home

Tuesday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 08:22:42 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Voice is on fire this season. Incredible performers, and I'm glad to see Christina Aguilera back -- it's not really The Voice without her.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Indonesia President: Religious Tolerance Best Response to Terrorism | Indonesia: The Coffins Have Arrived, Widodo Holds Firm >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Night Open Thread | 201 comments (201 topical)
    UN veto rule harming civilians (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Politalkix on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 10:40:22 PM EST
    link

    Salil Shetty, the organisation's secretary general, said in a statement that the United Nations Security Council had "miserably failed" to protect civilians.

    Instead, the council's five permanent members - the UK, China, France, Russia and the US - had used their veto to "promote their political self-interest or geopolitical interest above the interest of protecting civilians," Mr Shetty said.

    Part of the solution would be those countries surrendering their Security Council veto on issues related to mass killing and genocide, Amnesty added.

    Brain Games... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 09:03:16 AM EST
    ...is a series on Netflix I started watching last night.  It, so far, examines how your senses trick you brain, and how your brain stores and retrieves data, and how that fragmented information is filled in by your brain, not using actual memory, but using the most logical data.

    Episode 3, I think, deals with eye witness recounts.  Fascinating.  They basically set-up 12 people at the park who were watching 3 card monte.  A staged crime occurred and they walked the 12 through the process, from first police report to sketch artist to the jury box.  They actually planted a guy who said he saw things that were never there.  It was shocking to see how many agreed and went on  to add details about the item.  12 people with a real incentive to select the right guy, did not fair well at all.

    I guessed the right guy, but only because I guessed.  I remembered one feature that millions have, but only 1 in the line-up had.  But in real life, with the criminal in plain sight, I would not have been able to positively identify them 20 mins after I saw it go down.  And I did better than the 12 on the TV who said they were positive it was who they said it was, aka the wrong cat.

    But beyond that they explain in detail why your brain and senses and memory are anything but accurate and why as time goes on the accuracy declines and how outside influences can alter memories.

    I had not (none / 0) (#9)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 09:29:09 AM EST
    heard of "Brain Games" - but your description makes me want to watch it.

    Is the episode 3 that you are referring to in the current 4th season?

    I intend to binge-watch - but I was curious to watch the episode you referred to first.

    I have been mesmerized by three card monte people - and the interaction with the public and their shills.

    A real psycho-drama.

    Parent

    Not Sure... (none / 0) (#21)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 01:54:40 PM EST
    ...but I started binge watching last night and I think the first episode will provide some of the groundwork for the following shows.  They are 30 mins.

    FYI, the first couple are narrated by NP Harris, and he does it well.

    Parent

    Ohhh.... (none / 0) (#24)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:08:22 PM EST
    It will take some effort for me to get past a NPH narration....

    His little turn at the Oscars - calling Edward Snowden a traitor - kinda closed the door on him for me...

    I'll try the show and try to blot him out of my awareness.

    From what you wrote, he only did the first couple of shows, so if I have to, I'll skip ahead a few.

    Parent

    Not Sure How Many... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 04:01:10 PM EST
    ...but I think episode 4 I noticed about half way through that it wasn't him.

    I didn't even notice at first, then I was like its NPH, who I happen to like, namely from the Harold and Kumar series.

    I don't think he'll be much of a distraction, as I  have this thing about voices, more so in animated movies.  I love figuring out who the voices are.  

    It's my special and useless talent.

    Parent

    As I understand it... (none / 0) (#54)
    by unitron on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 07:21:47 PM EST
    ...Harris said "Edward Snowden couldn't be here for some treason.", which is not exactly the same as out and out calling Snowden a traitor.

    It was obviously a pun on "for some reason", and could just as well have meant "couldn't be here because it would put him in danger of being arrested and charged with treason", without that necessarily being an acknowledgement that Snowden was actually guilty of that with which he might be charged.

    Parent

    I heard it... (none / 0) (#56)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 08:20:36 PM EST
    It was mean-spirited.

    If you thought it was a light-hearted pun, or believe in your alternate interpretation, so be it.

    But I heard it. Live.
    It was horrible.

    And, in my opinion, it doesn't even meet the definition of a "pun".
    It just rhymed with "reason".

    Lame, mean, and an affront to the film that had just won the Oscar, and the emotional acceptance speech by the recipients.

    Harris can go into a richly deserved oblivion.
    In my opinion.

    Parent

    Not Trying to Start Anything... (none / 0) (#101)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 08:43:06 AM EST
    ....but you wrote "calling Edward Snowden a traitor".

    No mention that it was a joke or a pun, bad as it was, he was still making a joke and never called Snowden a traitor.

    Parent

    Just (none / 0) (#68)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 09:03:09 PM EST
    watched the first episode of Brain Games.

    Fascinating.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    Good show (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jim in St Louis on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 09:30:22 AM EST
    Very informative TV series,  and a good reminder that our sense based reality can trick us.  

     We need to take what our senses show us and temper that with reason in order to reach the higher truths. Or at least that is what Plato used to say.

    Parent

    The Problem... (none / 0) (#25)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:08:47 PM EST
    ...is our brain is a liar.  According to the show, we only remember fragments of information.  But when it's recalled, the brain fills in the missing information, but not from memory, it decides on past experience the most logical information to use.

    Its great for speed and volume of data, horrible for actual details, like remembering a face you only saw for a second.

    Basically our brain does the exact opposite of what a juror is suppose to do.  It makes assumptions on facts not in evidence, aka jumping to conclusions.  It's a GD liar, that doesn't indicate what parts of memory were actual and which ones it manufactured.  Plus the GD thing can easily be talked into remember something that another person planted.

