Sunday Open Thread

Russia now says the plane that crashed in Egypt broke apart high in the air. A bomb on board? ISIS still maintains it caused the plane to crash but it hasn't said how.

The plane was in good shape. Metrojet Deputy Director Alexander Smirnov, ruled out engine failure:

"An engine failure doesn't lead to catastrophe," he said on television. Smirnov described the A321 as a reliable aircraft that would not fall into a spin even if the pilots made a grave error because automatic systems correct crew mistakes.

Air France, Dubai-based Emirates and Qatar Airways have suspended flights in the area. Would they do that if they thought it likely the plane crashed because of a technical problem?

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< What Caused the Crash of Russian Flight #7K9268 in Egypt? | Russian Plane Crash: Terrorism Theories Rise, But Stll Uncertain >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    That plane (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by smott on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 02:36:29 PM EST
    Likely suffered an aft pressure bulkhead blowout which mostly destroyed the tail surfaces.
    While it's possible this was from a bomb there are no reports showing indications of that and the tail empennage and vertical stabilizer are up burnt and in relatively good shape.

    What's missing is the horizontal surfaces,likely blown away with Aft bullhead failure.

    Investigation will lean towards the tail strike suffered by this aircraft a few years back, and ensuing quality (or lack of) of repair and maintenance of that damage, especially from a low cost Russian carrier known for cutting safety corners.

    I noted that possibility ... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 04:31:51 PM EST
    ... in the prior subject thread, so thank you for that reasoned assessment. Catastrophic aircraft structural failures, while uncommon, have occurred in the past and are in fact responsible for a not-insignificant number of commercial airliner mishaps.

    The failure of a pressurized cargo door to effectively seal on this United Airlines B-747 led to its subsequent blowout 20 minutes after departing Honolulu International Airport for Auckland, NZ on the evening of February 24, 1989. Nine passengers died when they were swept out of the aircraft through the huge breach in the side of the fuselage. It was considered somewhat miraculous that Capt. David M. Cronin and the flight deck crew were somehow able to pilot the crippled airliner back to HNL with only the two starboard engines operating, thus saving the lives of the 327 surviving passengers and crew.

    While obviously nothing can or should be ruled out by crash investigators in these early stages of the probe, I find the haste to blame terrorism for the crash in Egypt to be premature at best right now. Similar public speculation to that effect was also immediately forthcoming in the wake of the United 811 mishap, coming as it did only two months after the downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988.

    But as the evidence gathered in Honolulu during the following months later proved, the cause of the near-crash of United 811 was not a bomb in the cargo bay, but a structural failure within the aircraft itself. So, let's all take a deep breath here, and let investigators do their job. We'll know soon enough what happened.



    And the aircraft survived and did (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 06:38:12 PM EST
    not break apart in the air.

    Another one was a HA flight from, I think, Maui to Oahu on which the sides and top of a 737-100 ripped away from what was mostly the First Class section and the pilots, in what was a magnificent display of ability, got the plane to Ohau and on the ground with no further damage or deaths.

    Then there was a UAL 727 that flipped over on its back at altitude over Detroit. The pilots pushed the nose over, did a barrel roll and the only damage was to the flaps... and $10,000 to clean the passenger seats (That's a joke, son.)

    Point being?? They don't just disintegrate in the air because of some failure of the airframe.

    What a dog's life you must live, rushing to make sure that nothing can be tied to Obama's foreign policy,


    Jim, that plane landed in Maui (none / 0) (#73)
    by fishcamp on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 07:21:46 PM EST
    I was there staying up Haleakala in Kula.  We drove down and looked at it.  It was a real mess and I remember them disassembling it at the Kahahuli airport.  They sold it for scrap.

    The stewardess was blown away and lost. (none / 0) (#74)
    by fishcamp on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 07:24:01 PM EST
    I remembered it was going the other way (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 07:59:27 PM EST
    should have looked it up..But it didn't disintegrate and the pilots did a heck of a job. ITMT

    A senior Russian official, Viktor Sorochenko, says the plane disintegrated "in the air"

    The flight was Aloha Airlines 243, ... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 10:22:41 PM EST
    ... which was en route from Hilo to Honolulu at 24,000 above Kohala on April 28, 1988, when the B-737-200 suffered a catastrophic structural failure. The plane was able to manage an emergency landing at Kahului Airport on Maui, an amazing feat of flying given the extent of the damage to the aircraft.

    (The flight's second officer, who was actually at the controls when the plane's roof blew off, was Madeline "Mimi" Tompkins, seen in the aircraft doorway in the far left of the linked photo. She later rose to the rank of captain, and became the chief pilot at Hawaiian Airlines, the only woman to hold that ranking post in the history of civil aviation.)

    The lone fatality was Clarabelle "C.B." Lansing, Aloha's most senior flight attendant who had been with the airline since 1951. She was the wife of Prof. Robert Lansing of the University of Hawaii, who was my academic advisor while I was in the mater's program.

    So once again, Jim, you don't know what you're talking about.


    I just knew that (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 09:51:50 AM EST
    you would claim some personal connection to someone who had actually done something great.

    And the fact remains that the aircraft did not disintegrate in the air due to some structural failure.


    Now you're just being an a$$. (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 11:54:08 AM EST
    And you wonder aloud why most everyone here despises and disrespects you. This is a small state and a small island, where everyone knows someone who knows someone else. That's just the way it is, and if you don't like it, then that's just too effin bad. I'm neither in need of your approval nor desirous of it, so shove off.

    As I recall the incident, the investigation (none / 0) (#193)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 05:56:59 PM EST
    attributed the disintegration to metal fatigue which was the result of a very large number of pressurization/depressurization cycles, i.e. takeoffs, altitude, and landings.

    Not sure, really, what your definition of disintegrate is if that picture wasn't it.


    Pprune (none / 0) (#14)
    by smott on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 02:37:58 PM EST
    Pprune is a good source of informed comment for those interested

    Thanx for the info (none / 0) (#22)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 03:29:00 PM EST

    A tail breaking off due to an internal aft (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 04:20:59 PM EST
    bulkhead blowing out wouldn't cause the aircraft to disintegrate and scatter over a wide area. The plane would go into a spin and make a very very large hole where it hit In fact, there would be very few pieces or bodies survive the impact.

    The large area over which fragments were found indicates the jet disintegrated while flying high, said Alexander Neradko, head of Russia's federal aviation agency. He would not comment on any possible reason for the crash, citing the ongoing investigation. - See more at:


    The Russians may never tell us because they don't want to encourage other attempts by Wannabes but I'd bet money it was a bomb.


    My husband says there is no way (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 04:36:07 PM EST
    Of knowing this. There are scenarios more likely than others as to how it would have crashed, but none of them a certainty. Stop talking out your arse. He says he doesn't understand people like you :)

    And I say, so??? That your husband doesn't (1.00 / 3) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 06:20:25 PM EST
    understand the simple logic that an aircraft, after losing its tail section doesn't disintegrate in mid air and have remains scattered over a wide area??

    Sure he does.

    It goes nose over and drops almost straight down with, perhaps, a flutter/spiral auger action.

    And of course nothing is certain, which I didn't claim. But based on the information re scattered over a large area I see nothing else.

    BTW - Thanks for the completely uncalled for pejorative personal attack. Off your meds?


    How many flight hours do you have? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 06:50:54 PM EST
    Have you ever preformed a crash investigation? Were you your flight school honor graduate?

    He has none, MT. (none / 0) (#141)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 12:05:44 PM EST
    He's just another rude old Republican wingbat who thinks he's an expert on everything by virtue of his age, when there really no fool like an old fool. And that's why that party's future is ultimately so phuqued, because it's become a home to angry and obsolete old white men who've outlived their era and refuse to adapt to the times in which they live. They'll eventually go the way of the Whigs and the Shakers.

    Check the debris (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by smott on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 07:04:57 PM EST
    The tail empennage is 2km from the wing box.
    Bodies have been found 8km away.
    That is an inflight breakup.

    And no, it doesn't go straight down. Think of a falling leaf, it goes in a flat spin.

    The wing box and fore fuselage impacted inverted at low speed.

    The tail impacted upright at low speed.

    The horizontal stabilizer is yet to be found.  As are at least 50 victims. RIP.


    When I read what you posted smott (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 07:13:50 PM EST
    Out loud, it didn't make sense to my spouse until I got to the part about the tail strike. I didn't even have to add that the Russian carrier has a poor safety/maintenance record before he nodded his head that that would do it.

    Sad though, with all of us who fly now we must remain vigilant where we have authority that our carriers are repairing and maintaining to the highest standards.

    Condolences to those who have lost their loved ones. A really terrible event.


    Ha. (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 05:50:19 PM EST
    The Egyptians are in charge of the crash site, Jim, not the Russians. Further, the aircraft was an A-321, so Airbus personnel will also be involved here. Nothing at this point, including the possibility that the plane was brought down by a bomb, is being ruled out. Let the investigators do their job.

    Well, I am smart enough to know that (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 06:27:23 PM EST
    a crash site in which debris is scattered over a wide area indicates that the aircraft disintegrated in mid air.

    That says missile or bomb. I don't believe ISIS has missiles that can take down an aircraft at 36000 feet so that leaves a bomb.

    BTW - Are you so naive that you think Russia can't influence the Egyptians into saying what they want said??

    Of course I can see you not wanting Obama's "JV" team blowing up civilian passenger jets.

    Makes him look dumb, eh??


    No, Rambo (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by smott on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 07:07:56 PM EST
    It says depressurization and structural failure.

    Lets not jump straight to our war fantasies.


