Tuesday Night Open Thread

Jon Stewart is leaving the Daily Show this year. He's been there 16 years.

NBC has announced Brian Williams will be suspended for 6 months without pay.

What will it take to get the media to stop inserting auto-play videos in news articles, forcing us to watch and listen to their irrelevant and unappealing news announcers? We do know how to read. [More...]

And why do so many major media sites refuse to hire technical help for their websites so the screen size automatically adjusts to the devices used to view them? Not everyone reads the news on a smart phone. When the articles are so huge and start so far down the page I shut the window immediately and find another news source. (NBC and MSNBC are particularly difficult sites to read. Look at this article, it's pitiful, between the banners at the top, the blank space in the middle, and the autoplay video. I stopped reading them a year ago. )

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< R.I.P. Hostage Kayla Mueller | Obama Submits Draft of AUMF Against ISIS >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Brian Willams (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Feb 10, 2015 at 10:45:11 PM EST
    ...I don't think he should be fired for lying about stuff.  I think he should be fired for being useless.

    It's a non-issue... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 11:37:32 AM EST
    once we stop confusing actors and spokesmodels for journalists.  

    New Yorker: (none / 0) (#4)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 02:18:18 AM EST
    The Fact-Checked Adventures of Brian Williams

    In November of 2007, I boarded a Cadillac Escalade to attend the annual gala of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Not until I arrived at my destination did I realize that the driver had closed the door on my Armani coat. I was able to have it successfully dry-cleaned, but that was a close one.

    Life is cruel and he got lucky! (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 06:31:18 AM EST
    I'm reminded of the former (none / 0) (#13)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 06:35:42 AM EST
    whenever you post here.  👽

    Why six months? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 05:04:03 AM EST
    The statement from and NBC news was pretty harsh basically saying he's been caught lying multiple times.

    Why don't they just fire him?  

    I'm betting he resigns before the six months is over.  Since he's not getting paid during the suspension not sure what he gets out of hanging around.  Other than the fact that no other network or new thing organization will touch him with a 10 foot pole for the next few months.   Seems impossible that he would just get his chair back after six months since they will be trying out new talent in that spot.

    Amazing how fast this all happened.  In the matter of a week he's gone from the number one new show to basically being out of the industry.   I do feel a little sorry for him just because it would suck to have your career ruined so quickly.


    Talent (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 06:31:18 AM EST
    Seems impossible that he would just get his chair back after six months since they will be trying out new talent in that spot.

    I read that they are seeking someone who not only has prior experience in the modeling game, but who can also tap dance and do magic tricks.


    Nice (none / 0) (#16)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 09:15:28 AM EST
    You've bee on a roll lately.  :)

    And host Saturday Night Live. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 09:20:53 AM EST
    There are those who feel that Williams' moving outside the news world into entertainment is what put him on the path that ended in his humiliation.  

    I think what amazes me is that, in the (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 06:42:30 AM EST
    space of a week, Brian Williams can be essentially consigned to the trash heap for what amounts to sexing up the news to feed his own ego, and we still have not held accountable in any significant way either the elected officials who lied us into war, or the so-called journalists who cheerled for it.  In fact, many of the people involved have reaped - and continue to reap - obscene levels of profit from their involvement.

    Not that Brian Williams' multi-million dollar salary hasn't provided him with the means to live the rest of his life in comfort even if he never works another day of his life.  And not that he won't eventually find a way to not only be relevant again, but to do so in a way he can make money off of, but he does have a public humiliation factor that has been strikingly absent for those who lied the nation into war and more or less cemented us into a position we really haven't been able to extricate ourselves from.

    Here's the thing, though: Brian Williams hasn't been suspended because he confabulated himself into the stories he was reporting, he's been suspended because he represented a threat to NBC Universal's bottom line.  Bush/Cheney et. al. were never held accountable because too many of those who would have or should have been leading the accountability charge were part of it to some extent; their hands were not exactly clean, their glass houses were threatened.  And to demand accountability would have threatened presidential power.

    Oh, well.  It won't take six months for the nation to forget Brian Williams; the rudest awakening for him won't be the humiliation of losing his job, it will be finding out that he was never as important as he wanted to be or thought he was.


    Anne (none / 0) (#17)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 09:19:19 AM EST
    Apples and Oranges.

    You can't consrantly frame all issues of trust and lying based on what you think happened in the run-up to the Iraq war.

    Each issue should stand on its own as far as whether we trust people or not or people are lying. In the case of Brian Williams he exaggerated stories about himself in order to be more a part of the news and that violated the trust that a news anchor should have with his audience that he will always play it straight. Does this "lie" compare in anyway to what you think happened under Bush and Cheney?

    Of course not. But we are talking about something else and in this case Williams is getting what he deserves for violating the trust he had with his audience.


    No, Slado: priorities. (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 09:40:05 AM EST
    At some point, don't we have to decide whether we believe in the truth, whether we want truth to be what matters?  Are we just people who can't tell right from wrong without looking for something to compare it to?

    On the surface, what Brian Williams did isn't "as bad" as what Bush/Cheney did, or the things we know Obama/Biden has done and is doing.  But under the surface, what we have are people we don't and can't trust because they lie and manipulate the truth to their own ends.  

    My observation, though, was really more about why it is that Williams can be held accountable and our elected representatives can't.  Can you answer that question?


    Pretty Sure... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 10:00:04 AM EST
    ...Scooter Libby was convicted of Obstruction and Perjury related to outing a CIA agent in retaliation for her husbands outing of may lies related to that Iraq War.

    GWB commuted his sentence.

    Libby was Cheney's adviser.

    That is not opinion.  A CIA agent was outed for political retribution.  So yes it is apples and oranges in that Williams paid a higher penalty for telling a tale, while GWB ensured the person who outed a CIA agent served no time, which so happened to benefit himself and his giant lie lead us into a war, aka Yellowcake, which Wilson's husband uncovered.


    No Libby was convicted of (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 10:48:46 AM EST
    lying to a FBI agent which was obstruction.

    He did not out Plame. She was outed long before that supposedly happened and the Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald knew the same day that he took the job that Richard Amritage of the State Department was the one who did.

    The real unanswered question is why Fitzgerald continued to investigate after he knew about Armitage. The answer is simple. He had to have a corpse for the Demo's Trophy Case.

