-ho in a limo at the site of a demonstration?  Yeah, that's believable.  Oh, and are there any other lawyers or law firms in town other than Florrick, Agos and Lockhart and whatever Lockhart Gardner is called now?  Apparently not.

    And whatever that is that's supposed to be sexual tension between Alicia and her campaign consultant - does anyone even know his name? - does it make any sense at all?

    I thought that was one of the worst episodes of the show I've seen.  I think the show actually jumped the shark last night.


    I try not to use the "Jump the Shark" (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by McBain on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 05:34:51 PM EST
    critique but it probably happened when Will Gardner died.

    "And whatever that is that's supposed to be sexual tension between Alicia and her campaign consultant - does anyone even know his name? - does it make any sense at all?"

    lol... I have no idea what his name is.  He's boring and he's trying too hard to be sexy with his curly hair and five o'clock shadow.  He and Alicia have absolutely zero chemistry.  

    This show is struggling to replace Will with some kind of love interest but it isn't working.  They  might as well have Alicia hook up with Kalinda or that creepy rich guy who keeps killing his girlfriends at this point.


    Agreed about the David Lee character. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 04:18:25 AM EST
    Because as the show's resident all-American d!ck, he's nothing if not numbingly predictable. The writers should either take the time to flesh out and humanize him, or leave him in the dust. Honestly, after five years, that shtick's worn really thin.

    Creepiest moment of last night's (none / 0) (#22)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 11:24:25 AM EST
    show was David Lee laughing - it was horror movie-worthy.  

    I'm kind of tired of the same people every week, doing the same old things.  Honestly, you probably can't swing a dead cat in Chicago - or anywhere, for that matter - and not hit a lawyer, so why this show can't ever break out of the Lockhart/Gardner "family" makes no sense to me.

    Nor does it make any sense to me to bring David Lee into the Florrick/Agos/Lockhart firm - they have conflicts out the a$$, and those don't just go away.

    And those people running Alicia's campaign?  Ugh.


    I think (none / 0) (#14)
    by Palli on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 08:57:22 AM EST
    The disclaimer was provided in lieu of writing (or re-writing) a script that was more informed by the reality of the #Ferguson2Chicago Protest Movement. This episode's Protest thread was written without inside baseball awareness and served only to present the political issue of white governance. More interesting lines for the wait staff would have helped round out the "kitchen debate".

    But we continue to watch it because the acting is solid and since issues are presented clearly & authentically from a white upperclass liberal perspective it is useful for developing strategies for change.

    Sadly, however, the plot device that had Alicia running for Atty. General while Peter sits as Governor runs against my anti-nepotism grain. I dream a script that makes Alicia leave the firm and open a Chicago version of Arch City Defenders.


    I finally saw the Interview (none / 0) (#20)
    by CST on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 10:27:50 AM EST
    There was actually a bit more social commentary than I expected.  If it had been made after the hacking scandal or if I thought these guys were that politically savvy I'd almost call it self-aware.

    Other than that it's the fairly standard Seth Rogen straight man to the James Franco absurdity.  In a way it's kind of interesting because comedy usually goes the other way with the "prettier" one being the more normal character.  But I'm not sure Franco has a normal side.

    I enjoyed it.  But I also fell asleep about 3/4 of the way through.

    I Saw it for $5... (none / 0) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 11:27:39 AM EST
    ...in the on demand choices.  Even though I ran out of stuff to watch over the holidays, I could not spend the $5 for that movie.  My feeling is it will be on TBS or Comedy Central w/i the year.

    I didn't pay for it either (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 12:00:12 PM EST
    I had also decided not to rent it on demand, or at least I hadn't broken yet.  Someone else did though, and I watched it.

    I Will Probably Fork Out... (none / 0) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:40:40 PM EST
    ...the $1.50 at Redbox.

    If I had another week off, I probably would have bought it.

    I don't honestly know if I can rent a DVD anywhere else since the Blockbuster closed doors, they were the last one in my neighborhood to go.  I am sure someone in town still carries DVD's, but you cannot mess with Redbox pricing and convenience.


    I laughed at the Tina Fey/ (none / 0) (#143)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 12:49:02 AM EST
    Amy Poehler joke that Korea made everyone feel obligated to see a film they would not otherwise see....

    I forgot the GGs were on too, until (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 12:35:02 PM EST
    my sister called to look at gowns and jewels with me.  