    Give Jim a break.. (none / 0) (#151)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 01:10:26 PM EST
    he hasn't slapped a PTSD sufferer in a week..

    Not as dumb as you look right now, Jim. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 10:30:57 PM EST
    You are not an aircraft engineer, you are not a diplomat, and you are not an investigator, so you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here. The investigation is just beginning, so the rest of us just need to shut up and let the investigators do their work.

    And what is The Donald in HI??? (1.00 / 3) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 09:46:48 AM EST
    Tell us what qualifications you have in these things.

    What you are is a water carrier for Obama and all things Democrat.

    And it's funny. We need to shut up....

    Does that apply to "No WMD's in Iraq?"

    "Bush lied to Congress."

    Etc, etc and ETC.


    You've become completely unhinged (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 11:01:07 AM EST
    Okay, then perhaps YOU need to shut up. (none / 0) (#137)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 11:42:58 AM EST
    Because right now, people are trying to have a measured and reasonable discussion, while you're once again barging in, ranting without purpose like a lunatic and leveling all sorts of unfounded allegations about the Russians, etc. If we wanted to listen to such untethered nonsense, we'd tune into Fox News and AM squawk radio.

    Again, you're not a pilot, you're not an aerospace engineer, you're not a diplomat and you're not an accident investigator. Therefore, you're not in any position to speak with any authority on this issue. At this point, nobody's ruling any possibilities regarding the cause of this crash, and we need to be patient and let the professionals do their job.

    Why is that so hard for you to understand?


    Donald, if you couldn't comment on a subject (none / 0) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 03:27:03 PM EST
    unless you are an expert then we would be missing you....and a lot of others.

    Why you object to some learned speculation is a real question. Of the answer is you're just being your obnoxious self....determined to be Hall Monitor and Table Captain.

    Now, what do we know??

    According to Russian officials the debris are spread over a large area. That indicates the aircraft disintegrated in the air.

    I have, and even you, demonstrated that structural failures do not lead to in air disintegration.

    So that leads to the speculation that the aircraft was shot down by a missile or brought down by a bomb.

    A Metro official has now said that it was an external force. A Russian official disagrees.

    ISIS takes credit.

    What are you afraid of? Worried that your Dear Leader will have to eat more of his "JV" words?


    Even if it was a bomb (none / 0) (#140)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 11:57:27 AM EST
    that does not mean we should invade with ground troops....The two are not connected.

    What it means is the Russian screening was faulty.


    ... investigated by experts from Russian and Egyptian aviation agencies, as well as teams from the European Aviation Safety Agency, because the Airbus was made in Europe, and the NTSB itself, because the engines were manufactured in the United States.

    Don't forget to fall back! (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 03:53:56 PM EST
    I did it yesterday just to get a head start.

    For his remarks (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by lentinel on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 04:23:47 PM EST
    about people coming from Mexico illegally, Trump is continuing to be described as a "racist".

    My question is: Is "Mexican" a race?

    Trending (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 06:16:31 PM EST
    on social media #jebcanfixit.

    So now everybody is making Jeb a butt of jokes. My roof is leaking Jeb. Can you come fit it? LOL.

    He is the lamest candidate I have ever seen. Also there was a big story about how his campaign has a 135 page dossier on Rubio but Jeb claims he didn't look at it. Yeah, right.

    Jeb (none / 0) (#1)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 01:55:42 PM EST
    was on "Meet the Press" today.

    Apparently he was dissing Rubio.

    I could care less about them skewering each other - but it gives me an uneasy feeling that Jeb was invited appear on that show in the first place. He has no standing in the polls.

    I keep thinking that the media want to resurrect and promote Bush - because that is the fight they want to see: Clinton/Bush II.

    So we read about the ins and outs of the Bush campaign. The Bush family. The tactics. And now he's back on the air so soon after that last snooze of a performance.


    Trick (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 02:04:44 PM EST
    Yeah (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 02:11:08 PM EST
    at this point I don't see Jeb coming back or if by a miracle he does come back, he's not going to be president. He would be the perfect foil for Hillary.

    Oh (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 02:15:08 PM EST
    IMO Jeb will be "back".

    He may not win the nomination but he has hundreds of millions of dollars.   Why wouldn't he be back.  I also think he will probably survive Marco.


    that's the key. He has a lot of money. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 04:58:18 PM EST
    The press has to treat him as a serious contender, at least until some votes are cast in Iowa and NH. He has no reason to quit before then --- except his own hatred for the process, in which case he may quit any day now. No one gets more frustrated than an entitled Bush deprived of what he thinks he is entitled to.

    I guess we'll see. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 02:21:44 PM EST
    I thought he had blown through a ton of money and was cutting staff.

    But he very well may survive Marco.


    That's his money (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 02:30:18 PM EST
    SuperPac still Rollin in dough.  He will have the money he needs.  

    Hard to imagine him dropping out without being defeated.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 02:50:16 PM EST
    but my understanding is Super Pac money is worth way less than regular donations because commericals paid for by Super Pacs are charged 10 times the rate regular campaigns are charged.

    He did (none / 0) (#60)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 06:16:25 PM EST
    Correct, funding for his campaign has been cut, and drastically. His contributors are all tapped out for the primary season, they have hit their $2700 max. He doesn't have the $50 donors that Carson and Trump have been getting.

    Super Pacs may advocate , but I believe they cannot cover campaign expenses.


    I don't really see him coming back, (none / 0) (#10)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 02:31:54 PM EST
    either, but I can see the media using him to manipulate the dynamics and set up some intra-field drama.

    Depends on what you mean by "back" (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 02:34:09 PM EST
    He never really went away.  Yet.  Will he break 10%?  Probably not.  Will he fold his tent?  Probably not.

    "Back in contention" was where (none / 0) (#19)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 03:02:21 PM EST
    I was coming from, because I don't see him, at this point, as a contender - but he does still have potential as a spoiler.

    I think so too (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 03:42:17 PM EST
    Seems as though (none / 0) (#5)
    by Zorba on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 02:19:31 PM EST
    there are many windbags, nuts, and toasts in the Republican Clown Car.

    The establishment (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 02:22:10 PM EST
    Republicans and media seem panicked.  They are assuming/hoping that Trump and Carson (who combined are garnering about 52$ of the Republican primary voters) will soon fall into a heap.  And, they are poking around the debris with a stick--not much to pin their hopes on in those ashes.  How about Jeb? No, Marco.  No, Cruz.  just say no.

    They do seem a bit panicked and desperate (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 02:35:56 PM EST
    The next debate might be what we hoped the last one would be.

    A presidential candidate (none / 0) (#38)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 04:31:17 PM EST
    ...almost by definition is someone with overwhelming ambition, leadership, and desire for the job.

    JEB! is the first reluctant candidate I have ever seen.  Dude was looking for the exit while he was being ushered in at the entrance.


    Well, we did have Webb running briefly (none / 0) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 06:14:02 PM EST
    Pierce called him the stealth candidate because he never campaigned. I believe that he was someone with overwhelming ambition and desire for the job but seemed to think that doing the work to get the job was unnecessary.

    Jeb is conflicted on the death penalty (none / 0) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 06:05:17 PM EST
    He wants to reform it. Reform to old "my faith defines me and all life is previous" Jebbie is to execute people quicker.

    Bush did not say which changes he'd pursue, though in the past he has called for limits on judicial appeals. He stressed that he is still in favor of the death penalty.

    "But," he added, "we should reform it. If it's to be used as a deterrent, it has to be reformed. It can't take 25 years. That does no one any good. Neither the victims nor the state is solving this problem with that kind of tangled judicial process."

    His position seems to be (none / 0) (#98)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 10:28:11 PM EST
    "Somebody has to do something about something.  I wonder who and I wonder what."

    I think his position is more defined (none / 0) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 11:27:54 PM EST
    than that,

    Jebbie wants to maintain the death penalty and shorten the time between sentencing and execution.


    All you folks wanted to defend the CNBC flacks (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 02:24:21 PM EST
    Well, here's a transcript that shows just how biased they were.


    Nobody's (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 02:46:33 PM EST
    defending CNBC but we are sick of the conservatives whining. Most of us here think the media is pretty bad but all we hear from conservatives is sniff sniff whine whine about the "liberal" media when independent studies have shown that Fox is the worst of the lot. Therefore conservatives don't dare talk about how the media in general is a problem because they would have to criticize Fox along with everybody else.

    So continue on with your whining.

    Heh, even Chris Christie is calling you guys a bunch of whiners.


    Nope, sorry, jimmy... (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 02:58:36 PM EST
    the transcript doesn't show that.  

    There's no denying that the moderators lost control of the debate at times. But it is impossible to claim that CNBC--the network that employs Rick Santelli, who helped galvanize the Tea Party--is part of the "liberal media." As for the allegation that the questions were frivolous ... judge for yourself. I compiled all 46 questions from Wednesday night from Time's transcript. If you consolidate follow-ups, or double-count single questions asked of multiple candidates, you might come up with a different number, but this is pretty close to every question. Among them, I counted [deep breath] ...

    ... Two questions about the feasibility of Donald Trump's policy agenda, six questions about taxes, two questions about Marco Rubio's Senate attendance record, one question about the causes of Bush's struggles, two questions about Carly Fiorina's business record, three questions about the recent budget deal, two questions about Social Security, one question about Trump's business record, one question about pharmaceutical prices, one question about corporate prosecutions, one question about the internet sales tax, one question about Marco Rubio's financial difficulties, one question (and follow-up) about the Export-Import Bank, one equal-pay question, one question about equal rights, one question about Ben Carson's business associates, two questions about H1-B visas, one question about the Federal Reserve, one question about federal subsidies, one question about inequality, one question about pot legalization, two questions about gun control, one question about Trump's moral values, one question about retirement, one question about student loans, one question about gambling, one question about climate change, three questions about Medicare.