    Of course the secondary issue is that Plame, at the time Armitage outed her was no longer a "Secret Agent." A fact proven when the SP failed to charge Armitage for outing her.

    The Libby trial uncovered no plot hatched in the White House. The worst news Tuesday for firebrand Democrats was that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was going back to his "day job" (as U.S. attorney in Chicago). With no underlying crime even claimed, the only question was whether Libby had consciously and purposefully lied to FBI agents and the grand jury about how he learned of Mrs. Wilson's identity.

    While my column on Wilson's mission triggered Libby's misery, I played but a minor role in his trial. Subpoenaed by his defense team, I testified that I had phoned him in reporting the Wilson column and that he had said nothing about Wilson's wife. Other journalists said the same thing under oath, but we apparently made no impression on the jury.



    Wash & Rinse Jim (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 12:11:46 PM EST
    Thanks for making my point.

    You come swinging in a convicted liars defense, yet spent the last couple of days acting as if Williams fib was and I am quoting you 'transends politics'.


    Her notation on her July 8, 2003 meeting with Libby does contain the name "Valerie Flame [sic]", which she added retrospectively. While Miller reveals publicly that she herself had misidentified the last name of Wilson's wife (aka "Valerie Plame") in her own marginal notes on their interview as "Flame" instead of "Plame", in her grand jury (and later trial testimony), she remained uncertain when, how, and why she arrived at that name and did not attribute it to Libby:

       I was not permitted to take notes of what I told the grand jury, and my interview notes on Mr. Libby are sketchy in places. It is also difficult, more than two years later, to parse the meaning and context of phrases, of underlining and of parentheses. On one page of my interview notes, for example, I wrote the name "Valerie Flame." Yet, as I told Mr. Fitzgerald, I simply could not recall where that came from, when I wrote it or why the name was misspelled... I testified that I did not believe the name came from Mr. Libby, in part because the notation does not appear in the same part of my notebook as the interview notes from him.

    A year and a half later, a jury would convict Libby of obstruction of justice and perjury in his grand jury testimony and making false statements to federal investigators about when and how he learned that Plame was a CIA agent

    The point here is he was convicted of lying and perjury, then the sentence was commuted by GWB.

    Williams told a fat lie, and is currently out $6M and possibly a job.  Scooter is a conservative hero, worthy of you immediate defense.

    Yeah, no axes grinding in wingnutlandia.  Stop pretending that conservatives are appalled by lairs, it doesn't match reality in any way.

    I find his lie nearly the equivalent of people stating they are in military when they are not.  It was a disgraceful, but conservatives are acting like the guy should be drawn and quartered, yet not a peep when Libby, Dicks right hand man, is convicted and later a pass for lying to the FBI and Grand Jury.  

    Williams lied on Letterman, get some GD perspective.


    Bottom Line... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 03:34:02 PM EST
    ...today you are defending someone convicted of felony perjury and obstruction, lying to the FBI and Grand Jury.  Yes Monday and Tuesday you have lambasted Williams for lying on Letterman.

    The obvious conclusion, you believe conservatives get a pass on lying to authorities, even when they are convicted, and anyone working at a moderate network 'transcends politics' when lying on late night TV.

    This is why no one take you seriously.


    Nope (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 08:31:35 PM EST
    I am just pointing out that no persecutor should keep on trying to trap someone after he knows who did the crime.

    And I don't care if you do or do not take the facts seriously. That is your problem and not mine.

    BTW - How many people got to keep their doctor?

    And yes, Williams lied and no one tried to trap him.



    Yes, a Jury... (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 07:57:12 AM EST
    ...'trapped' Libby in 5 felonies.

    Let's remind Jim of the facts (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 08:45:40 AM EST
    Behind the convictions:

    Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald said on the courthouse steps that he felt "gratified" that the jury agreed with the government's case.

    "The results are actually sad," he said. "It's sad that we had a situation where a high-level official, a person who worked in the office of the vice president, obstructed justice and lied under oath. We wish that it had not happened, but it did."

    One juror, Denis Collins, said he and fellow jurors had little doubt after reviewing the evidence that Libby could not have forgotten how he learned Plame's identity -- the core of the defense's argument.

    "It just seemed very unlikely he would have forgotten that. There were just so many things," said Collins, a writer who worked as a Washington Post reporter in the 1980s. "That he could remember that fact on a Tuesday and forget it on a Thursday . . . didn't make sense."

    And when Williams is indicted for lying to the F.B.I., be sure to let us know.


    You ignore the basic point and (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 09:57:29 AM EST
    rely on twisted logic designed to give cover to the SP.

    Libby should never have been interviewed. Fitzgerald knew that:

    Armitage was the person who leaked Plame's name.

    Armitage's actions were not a crime. A fact proven by the SP not prosecuting anyone for the leaking.

    A fairly good analogy of this would be the FBI knowing who had robbed a bank interviewing a teller and then claiming the teller lied about the clothes the robber wore...and prosecuting the teller and never charging the robber!!!!!!!!!!!

    "If what Woodward says is so, will Mr. Fitzgerald now say he was wrong to say on TV that Scooter Libby was the first official to give this information to a reporter?" Jeffress said last night. "The second question I would have is: Why did Mr. Fitzgerald indict Mr. Libby before fully investigating what other reporters knew about Wilson's wife?"

    Washington Post

    'Nuff said. I'm done here. No need to keep showing undisputed facts.


    Libby was caught lying (none / 0) (#99)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 10:27:28 AM EST
    and, as an officer of the court, knew full well the consequences of doing so. Your discredited theory about Armitage does not change that fact.

    And if you read the transcript of the Fitzpatrick press conference, you can read between the lines that the reason he didn't bring an indictment because of lack of evidence, which the last time I checked, is needed to bring a case to trial.

    FITZGERALD: This grand jury's term has expired by statute; it could not be extended. But it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing.

    Let me then ask your next question: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.

    If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, "I've got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can."

    You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between.

    You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back and it hit him in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it under his chin, but it ended up hitting him on the head.

    FITZGERALD: And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know.

    And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, "Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it."

    In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.

    And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?

    FITZGERALD: Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?

    And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

    As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

    So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.

    I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.