    I had just seen (and loved) The Grand Budapest Hotel the day before, so I was glad that won for Best Comedy/Musical. If you have not seen it, make it a priority - Ralph Fiennes is sooo funny. And I never thought I would utter those words.

    Was glad 'Fargo' beat out 'True Detective', and Billy Bob Thornton won. Very good decision call IMO.

    Different strokes :) (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by sj on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 02:43:53 PM EST
    I hated "The Grand Budapest Hotel". And I stood in line in the freezing cold for half an hour to see it. I would have left but I was there with three other people.

    Turns out they hated it, too.


    When I saw Grand Budapest Hotel ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 04:47:40 PM EST
    A longtime friend & I planned to see it first and then have dinner @Racines to talk about it afterward.  We talked & talked & talked (even my friend M who is rather laconic spilled out lots of words.)  Layers of confection or layers of onion ... who knows.  We concluded that any film (or book or event) that elicited that much chewing on must have something going for it.  

    Looking back, I've almost forgotten it.  Then--seeing the reference here--I found so many of the parts popping again.  I guess that I really did like it....


    In some interviews (but not all), (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 04:52:32 PM EST
    Wes Anderson refers to Stephan Zweig's only novel, "Beware of Pity," as an inspiration for this film. So I read the novel after seeing the movie. Not the same plot but there are some similarities.

    ... I can also see why you and others wouldn't like it. "The Grand Budapest Hotel" was a rather idiosyncratic little film, and its quirky style and attempts at humor was bound to fall flat with some members of the audience. I think in many respects, Wes Anderson's movies are something of an acquired taste.

    But at least you gave it a shot, and I respect your opinion. I felt much the same way about Quentin Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds" after seeing it in the theatre. I thoroughly despised that film and it really just rubbed me the wrong way, even as others raved wildly about how awesome they thought it was. While I'll not change my opinion about it, I also accept that I'm definitely in the minority here.



    What America Looks like to Europe (none / 0) (#35)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    Indiana couple arrested after filming baby putting ].40 calibre] gun in mouth

    I know a bunch of Europeans.  They think we're nutz.  Stark.  Raving.  Nutz.

    You're right, Mr N (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:38:54 PM EST
    I have in-laws and lots of close friends who are European, and they simply cannot wrap their minds around the fascination this country has with guns, not to mention the ease of acquiring them.
    (This is not to say that they cannot get guns there at all.  As witness the Charlie Hebdo attack in France, and the 2011 massacre in Norway, at the youth camp.)

    Here's the actual link (none / 0) (#36)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:01:10 PM EST
    They Were Both Arrested... (none / 0) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:46:57 PM EST
    ...and the baby taken away.

    We are nuts, but they didn't post the video, the cops found it when the guy tried to sell the gun on Craigs List.  Which is even worse, but GD all of America shouldn't be based on GWB, Sarah Palin, and YouTube.

    But everyone judges me, even here, based on Rick Perry, the Texas Board of Edumacation, and YouTube.


    "The Tragedy of the American Military" (none / 0) (#55)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 01:57:11 PM EST
    - James Fallows, The Atlantic

    The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can't win.

    Amazing (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 06:48:32 PM EST
    How much the last few years have changed my mind on this issue and how much I agree with him.

    Our military has become a toy our politicians use to make political decisions instead of strategic ones.

    It should be kept on the shelf for real wars and then when used we should really use it.   Instead we tip toe around and make situations worse.  

    What are we doing with ISIS?   Either gear up for a land war and kill them all or leave them alone.  


    I've always felt that way about war. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 04:15:19 AM EST
    Either you're all in, or you're not. Everything else in between is simply another term for mission creep, which offers a likely path to some serious grief.

    Less competition for (none / 0) (#88)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 04:28:10 PM EST
    Jeb.  Paul Ryan will not run for president in 2016, despite the encouragement he has received from so many, he says.  Seems he wants to spend more time with his family and trying to cut social security.   However, the other half of the team, Mitt Romney, is considering yet another run.  

    I knew (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 05:23:25 PM EST
    he would not run. But Jeb is going to still have lots and lots of competition. You should see how mad Jeb running is making a lot of rank and file republicans.

    Yes, (none / 0) (#106)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 05:47:28 PM EST
    many Republicans are not going to like what they are going to get.  