    They may not have liked being challenged, but reading the list of questions, it is impossible to conclude they didn't get asked questions of substance.

    One can only guess that they thought the network of Larry Kudlow and Rick Santelli was going to give them a tongue bath, and they're just all pouty that they didn't get it.

    That they are lobbying for something like this:

    CARSON: Well I think we should have moderators who are interested in disseminating the information about the candidates, as opposed to, you know, 'gotcha' 'you did this' and 'defend yourself on that.' you know, what is very important right now, we have so many incredible problems that are facing us as a nation, you know, we're being divided, we're fiscally irresponsible which is creating an unstable economic foundation, you know we're not taking an appropriate place in the world in terms of leadership.

    should tell you that the last thing these people want is to get a substantive debate:

    Basically he thinks "debates" should be infomercials where a "host" acts as if he or she is "interviewing" the salesman and the "audience" pretends to be thrilled and claps wildly at every applause line.

    Now, please, enough of your baloney.


    IMO things would be much simpler (5.00 / 9) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 03:17:19 PM EST
    If we went back to The League of Women Voters monitoring the debates for both parties. Not only would it standardize the process but we would IMO have better debates.

    I totally agree (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Zorba on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 03:44:16 PM EST
    They pulled out of sponsoring the debates, though, back in 1988 because of the demands of the various candidate's campaigns.

    Yes, but you know...women. (4.67 / 3) (#23)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 03:29:06 PM EST
    I feel like the wheels started to come off the bus when the LWV were taken out of the process.

    Even (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 03:32:06 PM EST
    the LWV would be considered part of a liberal conspiracy by conservatives.

    Yes, unfortunately, (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Zorba on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 03:47:30 PM EST
    it already is.
    And I have been a proud member of The League of Women Voters for over thirty years.

    My mother was in (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by fishcamp on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 07:44:38 PM EST
    The League of Women Voters.

    et al - But especially annie (1.00 / 4) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 04:04:01 PM EST
    Quit protecting your personal Demo flacks. We have the transcript.

    HARWOOD: And make Americans better off because your greatness would replace the stupidity and incompetence of others.

    TRUMP: That's right.

    HARWOOD: Let's be honest.(LAUGHTER)Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?

    The first question was a supposed job interview type.But this is such an insulting question if I had ever been asked something similar I would have just said good bye and left because  the bias  was obvious.

    Want some more?

    (To Fiorina) QUINTANILLA: You want to bring 70,000 pages to three?

    FIORINA: That's right, three pages.

    QUINTANILLA: Is that using really small type?

    Another insulting type question that just shows bias.

    Here's another.

    (To Bush) HARWOOD: But it's a -- OK. It's a -- it's a question about why you're having difficulty. I want to ask you in this context.

    Ben Bernanke, who was appointed Fed chairman by your brother, recently wrote a book in which he said he no longer considers himself a Republican because the Republican Party has given in to know- nothingism. Is that why you're having a difficult time in this race?

    Now, what does that have to do with this debate?? The answer is, nothing. It's just an attack on Repubs. It is a perfect example of using a question to make a claim. "Do you still beat your wife?"

    Have another.

    Fiorina) And yet the man who led my firing, Tom Perkins, an icon of Silicon Valley, has come out publicly and said, "you know what? We were wrong. She was right. She was a great CEO. She'd be a great president of the United States because the leadership she brought to H.P. is exactly the leadership we need in Washington, D.C.

    QUICK: Mrs. Fiorina, it's interesting that you bring up Mr. Perkins, because..APPLAUSE) ...he said a lot of very questionable things. Last year, in an interview, he said that he thinks wealthy people should get more votes than poor people.
    I think his quote was that, "if you pay zero dollars in taxes, you should get zero votes. If you pay a million dollars, you should get a million votes." Is this the type of person you want defending you?

    Fiorina's response was that the guy who led the charge to fire her has changed his mind. That he may have said questionable things has nothing to do with him changing his mind. Quick's bias is obvious

    And one more:

    RUBIO: Let me say, I read that editorial today with a great amusement. It's actually evidence of the bias that exists in the American media today.

    QUINTANILLA: Well, do you hate your job?

    Another attempt at "gotcha." Rubio had answered that Kerry and Obama had both missed votes yet the Quintanilla has to close with a "Do you still beat your wife" type question.

    And Cruz did hit it out of the park.

    CRUZ: You know, let me say something at the outset. The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media.(APPLAUSE) This is not a cage match. And, you look at the questions -- "Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?" "Ben Carson, can you do math?" "John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?" "Marco Rubio, why don't you resign?" "Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?"

    How about talking about the substantive issues the people care about?

    Those are business reporters, Jimbo (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 04:08:26 PM EST
    That's as sympathetic a crowd as the republicans are likely to find.

    Your real problem is that real journalists aren't credulous gibbering simpletons.


    Not hardly (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 05:51:48 PM EST
    They reveal their lack of expertise when they say such as this.

    Ms. Fiorina, I -- I'd like to ask you a question. You are running for president of the United States because of your record running Hewlett-Packard. But the stock market is usually a fair indicator of the performance of a CEO, and the market was not kind to you.

    An informed commentator knows that rising markets make bad CEO's look good and falling markets can make good CEO's look bad. It really takes study of the corp, the market and the market place to know what is going on. These folks are just talking heads reading whatever is given to them. And their "questions" show what their politics are.


    Actually, No. (none / 0) (#64)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 06:27:06 PM EST
    They have failed to ask questions that voters in a Republican primary want to hear.

    They do not want to hear gotcha questions,
    Preferably questions regarding
    How to jumpstart the economy
    How to handle immigration going forward
    Foreign Affairs, The Middle East and Russia

    Just for starters


    The Republican (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 12:08:17 PM EST
    candidates are such whiny, weak wimps.

    Hillary put up with 11 hours of worse....snide, disrespectful accusations being thrown in her face ...It was supposed to be a public flogging of "the witch"* and it blew up in their faces....She bested them at every turn....

    Two or three so called gotcha questions during the Republican debate, and these guys fall apart.

    *  The quotations marks mean that I am using the term in a non-standard way--that is, that some would use that term but I do not agree with it...For those who might miss the meaning of the quotation marks.....


    The funny part is that Cruz didn't even (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 09:02:11 AM EST
    correctly quote the questions he says he took offense to - he ended up creating a straw man so he could avoid answering the question he was asked, and get the audience all jacked up.

    First, no one asked Trump if he was a comic book villain; what was asked was, "[i]s this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?"  And it was asked in response to a list of things Trump said he was going to do: build a wall that another country would pay for, deport 11 million people, cut $10 trillion in taxes without increasing the deficit. And Trump has claimed he could do this because he's smarter and more competent than anyone else.

    Second, no one asked Ben Carson if he could do math.  He was asked the substantive question of  how he would close the $1 trillion gap between current federal spending and the revenue projected from his 15 percent flat tax.  Or don't you regard that as substantive?

    Third, no one invited John Kasich to insult his colleagues.  Kasich got the ball rolling in his opening remarks when he said "we are on the verge, perhaps, of picking someone who cannot do this job."  And right out of the gate, he wasn't answering the question that was posed to him - the softball/icebreaker, "what is your biggest weakness?"

    Fourth, no one on the panel asked Rubio to resign.  These were the two questions put to Rubio in connection with his current position:

    You've been a young man in a hurry ever since you won your first election in your 20s. You've had a big accomplishment in the Senate, an immigration bill providing a path to citizenship the conservatives in your party hate, and even you don't support anymore. Now, you're skipping more votes than any senator to run for president. Why not slow down, get a few more things done first or least finish what you start? --Quintanilla

    So when the Sun-Sentinel says Rubio should resign, not rip us off, when they say Floridians sent you to Washington to do a job, when they say you act like you hate your job, do you?

    It was Jeb Bush who said:

    You can campaign, or just resign and let someone else take the job.

    Cruz completely avoided answering the question he was asked:  

    Senator Cruz. Congressional Republicans, Democrats and the White House are about to strike a compromise that would raise the debt limit, prevent a government shutdown and calm financial markets that fear of -- another Washington-created crisis is on the way.

    Does your opposition to it show that you're not the kind of problem-solver American voters want?

    He ran out the clock railing against things no moderator asked of the others, and then got his nose out of joint because he wasn't given time to answer the original question.  Boo-hoo!

    And the questions they did answer?  Full of lies, distortions and nonsense.  Shame on the moderators for allowing as much of it to stand as they did.


    you really don't like (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by sj on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 11:24:31 AM EST
    have the light shown upon the crazy that is the GOP, do you.

    I hope you remembered to (none / 0) (#61)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 06:18:50 PM EST
    pick up some nice vanilla ice cream to go with the pie your wife made from those cherries you picked.

    Congrats (none / 0) (#69)
    by FlJoe on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 07:01:19 PM EST
    Jim, out of a whole bunch of hackery, snarks andpersonal attacks, you did find a nugget of bias
    with this question Ben Bernanke, who was appointed Fed chairman by your brother, recently wrote a book in which he said he no longer considers himself a Republican because the Republican Party has given in to know- nothingism. Is that why you're having a difficult time in this race?
    That sure does sound like "are you losing because Republicans are stupid ?", but once again the source of this quote was certainly no liberal and Kasich pretty much said the same thing right off the bat
    but I want to tell you, my great concern is that we are on the verge, perhaps, of picking someone who cannot do this job.
    or shorter Mr 2% "Republiacns are stupid enough to elect a clown"

    A better journalist would have framed the question to Bush using Kasich's words instead of Bernake's more inflammatory ones, but as I said before such is hackery.