    This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

    "Undisputed facts" - Heh (none / 0) (#104)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 07:10:33 PM EST
    Not only are your "facts" not facts, but calling them "undisputed" is almost as ridiculous as that silly, convoluted attempt at an "analogy".

    Armitage, Rove and Libby were all leaking Plame's name to reporters before Novak outed her in his column.  They all leaked her name, and Libby committed perjury to cover it up.


    Well..see, Libby only lied to the FBI (none / 0) (#36)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 12:43:32 PM EST
    ..in a case in which no one had ever, at any time, done anything wrong to begin with..

    which makes you wonder why the FBI even took the trouble to question him about a non-existent crime..

    I'm sure another Moonie Times Op-Ed will supply the elusive, definitive answer..


    Again, no (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 01:41:55 PM EST
    Libby was never charged with outing Plame.

    I merely pointed out that he didn't out Plame.

    I then pointed out that the SP KNEW the name of the person, Armitage, and did before Libby was interviewed.

    Since the SP knew, when why was Libby interviewed? Because they were desperate to convict somebody of something. Libby should have never have said anything. Any lawyer will tell you that.

    I also noted the fact that Fitzgerald didn't charge Libby or Fitzgerald with outing Plame proves that she was not a "secret agent" at that point in her career.

    Bush commuted his sentence. He didn't pardon him.

    Bush should have pardoned him.

    And before you start with the wild claims please get your facts straight.


    Funny, Jim (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 02:37:41 PM EST
    most would say you're going through all kinds of contortions to minimize the actions of a convicted liar who, in the interests of carrying out a cheap political hit, enabled a national security breach.

    If Obama's people had done something similar, you'd be screaming Treason! the way you were (impotently) screaming Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! a few months ago.  


    Sadly Jondee (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 08:26:48 PM EST
    many would say you are ignoring the facts to try and keep an incorrect political alive.

    Novak is funny (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 04:54:20 PM EST
    Not as funny as you, but close.

    All three of them were leaking her name and identity to the press, waiting to get a reporter to bite.  While Armitage was Novak's primary source for Plame's identity, Rove confirmed the information Armitage divulged, as Novak himself has admitted, before this information was published (i.e. before she was "outed").  Libby was also pitching his leak to reporters, but he just failed to get a bite

    BTW - Fitzgerald himself explained in the sentencing memorandum why he continued the investigation and it has nothing to do with your silly, evidence-free claim:

     [I]t is undisputed but of no moment that it was known early in the investigation that two other persons (Richard Armitage and Karl Rove) in addition to Mr. Libby had disclosed Ms. [Plame] Wilson's identity to reporters, and that Messrs. Armitage and Rove were the sources for columnist Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 column, which first publicly disclosed Ms. Wilson's CIA affiliation. The investigation was never limited to disclosure of Ms. Wilson's CIA affiliation to Mr. Novak; rather, from the outset the investigation sought to determine who disclosed information about Ms. Wilson to various reporters, including -- but not limited to -- Mr. Novak.


    To accept the argument that Mr. Libby's prosecution is the inappropriate product of an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, one must accept the proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information about covert agent Valerie [Plame] Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice President. To state this claim is to refute it. Peremptorily closing this investigation in the face of the information available at its early stages would have been a dereliction of duty, and would have afforded Mr. Libby and others preferential treatment not accorded to ordinary persons implicated in criminal investigations.


    Standard business move ... (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 09:20:37 AM EST
    because it allows them to walk it back, without reversing themselves, in the unlikely event they need to do that.

    But he was fired.  He knows that.  They know that.  All interested parties know it.

    There was a good dramatic version of this on "Mad Men".  In an episode that was appropriately titled "Six Month Leave".


    The six month suspension (none / 0) (#34)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 12:30:58 PM EST
    might suggest he is going into psychological treatment of some kind.  Is chronic and/or compulsive confabulation a treatable disorder?  Or is it just a symptom of an essentially non-treatable narcissistic personality disorder?

    I think it more likely that NBC is (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 12:50:02 PM EST
    hoping 6 months is long enough for Williams to get lost in the memory hole and for whoever is still sitting in the anchor chair in 6 months to have helped erase the stain that put NBC's profits at risk.

    Is that too harsh?

    It's possible NBC does believe it needs to show it has a commitment to the truth, but I can't put that together with their utter and ongoing failure to stop manipulating and self-censoring information and holding those they are reporting on accountable, instead of thinking that as long as they report "both sides" they have done their jobs.


    I Keep Imagining... (none / 0) (#39)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 01:03:08 PM EST
    ...Williams like Ron Burgundy after he was fired, beard, drinking, and yelling nonsensically at the TV.  But when they finally give him the call, bam, looking perfect in 10 seconds or less.

    Classic! Now I wonder if there is an NBC... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 01:51:48 PM EST
    equivalent to the Chris Parnell character, Garth Holliday.

    Garth: "You were my hero Ron! Why'd you have to say that? You come out with stink like that..."
    [Starts to cry]
    "Poop. You poopmouth, with poop out of your mouth!"

    Ron: "Garth, if I would give you some money out of my wallet, would that ease the pain?"

    Now that you've got me thinking about it, there are some striking similarities between our favorite jazz flutist and Brian Williams.


    Chuck Todd... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 03:19:05 PM EST
    ...without a doubt.

    Maybe the rest of the Channel 4 news team will take Williams out for new suits to cheer him up.

    I know, for a fact, that Chris Mathews wears Sex Panther cologne.


    LOL! (none / 0) (#60)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 03:32:27 PM EST
    Does the cologne give Chris Matthews a "tingle up his leg"?
    And forget the new suit.  I think that the rest of the news team, at this point, wants nothing more than to distance themselves from Williams, while angling for his anchor job.   ;-)

    Sex Panther...by Odeon (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 03:52:06 PM EST
    60% of the time, it works every time.

    Maybe Scott "Frank Vitchard" Pelley and the other dirtbags over at Channel 2 can finally end their streak of third place for 5 years running.


    Smart Money is on... (none / 0) (#85)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 08:11:41 AM EST
    In my life, I've known two pathological liars, (none / 0) (#41)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 01:12:17 PM EST
    both of whom had really remarkable abilities to seamlessly integrate fiction into the narrative of their lives.