    I'm still (none / 0) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 09:00:43 AM EST
    not sure that Jeb is going to be the nominee. He does not have Koch support and I'm sure they are going to be throwing grenades at him.

    He also seems like a very poor campaigner due to the fact he's been out of politics for over a decade.


    Do you really think the Koch's will (none / 0) (#163)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 09:06:32 AM EST
    Throw down on him?  You keep up on all that.  Tell me more please.

    They might (none / 0) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 06:22:30 PM EST
    support him should he eventually be the nominee but he seems to be more of a Wall Street guy than a Koch guy. Think about it: do you really see Jeb in the mold of a Brownback or Walker? I'm not seeing it

    Scott Walker? (none / 0) (#133)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 09:43:21 PM EST
    Wasn't he the original stalking horse for the Koch Bros?  Maybe his fellow Wisconsin Repub (Paul Ryan) stepped aside to accommodate the further advancement of Walker?

    Sadly, I am not able to watch my Ducks (none / 0) (#112)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 06:48:59 PM EST
    defeat (hopefully) the Buckeyes tonight. My plan, since I do not have cable or satellite and so no ESPN, was to watch the Big Game with my mother at her retirement home. Everybody there has cable.

    But, I have been sidelined with this year's nasty flu for a week now. I am still sick. Given that, it seemed just wrong for me to take my germy self to the nursing home where the odds were good I would infect at least some of the elderly.

    Since I have no idea how to get the game online without the cable account number ESPN requires for online access, I will be forced to rely on updates from news feeds. Oh, woe is me.

    GO, DUCKs!!!!,

    Radio, baby! (none / 0) (#116)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 07:24:11 PM EST
    Or Raddio, Daddy-o. ;-)  Go West Coast!!!

    I found it online (none / 0) (#119)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 12, 2015 at 07:50:22 PM EST
    Sorry to hear you're under the weather casey. (none / 0) (#164)
    by fishcamp on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 11:04:16 AM EST
    My fleet of doctors think I have either, the mosquito borne disease, Chickungunya, or intestinal flu.  There are 29 cases of Chickungunya here in the keys and many cases of intestinal flu.  Since there is no vaccine or cure for either ailment, I have decided to stay away from the hospital.  Unfortunately our Ducks lost, partly due to two earlier injuries, and two recent pot smoking dodo birds, that kept them from playing.  Hopefully we will both be feeling better soon.  The Ducks will not.

    OMG! fishcamp, you sound much (none / 0) (#175)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 02:34:33 PM EST
    sicker than I. I just looked up chickungunya, and it sounds very bad. Please be careful to keep yourself hydrated as dehydration can make either of your possible illnesses fatal.

    And do not hesitate to go to the hospital if you get worse. While there is no vaccine or cure, there are treatments that will alleviate the symptoms.

    The Ducks were in sorry shape last night. They just could not get a rhythmn going. OSU, on the other hand, was like a machine.

    I could not believe that Carrington and Forde were stupid enough to indulge in kdog's sacred herb with the national championship game coming up. Starting today they could have smoked to their hearts content for the next several months. Idiots, both of them.


    Saudi Cleric Issues Fatwa on Snowmen (none / 0) (#152)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 05:04:24 AM EST
    After winter storm in north of country, religious leader forbids building of anti-Islamic idols that might resemble human beings.

    Asked on a religious website if it was permissible for fathers to build snowmen for their children after a snowstorm in the country's north, Sheikh Mohammed Saleh al-Munajjid replied: "It is not permitted to make a statue out of snow, even by way of play and fun."

    Leaders' Paris Pseudo Solidarity Exposed (none / 0) (#157)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 06:02:55 AM EST
    on Monday after wide shots displayed on French TV news indicated they did not "lead" a million-strong march in Paris to honour the victims of French terror - but instead cowered away from the crowds for security reasons.

    An even more ridiculous set of photos is immediately below the photo of the fake protest march.

    OMG! LOL! (none / 0) (#179)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 13, 2015 at 05:01:56 PM EST
    That's not unlike that fraudulent event in Baghdad in April 2003, when "Iraqi crowds spontaneously toppled" Saddam Hussein's giant statue.

    This obviously staged photo op is simultaneously hilarious and pathetic. I don't believe the inadvertent provision of such comic relief was the primary intent of its participants.

    Now I'm really glad that Obama decided to stay home.