    I really think the Republicans do have a beef, but it should be about the total unprofessionalism of the moderators rather then playing the victim card once again.

    You could say that all of these debates are biased towards sensationalism, they want conflict, they want a gotcha moment, probably in their darkest heart they want a fist fight to break out. So far they have all tried to probe the candidates weaknesses, I actually think Fox was tough but honest with them and did the best so far, CNN was decent also.

    CNBC committed many journalist sins maybe most of them that can be made in this format. Stupid rude questions, check. Snarky follow ups, check....... Partisan-baiting, check.

    Cruz is right, up to a point

    CRUZ: You know, let me say something at the outset. The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media.(APPLAUSE) This is not a cage match. And, you look at the questions -- "Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?" "Ben Carson, can you do math?" "John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?" "Marco Rubio, why don't you resign?" "Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?"
    a bit of hyperbole there, but in the ballbark of the tone of the questions.

     The problem is they are all actually questions that have been asked before at the debates and elsewhere in, dare I say a more politically correct manner. How many times has Bush been asked about his tanking poll numbers? Harwood threw the "Republican's are stupid" turd into the mix trying for a gotcha moment on Bush. He did not do it because of liberal bias, he did it because he is a hack


    And your point is??? (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 07:40:47 PM EST
    A rose by any other name smells the same??

    Or is it, "Everybody's doing it, doing it??"

    The point was that all of the questions were just rehashing of old, and in some cases already proven false, charges.

    But I almost agree.

    He did not do it because of liberal bias, he did it because he is a hack

    You are half right.

    He did not do it because of liberal bias, he did it because he is a hack and a leftie.


    "All of the questions?" (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 08:05:24 PM EST
    Uh, no, jim.  That's just absurd, as is your characterization of anyone asking a question you don't like as being a leftie.  Trust me when I tell you that if actual lefties had been moderating that debate, the questions would have been even harder for these people to answer.

    I guess what I would say, jim, is that if the candidates can't stand the heat, they should get out of the kitchen.  People who want to be the leader of the free world can't whine their way to the WH.  

    Maybe they need to be more careful about saying things now that are in conflict with what they have said and done in the past.  Maybe those who want to offer themselves as leaders with the answers to our economic woes have to have personal and business credibility on that score, not poor money management, embezzlement, foreclosure, bankruptcies and poor performance as CEO.  Maybe they should be better able to explain their grifting. Maybe they should show a willingness to show up for work - work the taxpayers are footing the bill for.

    What these candidates didn't like was being shown up for the hypocrites they are.  Hate to break it to you, but even Limbaugh and Hannity have bias and will favor one candidate over another - and then what?  Then who do they whine to?  Do they self-moderate?

    Maybe just a mud-pit for the wrestling match would do.


    And the brand new questions (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 08:16:39 PM EST
    which had been sealed in a mayonnaise jar and kept on Funk and Wagnalls front porch were??

    None of (none / 0) (#81)
    by FlJoe on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 08:20:23 PM EST
    this should be considered old (c, the elections are months away and they should all expect repeated grilling about pretty much everything.

    Proven false charges? What? Where?

    Fiorina touts her expirience at HP, it should                                                     scrutinized.

    Rubio say's he understands what it's like to support a young growing family, he should be questioned on his mismanagement of it.

    Bush sold himself to the donors as a strong candidate, he needs to explain why he's so weak.

    Carson stresses his Doctorly wisdom as his strong point, he needs to explain some questionable associations he has.

    They all need to explain the math of their plans, which are questioned even by the most conservative think tanks.

    And on and on, that's not bias Jim that's journalism. That's my point.



    How about the on line (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 03:06:30 PM EST
    petition for Jon Stewart to moderate a debate?

    The RNC has been fired, (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 03:57:18 PM EST
    the candidates' campaign will show their leadership in addressing these victimhood debates:

      Trump will replace the debates with something "terrific."  Carson is holding out for a moderator from Mannatech to cure the problem.  Jeb! got some good advice from mommy on his trip home last weekend--tell them to stop whining, they are privileged anyway, so this is working out quite well for them.

     Rubio wants to go with the flow--so long as it is Poland Spring and re-issuance of his seized RNC credit card for personal use. Fiorina's stock, not unlike HP's, is falling so it does not really matter, Kasick wants more time to tell how he does it in Ohio, a bigger megaphone, and a flashing Ohio lapel pin.

     Paul is opposed to anything and will filibuster--during his 18 minutes. Christie sees all sides of the right side and is willing to bridge the difference .Huckabee demands a bible-shaped podium to thump.

     And, Cruz is all in for Jon Stewart, he can start today with his Gingrich-style attack on the liberal moderator, thereby bypassing the need to have or explain his policies and positions.  


    The republicans don't want... (none / 0) (#51)
    by desertswine on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 05:44:45 PM EST
    a "debate," they would rather have a kaffeeklatch.  Maybe with cheese and tiny sandwiches.

    tiny treats for their tiny brains (none / 0) (#85)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 09:18:22 PM EST
    I give you the example (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 04:02:21 PM EST
    ... of Hillary Clinton taking hostile questions from her avowed and sworn political enemies.  Voluntarily.  For eleven hours.  Under oath.  On live TV at her insistence.

    Show me a Republican who would take hostile questions from Democrats on live TV, under oath, for eleven hours, and I'll show you their candidate for president.

    But no, as you are so eager to point out, these relatively mild questions were TOO MUCH for the delicate flowers of the GOP.  Damn that faint praise!


    Oh come now (1.00 / 3) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 04:04:59 PM EST
    Did you miss the Demo members love fest???

    ... with radiator seal.

    was the acid barrel shaped (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 10:04:59 PM EST
    Sounds like you took orange sunshine.

     Everything is going to be fine. You're very high right now. You will probably be that way for about five more hours. Try taking some vitamin B complex, vitamin C complex.. if you have a beer, go ahead and drink it..

     Just remember you're a living organism on this planet, and you're very safe. You've just taken a heavy drug. Relax, stay inside and listen to some music, Okay? Do you have any Allman Brothers?


    Molly, this is worth 50 points (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 11:40:24 AM EST
    for pulling out a 1980's pop culture reference that references the '60s, and is totally appropriate to the comments made here on this blog in 2015.

    thank you (none / 0) (#168)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 03:06:10 PM EST
    Its a favorite. Although I am pretty sure its actually from the mid 70's not the 80's.

    My Money is On... (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 03:50:33 PM EST
    ...that he needs to get back on his meds.  If every 'not making sense' comment by Jim was due to acid, the guy would have pulled a Syd Barrett long ago.

    It is from the "70s. The (none / 0) (#199)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 07:08:19 PM EST
    Carter administration.

    And this was not a Congressional hearing (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 04:05:54 PM EST
    Neither was the last Benghazi (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 07:25:13 PM EST
    Congressional smear attempt, that only served to face-plant the Republican Party.

    Asking a question (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 04:47:38 PM EST
    about what Trump had to say about Zukerberg is not a sign of bias.

    It is a sign of stupidity.

    It is also a sign about how disconnected these people are from the reality of day to day existence for most Americans.


    Trump was being publicly called out ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 05:13:37 PM EST
    ... with his own disingenuous statement. He denied ever having said it, which is a lie since it came from Trump's own website:

    "Mark Zuckerberg's personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities."

    I would note that the Trump campaign has since rewritten that particular webpage to scrub the Zuckerberg reference. So, it was hardly "a sign of stupidity" on the questioner's part for having asked the candidate about it in the first place.

    I would respectfully suggest that you make a better effort to be further informed about the subject before you comment on it, lest you find yourself making Jim's argument for him.



    You missed my point. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 05:37:25 PM EST
    The issue is not whether or not Trump dissed Zuckerberg.

    The issue, for me, is that this is a question that does not relate to the condition of the American people - to our lives.

    It is stupid.

    And it speaks to how disconnected these media personalities are from reality.


    Exaxtly (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 05:54:08 PM EST
    This was just an attempt by the CNBC commentators to look good to their buds.

    Instead it blew up in their faces.


    The reason (none / 0) (#63)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 06:22:29 PM EST
    it blew up is because the questioner did not have a clue about the source of this alleged diss by Trump.

    If she had, when he denied it, she could have pointed to whatever evidence she had in her possession.

    But she had no clue.

    So it was a question that was, by definition, ignorant.


    And no, I didn't miss your point. Rather, I ignored it because it was irrelevant. The ostensible concept of a political debate is to discuss views and policies covering a whole host of issues, not simply those topics that you and Jim care about.

    OMG! Why, the utter nerve of them! (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 02:54:12 PM EST
    What colossal gall the liberal commentariat displayed that night, to have even deigned to question candidates for public office regarding their respective capacities for responsible self-assessment and effective governance! No doubt by standing up to the tyranny of the lamestream media, Republicans are showing everybody what they're all about.

    I love the idea of right wing loonies (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 03:49:08 PM EST
    Moderating republican debates.   A feed back loop of crazy.

    What could possibly go wrong?


    A (none / 0) (#108)
    by FlJoe on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 05:35:26 AM EST
    Hurricane of perfidy would surely ensue, or if we were really lucky a black  hole of ignorance would be created and the whole lot of them would never be heard from again.

    my head's still reeling from (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 03:58:11 PM EST
    the cognitive dissonance overloaded image of "librul" business reporters.