    They would lie about anything, pointless, ridiculous, unprofitable lies, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence contradicting their assertions.   For instance, one of the two claimed she'd made some pottery.  On the bottom were someone else's clearly glazed initials.  What was the point?  I don't know if their lying met a clinical definition or if there even is one.  But something was off.

    Now, outside of a small circle of trusted people, like my wife, pretty much everything people say to me goes through the old b/s detector.  I'm always looking for an alternative or underlying explanation of what I'm told.

    Nobody has time for this.


    I Have a Pretty Good Friend... (none / 0) (#89)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 08:36:40 AM EST
    ...who is literally incapable of not lying.  IMO, it's a learned trait, he wasn't like that when I met him, but a decade of high pressure sales, and a heavy dose of low self esteem, and now it's a joke amongst friends, "Let me guess, D said..."

    But that's not Williams, Williams did what we all do at some point, you are sitting there telling a story and all of sudden, you are like why did I just say that, that is not how it went down, WTF ?  Fortunately for us, we can retract or explain because we aren't on the TV.

    My friend that lies a lot would never admit it, he would believe he could talk his way out, and even if no one believes him, he would never admit it.  But its just easier to let it go because for some things its just too painful.  He is a good and kind person whose low self esteem allows his work, selling stuff, to lead over into his personal life.

    Does he need help, probably, but the guy knows everybody, he is popular and what is the harm.  We just use our on board software packages to translate what he says into reality.  For example, 'all the time' means a couple times at most, if he is right around the corner, he just got in his car.

    A pathological liar would never get near an anchor desk, IMO.


    Partly, it depends (none / 0) (#53)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 02:22:10 PM EST
    upon any underlying disorder, and a narcissistic personality disorder is not the only thing that can lead to compulsive lying.
    Theories about pathological lying/compulsive lying are all over the place.  There have been very, very few studies done on it, and it's not recognized as a disorder in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).
    One thing that most psychotherapists agree with, though, is that the person so afflicted has to want to and fully commit to changing.
    (But then, that's true of pretty much every mental or behavioral disorder.)

    RIP, Jerry Tarkanian (1930-2015), (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 02:20:38 PM EST
    The Hall of Fame college basketball coach, who built a dynasty at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas that culminated in a 1990 national championship, and later won a multi-million dollar settlement from the NCAA for what amounted to their decades-long persecution of him, died in Las Vegas this morning after an extended illness at age 84.

    America returns (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 03:10:10 PM EST
    to normalcy.   "The SpongeBob Movie:Sponge Out of Water," dethroned "American Sniper" at the box office this past weekend, after three weeks in which Sniper was three consecutive weekends in the top spot.  SpongeBob took in $56 million at the theaters; Sniper about $24 million (for a total of $282 million).  

    I just wish the media could stop (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 03:23:46 PM EST
    gushing over American Sniper - which they are doing again now that the Chris Kyle murder trial is getting underway.

    Jesse on the warpath! (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by lentinel on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 08:24:03 AM EST
    He has won a $1.8 million in a defamation lawsuit against Chris Kyle's estate.

    And now he's going after HarperCollins.


    It would be interesting if Ventura would enter the world of politics again.
    In my opinion, that is.


    Interesting and most welcomed... (none / 0) (#87)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 08:28:15 AM EST
    but I would think Jesse The Body's governorship soured him on representing arseholes like us, and I wouldn't blame him.  

    Who needs it?


    Who needs it? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by lentinel on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 11:22:16 AM EST
    We do!

    We're not the arseholes, in my humble opinion.

    We're citizens that are being taken advantage of by the powerful.

    We're just trying to live our lives.

    We're good.

    They, the powerful, are the arseholes.

    It's time we gave them the lack of respect that they deserve.


    Yes we do... (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 12:43:03 PM EST
    Jesse The Body does not...he's got his life to lead too.  He served the people of Minnesota, and all he got was grief...he's too good for the rackets.

    Damn... (none / 0) (#91)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 08:43:29 AM EST
    ...He looks so old.  

    He looks sharp, and is it just me or does he look like LBJ ?


    Finding a Jury... (none / 0) (#62)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 03:38:30 PM EST
    ...that is impartial at this point doesn't seem possible.  "That is the guy who killed Superman"

    UNC students (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 04:03:19 AM EST
    A horrible crime committed by a deranged man.

    Is this a hate crime or an argument over parking?

    I worry the media will speculate a narrative of a hate crime but it does seem unlikely that it could have absolutely nothing to do with it.  Hopefully the police will be allowed to do their job and not have this turn into a war of rhetoric.  

    I Am Positive... (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 09:08:32 AM EST
    ...you are anything but sincere.  The closer I look at your posts the more I realize you are getting feeds, no way you just happen to pick this story and 'worry' it may be a hate crime.

    Do you know how many people get shot sand killed each day and you just happen to pick this story because you are concerned.  "War of rhetoric", that did not come from your head.

    From your faux 'what is net neutrality' in the AM, to declaring it a 300 page government behemoth overreach by noon.  Same with pensions, "what do we do" and you already made up your mind.  I think you are faking concern so you can plant right wing propaganda.

    You drop these slanted stories like 'hate crime or maniac', then never really address the replies.   At some point you will say something like, 'It's hard to tell, but clearly the guy doesn't hate Muslims', never addressing the actual replies.  

    Your 'bad pension' bit yesterday is a classic example, you just refuse to acknowledge any argument made and blather on about a special court to screw seniors out of their pensions.

    You are a disingenuous and I believe being directed on what to post here and how to do it.


    You're right Scott (2.00 / 1) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 07:40:16 PM EST
    Slado is my link slave.....

    Of course the story was in a lot of papers this AM where his wife said that her husband had been in conflict with a lot of different people and that it wasn't... are you ready???... a religious thing...Plus he is an atheist.

    Sorry Slado but we've been outed. Maybe the FBI will investigate to find out how Scott knew.



    Jim... (4.25 / 4) (#111)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 09:25:43 AM EST
    ...you are giving yourself way too much credit by implying you are at the same intellectual level as Slado.  I don't like his disingenuous posts, but he is miles ahead of you.

    Your just a child a who closes his eyes and screams bloody murder.  There is no originality in you, you simply repeat others.


    Scott,don't push it or else I will (none / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 10:22:09 AM EST
    send my other secret agent and have him sprinkle holy water on you while throwing open the windows of your crept to the sun.