    Hackery (none / 0) (#40)
    by FlJoe on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 04:34:27 PM EST
    most definitely, bias no. Actually, most of the "difficult" were sourced from conservative media, think tanks or else part of the public record. The comic book question was out of bounds but such is hackery.

    Once again you are up to your old tricks, throw up the transcripts, cite that as proof enough for your allegations and declare victory.

    I saw the debates, and skimmed the transcripts and saw no real partisan or ideological bias.

    Once again just quote me one question that you felt was biased, it should be easy.



    No way am I going to relive even one second (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 05:02:48 PM EST
    of that mess.  Sorry, not reading that.

    If it shows stupid questions, well, yes, this is the media, and 90% of them are  horrible. Welcome to politics, GOP candidates.  I promise you the questions these same people would ask Dems are just as bad.


    Then you posit that these people (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 06:11:10 PM EST
    were fools and not knaves.

    Well, the questions show they were smart enough to ask "gotcha" and "Do you still beat your wife?" questions....so that makes them knaves.


    They can be fools, knaves and unbiased all at once (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 08:58:16 PM EST
    Famous TV Lawyer Fred Thompson has died. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 05:53:24 PM EST
    Thompson was also famous for playing a U.S. Senator in the U.S. Senate.

    I thought that he was... (none / 0) (#57)
    by desertswine on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 06:06:12 PM EST
    totally mis-cast as the Manhattan DA.  But a good character actor otherwise.

    According to the obit (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 06:38:56 PM EST
    I just read, Thompson, though Republican, contributed to Nixon's downfall. The former was committee counsel. He studied up on the contents of the famous tapes.

    True but it's a bit more complicated (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 10:12:43 PM EST
     Transcripts from the Nixon White House tapes reveal that the Nixon administration regarded Thompson as a useful idiot -- "dumb as hell," in President Nixon's words, but "friendly." At one point, the White House counsel told Nixon that Thompson insisted he wanted to help the president more than his patron and boss on the committee, Sen. Howard Baker, R-Tenn, would let him.

    He also tipped the NIxon Whitehouse off on testimony prior to the wines appearing as I recall


    Fred Thompson was the counsel who ... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 11:19:59 PM EST
    ... asked Alexander Butterfield whether there existed listening devices in the Oval Office which recorded presidential conversations. Butterfield confirmed that there indeed was. The entire Watergate scandal investigation pivoted on that key two-minute exchange.

    Another take on the Butterfield exchange ... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 05:59:01 PM EST
    ... from the inimitable Charles Pierce:

    "Now, Thompson dined out on that question for decades, and it wasn't exactly the untarnished star turn that it might have appeared to be, but he asked the question in public, on TV, and he got the answer. Goddamn, that was a moment."



    Reading the obit (none / 0) (#91)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 10:09:48 PM EST
    Dude was three years older than I am.

    I could have sworn it was a hundred.


    Students walk out in support of fired deputy (none / 0) (#84)
    by McBain on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 09:02:23 PM EST

    Apparently, not everyone thought deputy Fields was such a bad guy after all.  

    Count me standing with Maxine Waters (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 09:22:31 PM EST
    How he responded was crazy. He could have fractured that girl's back or broken her neck. The lunatic fringe will not rule my life. I demand appropriate and right sized actions and responses. If law enforcement fears for its life, it is because our streets are flooded with guns. But they don't get to abuse all of us because of that. They need to lobby for realistic gun control too...along with the rest of the sane.

    I just knew that some how some way (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 10:04:12 AM EST
    someone would bring gun confiscation into the argument.

    BTW, MT. Do you think the actions of the rioters calling for cops to be killed help the situation?


    Tracy never brought up confiscation, (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 10:27:11 AM EST
    so perhaps you were responding to someone else's comment - though I don't see anyone else bringing it up, either.

    And the question you pose is just stupid.  

    Is it possible for you to quit trolling and putting words in people's mouths?

    Didn't think so.


    Let me see... I do what you do (1.00 / 4) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 10:34:39 AM EST
    but what I do is wrong??

    Thanks for taking the bait.

    And we know that in your heart you want confiscation.


    I want confiscate only (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 12:59:56 PM EST
    from paranoids obsessed with confiscation..

    especially cranky old white ones who keep loaded shotguns by the door in the case the Girl Scouts turn out to be Green Party leftists in disguise..


    Could we confiscate (none / 0) (#195)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 06:06:01 PM EST
    His modem?

    Violence begets violence. Violence isn't the cure for violence. A generation ago law enforcement was skilled in de-escalation.

    What did we learn in Iraq Jim? Wholesale violence just begets more violence. Iraq started kicking our ass and then we had to attempt to treat Iraqis humanely, but it was too late by then.

    Bringing that ignorant murderous doctrine to our own streets will yield nothing different. And gun culture is also a culture that worships violence, constantly/addictively extolling the virtues of violence.


    Say what??? (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 10:32:44 AM EST
    What did we learn in Iraq Jim? Wholesale violence just begets more violence. Iraq started kicking our ass and then we had to attempt to treat Iraqis humanely, but it was too late by then.

    Have you ever heard of the "Surge?"


    I know a lot about the surge (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 10:45:13 AM EST
    One of our best friends killed himself because of the surge.  There were two fronts during the surge, the Petraeus front where foot patrols among the people sought to repair relations and trust with the civilians, and the McChrystal Spec Operations front where certain "troublemakers" were targeted and assassinated.

    He retired a Col, he was MI during the surge. And his heart became broken. He was true to every oath he took though, in his worst pain all he would tell you is that people died who shouldn't have died. He was a good person, a good man. He shot himself to death three years, no longer able to cope with what happened during the surge.

    I just can't allow your comment to float by on its way to the sewer. It sullies a good and decent human being's service and suffering. The surge bought us an escape but you obviously have no understanding of what went down. And the fire we stoked in Iraq will consume thousands upon thousands more lives to come.


    Tracy, don't forget (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 10:58:22 AM EST
    that you're responding to a man who has never actually served in a war.

    Yes, he talks like many commanders did (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 11:15:02 AM EST
    As they were loading up for Iraq, on the road to getting their asses handed to them. Most of those blustery full of themselves macho dudes didn't retire out either. That still shocks me, instead of dealing with how wrong they were, instead of having to listen to advisors discuss how destructive to civilization their unbridled violence was/is, instead of learning from their own mistakes and having to reconfigure their belief systems, they just took their uniforms off and walked away...into the military-industrial complex. Some of them were West Point graduates, and they couldn't deal with the truth. They stand on the sidelines now parroting the same rhetoric Jim does.

    Oh hooey (1.00 / 1) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 03:29:55 PM EST
    Referring to the surge doesn't sully anyone.

    You're getting hysterical.


    Jiom Everyone Has Heard... (none / 0) (#161)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 02:47:25 PM EST
    ...of the republican fantasy that came after the Mission Accomplished cat walk, which of course was Mission Accomplished the redux.

    I keep forgetting exactly which time we were successful in Iraq, cause most people, including republicans, remember it for what it was, an epic failure.


    If you read the article you linked to, (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 10:00:48 PM EST
    the students were not protesting because they  agreed with what Fields did, they were protesting the fact that he lost his job.  I didn't see any student quoted who felt the officer's actions were appropriate.

    I did read that artice and others (none / 0) (#103)
    by McBain on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 12:22:18 AM EST
    I mostly agree with the kids.  

    I also haven't heard a good answer to what the deputy was supposed to do?  I've heard what the teacher and principal should have done but not him.


    Let me pull a Donald In HI (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 10:28:15 AM EST
    I have an acquaintance who is well up in the sheriff's organization in a nearby county. I asked him his opinion and he said:

    1. The ROE by a deputy in this situation must be well defined. He had no idea what they were or if they existed.

    2. Once called the deputy should have been trained to take NO physical action unless physically attacked by a student or threatened with a weapon that could kill the deputy or others in close proximity.

    3. The proper actions should have been for the teacher/principal to remove all the other students from the room and try to get the girl to go with them to another office. Failing that they should have then called the deputy into the situation.

    4. If the girl did not respond to the deputy's directions he should have called for back up, the girl then removed from the chair and placed under arrest.

    I asked him if the deputy could win a lawsuit for wrongful firing.

    He said that would probably depend on the published formal guidelines and the training given to the deputy.

    Given the support the other kids have shown the deputy I'd say the county is gonna pay some serious bucks to the officer irrespective of the guidelines and training.

    So the girl was wrong, the school was wrong, the deputy was wrong and who knows about the sheriff's department actions before the incident.


    Sounds good Jim, but I still don't get this... (none / 0) (#131)
    by McBain on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 11:04:35 AM EST
    If the girl did not respond to the deputy's directions he should have called for back up, the girl then removed from the chair and placed under arrest.

    How do they remove the girl from the chair?  If she's going to hold on and strike whoever is trying to remove her, what's the best way to do it?


    This way (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 03:33:39 PM EST
    One officer grasping her feet/legs. Another on her arms/shoulder. Pick up, shift left and she's out.

    Nobody said they did, anne (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 10:05:27 AM EST
    So it looks to me like you are just trying to muddy the water.

    McBain's comment said the students (none / 0) (#121)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 10:32:55 AM EST
    walked out in support of Fields, and that "[a]pparently, not everyone thought deputy Fields was such a bad guy after all."

    Because some people won't check out the links that are posted, I thought it made sense to make it clear that while the students didn't think Fields should have lost his job, no one approved or supported his treatment of the student, that cost him that job.