    Living in a red state (none / 0) (#114)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 10:38:00 AM EST
    is punishment enough, IMHO.  👽

    Uh (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 05:28:09 PM EST
    Sometimes (none / 0) (#116)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 06:43:45 PM EST
    I just go nuts.

    Link NSFW.


    Why such a personal attack? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Slado on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 05:52:10 PM EST
    I post these to get a conversation started.  Isn't that the point of the blog?

    If you don't want to engage then don't.

    Take it easy dude.  I was going to comment that it's interesting how this coverage hasn't gone the Ferguson route and has actually been quite subdued but instead I've got to waste a post on your personal attack on me.  

    I've been posting here for Ten years.  TL has never complained.

    I'd love to comment on your posting style but I usually try not to do that because when it becomes personal or emotional the debate is over.

    Your post meant the debate or subject was over.  

    Thanks for ruining it.


    You Are Welcome (none / 0) (#118)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 17, 2015 at 08:46:37 AM EST
    For ruining your slanted story and that a racist couldn't be painted in a 'deranged man' corner.

    Philly to host Democratic convention (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 08:35:57 AM EST
    Party at Peter G's house!

    And in other news, ... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 01:01:22 AM EST
    ... Jon Stewart has announced that he'll be leaving "The Daily Show" at the end of the year.

    The show is just airing here in Hawaii right now.

    Well that sucks (none / 0) (#5)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 04:29:45 AM EST
    I watch it for him as much as the content.

    For me that will probably do it.   Tough double whammy for Comedy Central.


    ... Gov. Sam Brownback wants everyone to know that he's focusing like a laser beam on his state's LGBT public employees.

    Pension Crisis (none / 0) (#6)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 04:44:33 AM EST
    Interesting Survey from Reason Magazine about public vs private pension holders opinion on what to do with the 4 trillion in future pension debt we face.

    The big issue for me is how do you decide between breaking a promise or putting the taxpayers on the hook for the consequences of those bad promises.   By bad I mean over promises by the politicians that they could never deliver on in the long run.  

    Obviously a mix of pension reform and more tax revenue is the answer but both sides tend to dig in once solutions start getting discussed.  Which means local or state services get the ax to pay for the debt and we all lose.

    How much per taxpayer per year would taxes (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 05:15:29 AM EST
    have to be raised to make the pensions whole? That is some vital information needed to make a decision about whether I would favor raising taxes or breaking a promise.  Along with some information about why there is a shortfall - was pension money lost in bad investments promoted by investment bankers, based on doctored ratings?  Seems to me the raise taxes vs break promises is a false dichotomy. There might be some fraud recovery options too, if we had a government that was not in bed with the people stealing all of our retirement money. If the people in the poll think their own 401s are safe they better think again.

    Unfortunately I think each case has its own story (none / 0) (#9)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 05:50:27 AM EST
    So for me the only way to adjudicate this fairly is to establish some sort of special court or arbitrator that can be as non-partisan as possible to make these decisions.

    From my political point of view a lot of the public pension issues arise from the fact that you had similarly interested parties negotiating these deals. Meaning since public unions donate so much money to the same politicians they negotiated these deals with they tended to be pretty generous and as were seeing unsustainable over the long run.  

    However the responsibility ultimately lies with the politicians and the government as a whole because nobody made them make these deals.

    Problem for the taxpayer is now many of those politicians are gone and the deals they made are not.

    It's hard to ask the taxpayers to bail out the politicians but we have to live with the government we elected and the government we elected made these deals and ultimately all the unions did was get the best deal possible for their workers, hard to fault them for that even though those deals are bankrupting the governments they work for.  As with most things people didn't want to see what was coming.

    So while I'd love to say no tax revenue should be raised, all that really means is let's take money from some other social or government service to pay this off.  

    Since both parties take extreme positions a non-partial arbitrator or bankruptcy judge seems the only way to do this with any sort of fairness.


    The problem (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 06:22:52 AM EST
     stems mostly from pure theft. When the conservative's laffler nonsense fails to produce sufficient revenue they raid the pension funds. Add in the skimming and malfeasance of wall street and you create disaster. This is not about unsustainable deals, it is about the money being stolen or gambled away.

    As someone about to climb on the pension (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 09:32:35 AM EST
    gravy train I can only tell you how completely it would fvck up my life if it did not come.  I have been living like a church mouse, well, a hedonistic pagan church mouse, waiting for the pension light to come on.
    I would probably have enough money to "live" without it.  The quotes being the point.
    As much as I dislike the Disney Corp my work there, because of the local 839 not Disney Or Warner Brothers, will insure a comfortable retirement.
    I don't know what I would do if it did not come.
    1 yr 8 months.

    By Promises... (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 12:28:18 PM EST
    ...you mean contracts.

    4 trillion, come on, can you break it down per year, and maybe compare it to the past and industry pensions before you imply that the number is outrageous and that their pensions were bad decisions.  And this is for how many jurisdictions ?  Lumping everything into one, then acting like everything in that one is bad is disingenuous at best.

    First let's start with your pension before we do anything rash, and those funds you have planned your life and retirement around.  Lets cut them, then get back to you and figure out if they were bad ideas to begin with, or if you think the contracts entered upon employment should be honored.

    It's getting so old the way you present something as if you are concerned and open to ideas, but then write in away that that slants your predetermined belief.  It's not a given that these were bad ideas, start proving some of the claims you keep making.

    Lot of graphs on opinion, but non on actual numbers.


    It's not just a "promise," Slado. (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    Slado: "The big issue for me is how do you decide between breaking a promise or putting the taxpayers on the hook for the consequences of those bad promises."

    Fully funding the state's public employees pension system is a contractual obligation, which is incurred whenever the governor negotiates and signs a negotiated contract with those public employees on behalf of the citizens he or she was elected to represent, and the state legislature further approves that contract by providing for the funding its terms in the state budget.

    Therefore, it's clearly not a question of whether or not taxpayers will be on the hook for the pension deficits because legally, they're already on the hook. There is numerous federal case law on the books which underscores that a contractually defined benefit already accrued -- that is, has already been earned -- cannot be retroactively rescinded at the sole discretion of the obligated party. You can only redefine such benefits prospectively.

    People need to realize that public employees have already fulfilled their obligations per terms of their present and past contracts with state and local governments, Thus, the actual question is whether or not taxpayers / government can or will default on such previously incurred obligations, which has huge potential consequences regarding not only those public employee contracts, but also other such public obligations as government bond issues, and government contracts with private providers for public services.

    The present discussion amongst conservatives per the issue of public employees pension funds has been entirely too glib from my perspective, in large part because it is based upon the entirely false premise -- as you repeated above -- that our obligations are merely some sort of vague promise which can be broken at whim, if only we had a leader with some cojones who would dare to do so.

    One actually needs to really and fully consider what it might mean if our government's word can no be regarded in good faith, particularly as it pertains to its debt obligations. That would have potentially catastrophic reverberations not only in our own economy, but throughout the entire world as well.



    Contractual obligations (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 01:44:09 PM EST
    are often meaningless when the company goes Chapter 11 and or 7.

    Ask ex Eastern Airline pilots.


    Excuse me, Jim, but ... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 02:01:11 PM EST
    ... that's one of the dumbest things you've said thus far today.

    State and local governments are most assuredly NOT the equivalent of Eastern Airlines. A government cannot simply default on its contractual obligations without consequence. What are local taxpayers then to do --  acquiesce to a collective liquidation?

    If you want to be taken seriously, then stop playing the fool.


    But then, Donald, what will (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 02:23:12 PM EST
    jim do with these?

    You're right, Donald (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 02:27:39 PM EST
    But perhaps Jim meant to say, if a state or local government wants to renege on it's contractual obligations, it should first have to declare bankruptcy.
    Which most state and local governments would be very loath to do, given the unpleasant and ongoing repercussions.

    Detroit (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 07:55:01 PM EST
    did it.  Pensions weren't affected as much as feared, but they did take a hit.

    ... to be rated at junk bond status, by all means they should declare bankruptcy. Then, I wish them the best of luck trying to get financing at fair market rates for necessary capital improvement projects, such as road repair or school upgrades. Detroit's going to pay a steep price for having taking that step, but I suppose it was a logical conclusion, given its history of fiscal irresponsibility.

    Spoken like someone who has governed :) (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 09:16:46 PM EST
    Yep. For two decades. (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 09:55:12 PM EST
    And I still like to keep my hand in there. The state budget is the most important bill any legislature will consider during its session.

    I learned all about drafting state budgets from a true master, Sen. Mamoru Yamasaki of Maui, who served as chair of the Ways and Means Committee for the better part of a quarter-century. He drilled into my head the difference between capital and operating budgets and public payroll, and between general obligation bonds, special purpose revenue bonds, special funds and general revenues.

    And Sen. Yamasaki was a real stickler when it came to things like the state's debt obligations and debt service, and he would refuse to authorize the financing of a project without proponents having first figured out a realistic long-term plan to actually pay for it and / or sustain it.

    You don't pay for capital improvements with general revenues, which can create a severe cash shortfall, and you don't pay for basic government operations by putting those expenses out to bond, which is what both Gov. Christy Todd Whitman (R-NJ) and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) did.

    And Sen. Yamasaki implored us to NEVER defer payment on the state's pension obligations for even one fiscal year in order to free up cash, because as he rightly noted, such deferred obligations have a nasty tendency to pile up very quickly -- as they have in New Jersey over the past two decades, to the tune of $83 BILLION!

    (To put that in some perspective, New Jersey's unfunded public pension liability is six times the size of the entire biennial budget of the State of Hawaii.)



    Indeed it is (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 10:32:38 PM EST
    Part of that is due to a change in how they calculate the unfunded liability, which caused it to jump from $37.3 billion to $82.8 billion at the end of last year.  The biggest reason for the unfunded pension liability, as you note, is due to the fact that - starting with Gov. Whitman - the state stopped contributing its share to the plan to pay for her tax cuts.  Just two years ago, Christie made a deal to increase the state contributions in exchange for state employees paying more into the system, then he promptly reneged.


    I'm confused about Hawaii, though.  I thought you guys were in even worse shape than us.

    Twenty-one states' aggregate funded ratios fell below 70 percent, which Morningstar considers the threshold for fiscally-sound funds. When measuring liability per capita, Alaska, Illinois and Hawaii recorded the highest amounts.

    Yes, Detroit did (none / 0) (#73)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 08:57:35 PM EST
    But it wasn't a very pleasant time for many of its citizens, to say the least.

    Yes, but it has been done. (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 08:36:11 PM EST
    Yes, but that is (none / 0) (#71)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 08:46:20 PM EST
    the only time they should be able to modify or reduce their contractual obligations.

    I'm not sure I disagree IF (2.00 / 1) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 09:42:01 AM EST
    they take realistic actions now to reduce the problem going forward.

    That would include reducing all benefits of current and future employees going forward from a certain date. This has been done on the private world.

    The above assumes that the plans are out of line as compared to private plans for equivalent work. And yes, that would be difficult.

    If they don't take steps then we need some new laws.


    I would actually have very little problem (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Zorba on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 09:57:21 AM EST
    If municipalities and states reduced benefits for future employees.  Those future employees could decide if they want to take those jobs or not.
    Reducing benefits of current employees is more problematical, depending upon what their contracts say.  It's changing the rules in midstream.  I don't think it's acceptable to abrogate existing contracts, whether an entity is public or private.  The contracts first need to be re-negotiated.
    Reducing the benefits of retirees is totally unacceptable, absent a legal declaration of bankruptcy and oversight by the appropriate court.

    Not by a state government, Jim. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 08:47:30 PM EST
    Unless, of course, you're talking about state governments that were part of the Confederate States of America, whose debts were swept away -- along with those governments' very existence -- by the Union's triumph in the American Civil War.

    Again??? (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 09:36:10 AM EST
    But I think you know what I wrote.

    Maybe we should pull all the military out of Hawaii and let you folks survive in a totally vacationer economy.


    Think so, Jim? (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 07:33:46 PM EST
    Maybe we should stop sending a disproportionate share of our federal tax dollars (including military spending) to all those red "taker" states who complain about welfare programs and high taxes while living on the dole.  Frankly, as a New Jerseyan I'm tired of getting taxed to support all those free-loaders in the welfare states like Tennessee.

    You just might be onto something.