    Unless you read the article, you could draw the conclusion from McBain's comment that the students supported what Fields did, and that was not the case.

    Critical thinking...it's really not just for liberals; you should try it sometime, but I understand there's only so much you can wedge into the teeny-tiny opening in your mind.


    Every word that McBain wrote is (1.00 / 2) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 10:37:35 AM EST
    clear and not misleading.

    And anyone with "critical thinking" capabilities knows that.

    But nice excuse after you've been called on it.


    We know what he did (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 10:15:28 PM EST
    We saw the video.

    Have you ever criticized a white cop for beating up or shooting a non-violent Black person?  Even when the video shows that it is completely egregious?

    Maybe I missed it.


    Spare Us... (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 02:49:43 PM EST
    ...if they weren't on cop's team you would be calling them thugs and demanding they be suspended or arrested.

    Take it up with the cops, they are the ones who fired him.


    By all accounts, it was a peaceful protest (2.00 / 1) (#170)
    by McBain on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 03:21:17 PM EST
    Hopefully, this will help prevent another ridiculous, politically correct civil settlement.

    I Don't Think Kids Walking Out of Class... (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 03:56:27 PM EST
    ...is going to save the school board or the police department a dime.  While you don't find the video offensive, you are in a very small minority, most people find it extremely bothersome, including the school board and the police department.

    I would also imagine it's going to generate more lawsuits in that this wasn't his first rodeo.


    Video of Sherif stating that Fields did (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 04:29:08 PM EST
    not follow either department procedures or his training is documented on film. Also on record:

    "Debbie Hamm, superintendent for Richland School District Two, said in a statement officials were "deeply concerned" about the incident.

    Student safety is and always will be the district's top priority," Hamm said. "The district will not tolerate any actions that jeopardize the safety of our students. Pending the outcome of the investigation, the district has directed that the school resource officer not return to any school in the district."
    James Manning, chairman of the school board, called the video "extremely disturbing" in an email statement Monday evening. He said the use of force appears "excessive and unnecessary." Fields, said Manning, has been banned from all school property.

    "Staff are committed to the safety of all of our students and are taking immediate steps to ensure that our students are treated with the full respect and dignity that they deserve while in our care," Manning said. link

    I think the video of Fields body slamming the girl and throwing her across the room, along with the statements by the sheriff and the school officials might help lead to a large civil settlement.


    Maybe, but in other recent "settlements" (2.00 / 1) (#197)
    by McBain on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 06:23:08 PM EST
    a death occurred.  When I first saw the video I was thinking there could be a seven figure settlement but that doesn't seem realistic.  

    With only minor injuries and no protests going on, anyone have an idea what she would ask for in a civil suit?  Keep in mind it was her bad behavior that led to this situation.    


    Using a cell phone and not leaving (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 06:54:35 PM EST
    the room when asked does not warrant being body slammed and thrown across the room.

    I have to say that, as much as I object to the way Fields treated this student, I also think some questions need to be directed at the teaching staff, and at the level of conflict resolution training they are given.

    However "minor" her physical injuries are, this had to have been a traumatic experience for a 16-yr old who is reported to have been diagnosed with mental health issues, and who recently lost her mother and had to go into foster care.

    There simply is no excuse for how he treated her.


    Can the Mets take game 5? Top of the 9th. (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 09:51:07 PM EST
    KC. Zip. Mets: 2.

    Hope the Mets don't regret leaving (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 09:57:37 PM EST
    Matt Harvey in to pitch...

    Oops n/t (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 10:21:40 PM EST
    Sad day in New York... (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 10:52:04 AM EST
    next week I'll be able to appreciate a great year and a NL Pennant, but right now I'm just sick about what could have been.

    Congrats to Kansas City, they were the better team and seven kinds of clutch when the chips were down.


    What? Kansas City? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 10:58:14 AM EST
    Now I understand my oculus email better. It's looking like my new destination is Kansas City. I was whining. It's a step up from Alabummer, but it's still pretty nuts in that state.

    Moving are ya? (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 12:31:16 PM EST
    I can think of two big positives for KC...great baseball and great steaks.

    I hear they've got (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 12:53:48 PM EST
    pretty little women there..

    Charlie Parker was from Kansas City and they have a long and venerable music tradition there.


    And bbq and art museum. (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 01:29:25 PM EST
    Kansas ia a freakin' crazy state. (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 05:31:11 PM EST
    Brownback was reelected governor after his policies drove the state nearly over the edge fiscally. The politics are no better than Alabama.

    Kansas City, however, is right on the border with Missouri, a somewhat less insane state. Not a sane state, but somewhat less insane.

    And if beef is your thing, also the blues, KC is the place to be.


    Kansas City (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 05:40:28 PM EST
    Also has more fountains than any city except Rome.

    It's quite a nice city.   I almost took a job there when I went to Champaign in 2007


    Sorry kdog! (none / 0) (#128)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 11:00:56 AM EST
    April will be here soon!

    Am so sad for you, kdog; (none / 0) (#130)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 11:03:12 AM EST
    I went to bed as it was going into extra innings, so didn't see the outcome until this morning.

    For 8+ innings, it really looked like the Series was headed back to KC for at least one more game.  Harvey was so good, but I had a bad feeling when he talked his way back onto the mound for the 9th.  Would Familia have done better had he been in since the beginning of the 9th?  Guess we'll never know, but he just couldn't shut KC down when they needed to be stopped.  


    At least your team was at home, surrounded by fans who love and appreciate them - at least I hope that was the prevailing attitude (it is NY after all, where fans can be kind of brutal).

    Better days ahead, I hope; hang in there!


    I think I speak... (none / 0) (#143)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 12:11:57 PM EST
    for most Met fans when I say we all wanted Harvey back out there for the 9th.  I know I did, no question.  He was beyond outstanding last night, and earned a chance to go 9.

    If there is a scapegoat, it's the bats that went dead and a suspect defense that KC exposed and exploited. The pitching for the most part did great against a line-up of real battlers.  

    As for Terry Collins, it's always easy to second guess in hindsight...but other than his insistence to keep going to a struggling Clippard instead of giving Addison Reed the 8th and letting Colon & Niese go longer in middle relief, I thought he did a fine job.

    Special shout out to Curtis Granderson, the position player MVP both regular and post-season...guy came to play every night.

    Maybe it won't take a week...the hurt is already wearing off, and admiration and pride in my Mets is setting in.  I woulda signed up for this ride in April in a heartbeat.  

    As Lupus once said..."Just wait 'till next year!" ;)


    Instant karma for Syndergaard (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 01:23:48 PM EST
    thinking he's Roger Clemens and going head hunting also didn't help the Mets cause one iota..

    Not you too! (none / 0) (#156)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 01:52:32 PM EST
    Head Hunting my arse jondee...high and tight as is a pitcher's right, and it got away from him.

    The brushback thrown to Murphy earlier in the series was a lot closer...nobody b&tched.


    Today's NYT includes a letter to (none / 0) (#154)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 01:27:54 PM EST
    the editor from a psychiatrist who says the most memorable thing is winning the pennant. And he cites Bobby Thompson. 1951 and "The Giants win the pennant!"

    That was likely true prior to 1969, ... (none / 0) (#186)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 04:55:47 PM EST
    oculus: "Today's NYT includes a letter to the editor from a psychiatrist who says the most memorable thing is winning the pennant. And he cites Bobby Thompson. 1951 and 'The Giants win the pennant!'"

    ... when there were no divisional or league championship playoffs and the first-place team in each league at the end of the season advanced directly to the World Series. While the expanded playoff formats have certainly offered an exciting element of additional anticipation to the game, there can be no denying the fact that it's also indirectly diminished the meaning and importance of a first-place finish in baseball.

    Since the advent of MLB's wild card playoff team in 1995, no less than six second-place (wild card) division finishers have gone on to win the World Series, while another six have won the league pennant and made the World Series. Six World Series in a row, from 2002 through 2007, featured at least one wild card entry. And two World Series, San Francisco-Anaheim in 2002 and San Francisco-Kansas City in 2014, featured no first-place division winners at all.

    Playoffs also tend to favor those teams who get hot at the right time, rather than reward a team for its body of work during the season. Prior to 1969, an 85-77 mark would likely earn you a fifth-place finish, 15 or so games behind the eventual league champion. Nowadays, you're still very in the hunt.

    The 1973 New York Mets (82-79), the 1987 Minnesota Twins (85-77) and the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals (84-78) all made the World Series in those respective seasons despite finishing less than 10 games over .500. The Twins and Cards would further go on to win it all.

    Another team that benefited from the wild card format is the 2007 NL Champion Colorado Rockies, who on Sept. 16 of that year were puttering along with a 77-72 record, before suddenly getting white-hot and winning 13 out of their final 14 games to qualify for post-season play as the NL wild card. They then won another seven in a row to sweep both the NLDS and NLCS and clinch the pennant.

    Were I in the position to offer any suggested changes to MLB's present system, it would be to shorten the 162-game regular season by returning to the 154-game schedule that existed prior to the expansion era. MLB expanded the regular season to 162 games with its first round of expansion back in 1961-62 to provide for a balanced schedule in light of the additional two teams in each league, so that every team would play each one of their league rivals 18 games apiece.

    Obviously, subsequent expansion to 30 teams today, as well as the advent of interleague play in 1997, have eclipsed any realistic notion of achieving balanced schedules in either league. Returning to a 154-game regular season would allow the playoffs to start sooner rather than later, and preclude the increased likelihood that post-season play would encounter bad winter weather as it extends into November, as it did back in 2007, when the two World Series games in Denver were threatened by snowstorms.