    Oth, boys and girls, that's scary! (none / 0) (#96)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 09:50:22 AM EST
    What will we do about the threat from Fiji and the Samoas if we let that happen?

    Where Am I Gonna Get... (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 10:38:30 AM EST
    ...my 'Made in the USA' clothes at Chinese prices if the military doesn't protect the Tom Delay sweat shops in the Mariana Islands ?

    From the same place (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 07:26:42 PM EST
    you get your Pelosi Tuna.

    More silly myths/lies (none / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 07:37:19 PM EST
    Care to try again, Jim?

    on the Pelosi lies.

    Jim... (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 08:32:56 AM EST
    ...you are batting .000 in this thread, DAMN!

    Per Reason (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 06:40:05 AM EST
    that's government pensions.

    Because they are guaranteed, taxpayers are on the hook regardless of how well government and the employees contribute or how well the market performs.

    Evidently the authors have never heard of just saying "No."

    Plus they kinda ignore private defined pensions:

    In contrast, private sector workers generally save for retirement with 401-k style retirement accounts based on what they and their employer contribute and market returns. In other words, private sector employees are responsible for their own retirement savings.

    There is a funded agency that protects a certain percent of private funds.

    Looks like the government needs to start looking at something similar. Note the "certain percent." It has a cap.


    Government cannot retroactively ... (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 01:50:26 PM EST
    ... amend or rescind the defined benefits already accrued by public employees, which were previously incurred by said government under the terms of a contract to which it is an obligated party. It can only seek to redefine those benefits prospectively in future collective bargaining agreement with those public employees.

    Therefore, any further discussion otherwise on your part is a nonstarter legally, because your premise has no factual basis in the law.



    Chicago Little League (none / 0) (#20)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 09:26:49 AM EST
    championship team stripped of title

    Once again something from Chicago living down to its reputation.

    I wish the crown would go (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 12:38:33 PM EST
    to the Taney Dragons -- the highly integrated Philadelphia urban team with the all-star female pitcher, Mo-ne Davis -- whom Chicago J.R. beat in the semi-finals, but I suppose it has to go instead to that all-white southern team (IIRC) they beat in the finals.

    Philly team, the Philly team could have won and then gone on to win the final over the Vegas team which has now been declared the champs.

    Amazing to me that grown adults would concoct such a coordinated plan to deceive and cheat in youth sports, but that's the way it is.


    That is the way it is (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 01:48:14 PM EST
    You should see coaches try to hide the number of innings/pitches a star pitcher has pitched so he can use him in the next game.

    That the rule is designed to protect the kid's arm is meaningless to such a**holes.

    Of course when they get called on it... it is always just a "mistake" and they are just so happy you brought it to their attention.


    We had a sports scandal out here about a decade ago, when a local private high school had won the state boys' basketball championship, only to be stripped of the title two months later after it was learned that school officials had doctored the birth certificates of its two 6'11 star players, who were twin brothers from Sweden.

    Seems that the boys were actually 20 years old, and not 17 as had been contended, and they were thus ineligible to compete. Big difference between a 20-year-old and a 17/18-year old when it comes to competitive team sports like basketball.

    The public high school whose team lost in the title game refused to accept the crown and trophy after the championship was vacated. Both that school's coach and its principal said publicly, with a heavy dose of sarcasm, that if their opponents wanted a championship so badly that they were willing to cheat like that in order to get it, then let the state high school athletic association require that they put that trophy on public display in the center of campus, so that students, parents and alumni alike could express their marvel at such a dubious achievement.

    Honestly, what do these numbnuts think they're teaching children, when they engage in this sort of dishonesty to gain an advantage in a kids' athletic contest?



    Having been a little coach for a number of years (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 07:33:47 PM EST
    I can tell you they don't think.

    Even worse, many of them never played any organized sport and are reliving their youth through their kids.

    But the sad bad thing, almost as bad as showing the kids cheating is okay.. the pressure, etc., they put on the kids turn many of them off from sports.

    And I love what the public high school officials did.... But it was probably wasted on the &&&)*h99es.


    You know what they say (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 10:03:56 AM EST
    a little coach goes a long way.

    The crown doesn't have to go anywhere. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 01:23:50 PM EST
    Chicago's claim to it has been vacated, and the title of "champion" is left vacant.

    Endless War (none / 0) (#21)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 09:32:13 AM EST
    Obama seeking AUMF.

    They're trying not to make it sound hypocritical.

    But really?  Really?!?

    I look forward to all the spin from those who shoved his 2002 AUMF speech down our throats back in '08.

    I'm popping the corn in anticipation of that show.

    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 09:49:25 AM EST
    And they're trying not to make it sound open ended - which it is.

    And there is also language about troops.
    How they're going to have troops in place without putting their "boots on the ground" is the stuff of fantasy.

    Add to this that Obama is going to further delay withdrawal from Afghanistan.

    We knew, or could have known, all this about Obama going in.

    How so many went for his "change" mantra, and could even tout him as a "rock star" (just what we need..) is a subject worthy of deep thought in my opinion.

    If we can understand how so many fell for the p.r. blitz surrounding his candidacy, maybe we will have a chance to not make the same mistake again.

    Not that that would mean we wouldn't wind up with yet another corporatist war monger. But at least we wouldn't be kidding ourselves about the nature of what these two parties, (described by Lewis Black as a bowl of sh-t looking at itself in the mirror) are foisting upon us.


    Question (none / 0) (#24)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 09:42:29 AM EST
    In your opinion, when is military action by the US ever appropriate? Have there been any just military actions by the US, in your opinion ... and, also in your opinion, could the definition of a "just war" ever be met by the US in future?

    Note: This general and specific question is genuine, because the reported authorization request indicates that the question might be relevant for each of us.


    I used to like my popcorn ... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 09:54:00 AM EST
    with butter.  

    But now I prefer it with just a few shakes of a quality salt.


    Game -playing. (none / 0) (#29)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 10:51:49 AM EST
    Unrelenting Toadying. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 11:04:00 AM EST
    I see no answer to the question I posed (none / 0) (#40)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 01:08:09 PM EST
    So ... who is toadying or playing adolescent games with whom?  Sometimes, we all have to think and rethink where we stand in matters of import before we jump to our conclusions.  We all should be asking questions, every kind of question that comes to mind when contemplating the potential direction suggested by international news today.

     Personally, I do not fall in line with any direction because of preformed conclusions ... the old school of questions, answers, and extensive discussions--in any event--are superior to a spitball throwing response to matters that we might want to avoid. An example of a legislative leader not leaping headlong in any preformed direction today--imo--is House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who has a good history of acting with reason in most political-military matters; Pelosi remarked today that whatever direction is taken should be quite "narrowly tailored" to the nature & threat of ISIL.  By most international standards over the decades, her outlook here seems measured and appropriate.


    Christi, these are my thoughts. (none / 0) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 02:11:21 PM EST
    President Obama's position is that he does not need Congressional authority to continue its military campaign in the MIddle East.  His seeking of a formal and retroactive authorization to fight ISIS appears to be an effort to tamp down some Congressional voices, such as that of Senator Tim Kaine's and Senator Jeff Fluke.

    I do not believe that the Administration is correct; at best, it is doing some major gymnastics to make existing authorizations fit the  ISIS bill.  However, our country will likely be much better off taking the Administration at its word, than to enter into any new war authorization--one that I see as ending in tears.  

    This is a particularly bad time to authorize anything that may expand or extend war making.  The Republican Congress does not agree with anything the president does in foreign policy except making a lot of war. The McCain and Lindsey mentality, such as it is, abound. As authorizations go, nothing is better than something.  

    The hope for some common sense will reside with Democrats--there are some prospects here, but, when all is said and done, the wrong things will be said and done.  

    The President's resolution requests authority to wage battle beyond fighting ISIS to include "associated forces." Now that sure opens up a big can of worms.  And, it would contain no geographic boundaries. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan. And, given the trend for any thuggish Jihadist group to attach itself, however loosely to ISIS, sharing mutual affection for beheadings, the Authorization could be used to address bands of Islamist militants in Libya, Yemen, Phillipines and.... the globe.  

    The proposed authorization has a sunset in three years, covering the beginning of the next Administration.  While it does repeal the 2002 Iraq AUMF, which is acknowledged as having been outdistanced by time and events, it does not repeal the 200l AUMF based on 9/11 and terrorism.  The 200l AUMF remains a fall-back for the sunset of the new authorization. Wars started can continue.  

    And, if the Middle East and the globe is not enough, we have the very dangerous prospect of providing lethal arms to Ukraine.  To fight rebels (i.e., Russians).   No, lets stay with the stretched rubber band with which we are now bombing and advising, and, so we are told,  making headway.  


    The phrase "associated forces" (none / 0) (#63)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 03:40:26 PM EST
    is troubling, indeed. As you say, it could be any ragtag group ... driving a truck through that loophole can be seen coming.  I agree that it is too broad.

    Your point about staying with the old "authorization" rather than adding yet another is a good point because it could easily be said to add more authority rather than limit it.  That is a tough one because the argument for spelling out what is allowed in a clear, limited new version is somewhat persuasive ... but, then, the present version has obvious loopholes.  The benefit of direct discussion in Congress could be to tighten and--ala Pelosi--narrowly draw any authorization.

    The argument for a narrow, new authorization rather than a vague, stretched one--imo--has to do with positioning.  Your first paragraph refers to that in an internal policy sense ... but, the presentation of a unified US would be helpful for those supportive countries who might need to see it for their own internal dynamics and important for a broader message.  The conundrum, of course, centers on the ensuing question: How is that message of a united country best delivered?


    Because of your puffery (none / 0) (#66)
    by Politalkix on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 07:40:54 PM EST
    one could easily mistake you for the popcorn.

    Here is a transcript of that speech link

    From his speech
    Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

    .....What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war......

    .....That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics...... "

    There are plenty of good reasons to oppose the AUMF that the President has asked for. I believe that one can make these points in a sober and truthful way without resorting to the kind of puffery and dishonesty that you displayed in your post.


    J, the NBC article linked to above (none / 0) (#47)
    by ZtoA on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 01:49:35 PM EST
    looks just fine on my laptop. On my phone it is much more of a visual mess. Why do companies not know they need, absolutely need, to pay attention to design and visuals? Didn't they learn anything from Steve Jobs?

    People are born with visual literacy, yet it is often discounted even while being heavily relied upon. Odd.

    What really irks me is all the moving ads on the right sides of some sites. Sometimes one starts to play -including the audio- and instead of scrolling down to find the offending ad, I just close the tab. I hate the popups too. I could turn them off on my other computer but on my laptop I want to see how sites manage their visual designs. Tells me a lot about the site.

    All the flashing visuals may not really be communicating with a younger crowd either. They have been inoculated against it. TL is one of the best designed sites around. Congrats! It is clean, well organized information, professional looking without looking pretentious. Great amount of dead space too.

    Nevertheless TL works better on my desktop (which I use mainly for banking and image processing and image storage. The 'parent' button does not work on my laptop. This could be, in part, because my laptop, as well as my old van, are 'pro-choice' machines. They choose when to work (the windshield wipers will make a swipe or two whenever my van decides it might be fun to) and I thank them when they do make that choice. At least none of those choices are dangerous.

    Bob Simon (none / 0) (#77)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 09:34:25 PM EST
    a great reporter for CBS News, was killed in a car accident today.

    He was a real reporter.

    I will miss him.

    Full story here.

    That's horrible news. (none / 0) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 11, 2015 at 10:07:11 PM EST
    Bob Simon was an old school reporter in a medium that has placed ever-increasing emphasis on punditry. But he's left behind a wonderful legacy of outstanding work.

    Gotta wonder if Brian WIlliams will report (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 03:32:35 AM EST
    that he was on the crash scene, working the jaws of life, piloting the life-flight helicopter, assisting the emergency room surgeons in their failed effort... to save the life of a real journalist...

    With the February 15 deadline approaching (none / 0) (#83)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 07:37:31 AM EST
    The biggest surge in ObamaCare signups on the federal website are coming from conservative southern states.

    Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina and Mississippi have each seen 80 percent more signups compared to last year

    It's the new third rail... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 08:39:33 AM EST
    They were calling it (none / 0) (#103)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 05:59:49 PM EST
    Obama's Waterloo not to long ago, if the supremes rule against it this time it could be them playing Napoleon.