    If I had a vote, he'd certainly be my pick for NL Manager of the Year. I thought he handled the ex post facto second-guessing last night graciously, taking full responsibility for leaving Harvey on the mound going into the ninth.

    As Collins said, the decision to leave Harvey in the game was his and no one else's. And by letting Harvey talk him into sending him out there for the ninth, he allowed his heart overrule his head. I don't think he'll be making that mistake again.

    Here's a bit of baseball trivia that I learned last night. The 2016 World Series was the very first in the history of Major League Baseball in which the two participants, the Mets (founded in 1962) and the Royals (founded in 1969), were both products of MLB's expansion era and not one of its original 16 franchises.



    The first WS, (none / 0) (#178)
    by desertswine on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 04:20:30 PM EST
    as I understood it, between two teams that were never segregated (actually the same thing in a different context).

    Plus (none / 0) (#133)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 11:20:48 AM EST
    The Jets lost, the Giants  - holy mackeral!  Manning throws 6 TD passes and LOSES!  Man, oh man!

    And on another note, my Lions embarrassed themselves now on an international stage..  


    Holy moly! (none / 0) (#144)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 12:19:39 PM EST
    I watched the Giants-Saints game.  It certainly went down to the wire.
    And yes, Manning had a career high six touchdown passes.  But Brees had a career high of seven touchdown passes.  Pretty good for an "aging" (36) quarterback.
    I didn't think that Forbath would be able to make that field goal, but he did.  And he had only recently been signed by the Saints.
    I didn't have a dog in that hunt, but it was some game.

    Trying to Find QB Rating for the... (none / 0) (#157)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 02:07:01 PM EST
    ..Gmen/Saints Game.  How in the hell do you lose putting up 49 points and how do you win giving up 49, crazy.

    My Pack really took it on the chin, and Manning was on fire.  But I am kinda glad, they needed a wake-up loss especially after being one play away from losing to the Chargers.

    One thing is for sure, when Rogers ain't on, the Pack do not look good.  The Broncos brought their A-game and I hope shut up the 'Manning's arm is toast' crowd.

    Next week, the Panthers, then a fairly easy schedule, with only two teams with winning records.


    Regarding your question (none / 0) (#159)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 02:33:24 PM EST
    about the Giants/Saints game:  good offenses, lousy defenses?  
    I was thinking it was going to go into basketball-score territory.

    Tough loss, kdog. I was pulling for (none / 0) (#139)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 11:56:02 AM EST
    your guys, but KC would not be denied. It is small comfort now, but remember, there's always next year. :-)

    Three blown leads in the series (none / 0) (#104)
    by McBain on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 12:24:02 AM EST
    Wasn't meant to be I guess.  I should be happy for K.C. but I'm not.  

    I can be happy for KC... (none / 0) (#145)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 12:20:54 PM EST
    well, except maybe for that crybaby Moustakas.  F*ck that guy;)

    If I was building a line-up, I'd model it on theirs. Chicks may dig the long ball, but putting the ball in play with controlled aggression, stealing bases, and not striking out wins ballgames.


    You do realize, Kdog, (none / 0) (#158)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 02:22:56 PM EST
    That Moustakas lost his mother to a long battle with cancer, this past August?  And as she was dying in July (he was going back and forth between his ball club and her bedside), he gave her his All-Star jersey, and she ordered him to go back to work?
    He was very close to his mom.
    Plus, he's a Greek-American.
    No baklava or spanakopita or pastistsio for you, Dog.   ;-)

    I did not know that... (none / 0) (#160)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 02:40:29 PM EST
    and of course that's very sad...but I don't see what that has to do with his crybaby tirade act in Game 4.  That sh&t was embarrassing.

    You should hear what my mother had to say about him! He is persona non grata #3 now behind Pete Rose & Chase Utley;)


    Okay (none / 0) (#164)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 02:52:23 PM EST
    Still no Greek food for you.  Nor a refuge on our farm when the Pirate Ship needs it.   ;-)

    Damn... (none / 0) (#167)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 02:58:40 PM EST
    After years of TL bonding I take exception to the behavior of one Greek-American ballplayer...and out with the trash I go!

    And I thought the Italians were the hotheaded Mediterraneans;)


    Oh, Dog, you ain't seen nothing (none / 0) (#200)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 07:23:24 PM EST
    when it comes to hot-headedness.  
    The Greeks don't just hold grudges for years, nor decades, nor centuries.
    We hold grudges for millennia.  Approximately three millennia, in fact.    ;-)

    Treads has spoken: "dirty play". (none / 0) (#165)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 02:52:27 PM EST
    See NYT.

    Tejada! Auto correct (none / 0) (#166)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 02:54:11 PM EST
    never heard of him.

    I think you can win in different ways (none / 0) (#169)
    by McBain on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 03:12:05 PM EST
    A team that hits home runs, doesn't steal much , and strikes out a lot can be very successful if their style fits their home ball park. I prefer watching teams that steal, hit triples and take the extra base.  

    As an A's fan, I  don't like the Royals for their bad behavior involving Brett Lawrie earlier this year.  The A's aren't the only team they had problems with.  If it wasn't for that nonsense, I would be very happy for K.C. and their fans..... they were a terrible team for a long time and didn't have spend a ton of money to win it all.


    Too bad. Hopefully, Mets fans will remember the really great season they had, and not the late game meltdowns in the World Series.

    At least we're spared the.. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by desertswine on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 11:41:22 AM EST
    suffering and frustration of a sixth game.

    Spoken like a true Mets fan...;) (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 12:22:55 PM EST
    I'll always wonder what deGrom & Syndergaard coulda done with another start each though...too bad one or both didn't get the chance.

    Interesting interview of Bill (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 01:34:48 AM EST
    Buchner reveals he is making lots of money off his blunder. There's always hope I guess.

    ESPN 30 for 30 documentary called (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 06:49:22 AM EST
    "Catching Hell" is an excellent look at both the 1986 Sox and the 2003 'Bartman year' Cubs, with the angle on scapegoating and how Buckner and Bartman took the blame for greater failures that were not their fault. Buckner is interviewed throughout the film.....his sorrow and sadness are palpable. He felt finally forgiven after the Sox finally won, but it was left for him to forgive the media, who made life hell for him and his family. He deserves every cent he may get now.

    The doc has some fantastic footage, including Bob Costas and his tv crew setting up the Red Sox locker room for a victory celebration, and then having to clear out in a flash after Buckner's error. Also Buckner, 20 years later finally figuring out exactly how the error happened after being stunned for years.

    Bartman, ah Bartman. The film has footage filmed by fans in the stands, and interviews with fans and the security staff at Wrigley. I particularly loved the nice Chicago security lady that made sure he got out of the stadium safely- I'd like to think of her as a typical Chicagoan, rather than some of the people in the crowd. The whole thing ran me through all the emotions...not blaming Bartman, and blaming him at the same time, utter disappointment and heartbreak. One of the fans said it best in the extras- something broke in long time Cub fans that year. He, and I, will never be that emotionally invested again until the first pitch of the first game of the World Series. It is why I was relatively sanguine about the Mets series this year. Talk to me when they get to the WS.

    I couldn't find the movie on any of my streaming sources, had to buy the DVD for Amazon for 8.99 - well worth it since I will send it to my brother after I am done with it. It will be passed around my family.


    Wealthy Ohioans offer to legalize Marijuana (none / 0) (#94)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 10:20:52 PM EST
    - in exchange for a sales and grower Oligopoly

    Issue 3, as the proposed amendment is known, is bankrolled by wealthy investors spending nearly $25 million to put it on the ballot and sell it to voters. If it passes, they would have exclusive rights to growing commercial marijuana in Ohio.

    Mr. James, whose detractors note that his firm is earning more than $5 million to run ResponsibleOhio, makes no bones about what critics call "the corporatization" of the marijuana business. He said the sale of marijuana would, beginning in 2020, generate $554 million a year in tax revenue for Ohio; 85 percent would go toward safety services and infrastructure repair.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by FlJoe on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 05:54:26 AM EST
    then, it's kind of a done deal, once the oligarch's get a sniff of the "green" there will be no stopping them, there is "gold" is them there buds.

    They want their piece of the brownie and will write their own laws if their pet legislators will not oblige.


    And NOML says okay. (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 01:35:52 AM EST
    Willie Nelson's crusade to stop BIG POT: (none / 0) (#96)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 10:22:05 PM EST
    The consensus among doctors has returned to where it stood eight decades ago, when the American Medical Association loudly opposed the decision to make pot illegal in the first place.

    In the face of all this, investors have naturally begun piling into pot. A race is on to establish the first truly national marijuana brand. The most visible contender in this contest is probably the company Privateer Holdings, which was founded by three Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, one of whom had never smoked pot in his life but who somehow managed to persuade Bob Marley's family to license his name and image to their packaging. This spring, Privateer completed its second capital drive for a total of $82 million in start-up cash. Or maybe the rise of corporate marijuana is better illustrated by the tech millionaire Jamen Shively, who announced plans in 2013 to create a chain of pot shops modeled on Starbucks that would "mint more millionaires than Microsoft" -- acknowledging at one point, "We are Big Marijuana."

    My friends grow theirs (none / 0) (#111)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 08:57:10 AM EST
    ...in the back yard.  Year's supply from two or three tall plants.

    I help out in the manicuring sessions, for a small consideration.

    Prices in California have plummeted.  $1500 for a pound of the good NorCal.


    The fact that there is already (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by CST on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 02:48:00 PM EST
    An existing massive black market, full of growers, makes me think this is not so simple as they want it to be.

    There's a very good reason it's called weed.


    Say hello to (none / 0) (#201)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 07:29:57 PM EST
    ... crazy 8-lateral kickoff return that simply defies description. The result stood after a nine-minute delay resulting in the replay official overturning the original call of a penalty for a block in the back, which otherwise would've ended the game with a Duke victory.

    It proved all too much to swallow for the good folks at ACC HQ in Greensboro, NC, who announced today that the entire officiating crew from that game has been suspended for the following errors they made on that final play:

    • "The replay official erred in not overturning the ruling on the field that the Miami player had released the ball prior to his knee being down. If called, this would have ended the game."

    • "The on-field officials erred by failing to penalize Miami for an illegal block in the back at the Miami 16-yard line. If called, the ball would have been placed at the Miami 8-yard line and the game would have been extended for an untimed down."

    • "A block in the back foul was called at the Duke 26-yard line. After the officials conferred, which is appropriate, they correctly determined that the block was from the side, which resulted in the flag being picked up. The replay official was not involved in the decision to pick up the flag; however, the referee did not effectively manage communication and properly explain why the flag was picked up."

    • "In addition, the on-field crew failed to penalize a Miami player for leaving the bench area and entering the field prior to the end of the play. This foul would not have negated the touchdown because it would have been enforced as a dead ball foul."

    In short, based on the first two stated reasons, Duke should have won that game. Blue Devil fans have every right to be upset at what happened on Saturday, particularly if all that botched officiating ultimately costs them a division crown and subsequent berth in the ACC Championship Game in December.

    Boo. Hiss.

    Pretty surprising this incident (none / 0) (#152)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 01:23:04 PM EST
    did not appear on TL until now.

    It was a good game, but there were also ... (none / 0) (#189)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 05:12:14 PM EST
    ... a lot of those last week. (See Notre Dame-Temple and Oregon-Arizona State.) But aside from the fluky ending, this particular game has since become noteworthy today because of the ACC's rather surprising admission that because the refs blew it very badly on the final play, Duke lost as a direct result of their lousy officiating.

    Speaking as someone who's occasionally officiated high school baseball and volleyball games, you don't ever want to find yourself in the dubious position as a referee where your own questionable call ends up deciding a game's outcome. In that respect, I really feel for that Miami-Duke officiating crew, because that was certainly not their intent. But it is what it is.



    House of Cards (none / 0) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 04:07:24 PM EST
    I had not binged this.   I have seen episodes here and there but never from the beginning.

    I am doing that now .   It great but a couple of things.

    I wish I could stop seeing Mica Brezinski every time I look at Claire Underwood and could someone please explain the Corey Stoll thing to me?   I seriously don't get it.  Does he have some magic mojo with the opposite sex that I am missing?  This is not usually the case.  But I don't getCorey Stoll.   He is a not particularly attractive bald guy with knock knees and childbearing hips.

    I don't get it.

    Other than that, great series.

    For one thing (none / 0) (#180)
    by CST on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 04:28:11 PM EST
    There's probably zero percent chance most women noticed his knees or hips.

    How is that even possible? (none / 0) (#182)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 04:31:00 PM EST
    So that's a yes for Corey?

    I haven't watched the show (none / 0) (#183)
    by CST on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 04:37:08 PM EST
    So I had to google him - but he's attractive enough depending on the character.

    It has never occurred to me to look at a guy's knees or hips.

    That being said, for my own reasons, I'd never be interested in anyone named Corey.


    I'm very surprised (none / 0) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 04:40:24 PM EST
    You have not seen House of Cards.  I think you would like it.

    Stoll is also the lead in The Strain.  In a really bad wig for the whole first season.

    I think he is a passable actor.   I just don't at all the the romantic lead thing.


    Have you read the book series? Excellent (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Towanda on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 05:05:13 PM EST
    if, of course, about British PM, Parliament, etc., by an insider who worked for Thatcher.  The basis for the famed BBC series that Kevin Spacey adapted for the U.S.  And both the books and the BBC series helped me to understand some of the oddities in the U.S. adaptation that don't quite work for me, as they make more sense in the British context.

    And, yeh, some of the casting in the U.S. version does not work for me, either.  But it's still worth watching for all of the good work, isn't it?


    Agreed. a great (none / 0) (#185)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 04:53:20 PM EST
    series.  Not a fan of Mica--Alec Baldwin's impression that she is the Margaret Dumont of Cable TV jives with mine.  Now, Claire is something else...she's different, she has brains, style, looks, and the aura of danger.  I like her.  

    Corey Stoll's character, Peter Russo, sort of fades as the series goes on, except as a notch in Frank Underwood's belt.  I only know him as Russo, and, Ernest Hemingway (Midnight in Paris, Woody Allen). He made an OK Hemingway with a good wig and bad mustache. He has the drunk part down. Otherwise, Stoll seems to be no one's Brad Pitt.  And, at 39 he looks in age a great deal more like Bela Lugosi than Bradley Cooper, age 40.  


    I was thinking (none / 0) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 05:05:36 PM EST
    Young Telly Savalas

    Funny (none / 0) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 05:13:34 PM EST
    He also plays a drunk on The Strain.  

    TransCanada suspends application for Keystone (none / 0) (#202)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 08:02:44 PM EST
    It's dead.  I guess this just happened.

    Keystone pipeline not dead. (none / 0) (#203)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 08:54:41 PM EST
    TransCanada withdrew an application to run the pipeline at a higher pressure than currently allowed. This is the application that was withdrawn. TransCanada will, if the pipeline is approved, run it at the currently allowed pressure.

    The pipeline, sadly, lives on.

    has the fbi been lying to various persons? (none / 0) (#204)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 11:13:47 PM EST
    abc has a news story about amerine, who apparently was falsely accused by the fbi of leaking classified information to congressional staff.

    Supposedly the fbi knew at the time that the information he was sharing was not classified but they made false allegations in order to put the fellow in his place . . .

    If anything like this is true, why are these people who tell such lies in the employ of the FBI?


    why we should vote for Trump (none / 0) (#205)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Nov 02, 2015 at 11:16:59 PM EST
    I see here that Trump is letting us know he is better looking that marco Rubio . . .

    Well, what a relief!

    I should I might decide whom to root for on more complicated criteria . . . like how they answer questions in debates . . . or how their plans stack up under scrutiny . . .

    "Welcome to Weedstock" (none / 0) (#206)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Nov 03, 2015 at 01:48:49 AM EST
    New York Times reporter Henry Alford's dispatch from the National Cannabis Summit, held recently in Denver, Colorado.

    Eager to know whether the gonzo entrepreneurial zeal exhibited by the summit's attendees was an accurate reflection of the pot industry as it already exists, I took it upon myself, during my five days in Denver, to go to dispensaries and express my very, very specific needs.

    At the Medicine Man dispensary on my first day, I told a "budtender" that I wanted to feel like "Tiny wings have emerged from my nape and ankles." Without missing a beat, he directed me to a sativa-indica hybrid with the strangely governmental-sounding name G6.

    Two days later, I told a Euflora dispensary budtender -- a Rebel Wilson type with lots of tattoos -- "I am in a Peter Jackson movie, and my tunic is made of beast." She unblinkingly recommended the sativa-dominant hybrid Outer Space, saying, "It'll match all that creativity you've already got going on, and take you even further, my dear." On my last day, I told a Green Cannabis budtender, "Cobblestones, elf dander: Sausalito." He sold me a powerful indica called Leeroy.

    - Henry Alford, The New York Times, October 30, 2015

    Syndergaard? (none / 0) (#207)
    by Nemi on Tue Nov 03, 2015 at 06:24:23 AM EST
    Looks/sounds like an anglicisation of a common Nordic surname Søndergaard, meaning SouthFarm. His nickname Thor seems to point in the same direction. But probably just a coincidence ... or some by now 'ancient' connection. :)

    et al (none / 0) (#208)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 03, 2015 at 09:26:00 AM EST
    Mr. Natural:
    Not sure, really, what your definition of disintegrate is if that picture wasn't it.

    That is disintegration of part of the airframe. It is not of the total aircraft. If that had happened the aircraft would not have survived and landed.

    MT - You're just spouting your usual anti-war stuff. I repeat. Mentioning the surge in Iraq sullies no one.

    Scott, it may have been a failure in your mind but it was a fairly peaceful until your Prince Charming jerked out the troops and midwifed ISIS.

    anne , there is now a third video.

    Donald - The debris is spread over 8 square miles. Looking more and more like a bomb.

    Which is it, dog? (none / 0) (#209)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 03, 2015 at 10:37:18 AM EST
    high-and-tight is a pitcher's prerogative or it got away from him? Or maybe it was both plus the lights were in his eyes..

    Get real, 98 mph at a batter's head has always been a non-no. The Mets are lucky they didn't wind up being blamed for instigating the first bench-clearing brawl in World Series history.

    Keystone (none / 0) (#210)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 03, 2015 at 10:43:43 AM EST

    Is Keystone Dead

    I was wrong, Capt. about Keystone. (none / 0) (#211)
    by caseyOR on Tue Nov 03, 2015 at 11:50:01 AM EST
    TransCanada has asked the feds to stop considering its application, for now. TransCanada has not, however, thrown in the towel.

    What seems likely is that TC believes they have a better chance of prevailing if the wait until there is a new president, one they have, hopefully, managed to put in office by spending tons and tons of money to get a Republican elected.

    So, Keystone down, but not out.

    Down but not out (none / 0) (#212)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 03, 2015 at 12:14:28 PM EST
    But if they are hanging their hopes on a republican president,  well, you know .