    I get why Fox News repeats lies again and again, eventually the brain just accepts that Saddamm was behind 9/11.  Not because people are dumb or susceptible, but because that is the way evolution designed it for animals that lived in the wild where processor speed was far more important than recountability accuracy.

    Parent

    So, how are we all feeling today about (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 11:06:25 AM EST
    our very own black-site-style prison in Chicago?

    The Chicago police department operates an off-the-books interrogation compound, rendering Americans unable to be found by family or attorneys while locked inside what lawyers say is the domestic equivalent of a CIA black site.

    The facility, a nondescript warehouse on Chicago's west side known as Homan Square, has long been the scene of secretive work by special police units. Interviews with local attorneys and one protester who spent the better part of a day shackled in Homan Square describe operations that deny access to basic constitutional rights.

    Alleged police practices at Homan Square, according to those familiar with the facility who spoke out to the Guardian after its investigation into Chicago police abuse, include:

        *  Keeping arrestees out of official booking databases.
        *  Beating by police, resulting in head wounds.
        *  Shackling for prolonged periods.
        *  Denying attorneys access to the "secure" facility.
        *  Holding people without legal counsel for between 12 and 24 hours, including people as young as 15.

    At least one man was found unresponsive in a Homan Square "interview room" and later pronounced dead.

    Charlie Pierce:

    But this is what can happen if you normalize torture in the public mind the way that the Avignon Presidency and its acolytes did and then, when a new administration comes in, it declines to prosecute the people involved and, indeed, it fights to keep secret what was done in the name of the American people. Authoritarians wear all kinds of uniforms, and they can convince themselves that almost everyone is a threat of some kind or another. This is now a country that tortures, and torture does not stop at the water's edge. It is a decision that was made for us, but it is a decision that nobody, not even the president the country elected twice, has chosen fully to reverse. This is a country that tortures. And we live with it.
    Torture (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:12:41 PM EST
    But this is what can happen if you normalize torture in the public mind the way that the Avignon Presidency and its acolytes did and then, when a new administration comes in, it declines to prosecute the people involved and, indeed, it fights to keep secret what was done in the name of the American people. Authoritarians wear all kinds of uniforms, and they can convince themselves that almost everyone is a threat of some kind or another. This is now a country that tortures, and torture does not stop at the water's edge. It is a decision that was made for us, but it is a decision that nobody, not even the president the country elected twice, has chosen fully to reverse. This is a country that tortures. And we live with it.

    This is essentially what I wrote when I wrote about the narrative of the show, "Scandal'. It normalizes torture in the public mind.

    Many other cop shows also feature torturing suspects for information, and none of them that I have seen have depicted the practice as less than effective.

    Parent

    Chicago Detective Shaped Gitmo Torture (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 11:53:30 PM EST
    Chicago Detective taught his trade at Gitmo.
    When Zuley took over the Slahi interrogation in 2003 - his name has gone widely unreported - he designed a plan so brutal it received personal sign-off from then-US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

    Part 1: Bad lieutenant: American police brutality, exported from Chicago to Guantánamo

    As Zuley's interrogation of Slahi was underway, [Geoffrey] Miller, the Army two-star general in charge of the Guantánamo detention center, traveled to Iraq at the behest of the Pentagon. He recommended that the US military "Gitmo-ize" Abu Ghraib, intensifying interrogations there. It is unknown if Zuley or the Slahi interrogation influenced that recommendation. The result is clearer: Antonio Taguba, the Army general who blew the whistle on Abu Ghraib, cited Miller's influence as a driver of what would become the US military's worst wartime scandal since My Lai.

    To this day, Slahi remains at Guantánamo, uncharged, living in a separate facility where he is allowed to garden and watch TV. A federal judge ordered him free in 2010, but Barack Obama's Justice Department has appealed; the case is stalled. It is unclear when, if ever, Slahi will be set free.

    Fallon, the former Guantánamo investigative task force deputy commander, remembered Miller and other "two-stars that wanted three stars" attempting to placate Fallon's dissatisfied, skeptical investigators by holding up Zuley as their very own law-enforcement veteran.

    Part 2: Before his interrogation tactics got supercharged on detainees in Guantánamo, Richard Zuley extracted confessions from minority Americans in Chicago

    Who cares, right?  If they weren't guilty the cops wouldn't need to torture them.  Didn't anybody else read to the end of the story Anne linked?


    Parent
    Is Rahm in trouble? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 01:47:30 PM EST
    Before I went to bed last night, the news wondered how much he knew or didn't know.

    Parent
    Probably won't help him (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 01:49:57 PM EST
    in the pending run-off.

    Parent
    Darn (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 08:48:58 PM EST
    That's all I can offer him.  I admit a generous spirit FAIL on my part.

    Parent
    Agreed. This will not (none / 0) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 03:29:34 PM EST
    help him, and is likely to add to the momentum of Rahm's major challenger, Jesus Garcia (goes by the nickname, 'Chuy').   Rahm was forced into a primary runoff, a first in Chicago history, against Chuy.  Rahm was banking on a strong black voter turnout, but that idea fell short of expectations. Homan Square should not be a redeeming factor.

    In the primary field of five, Rahm received 45 percent, Chuy 35 percent, Willie Wilson 10 percent, Bob Fiorella 7 percent, and Wm. Walls 3 percent.  To avoid a runoff, Rahm needed more than 50 percent. Rahm's weakness across the city was evident despite his $16 million campaign fund and low voter turnout, which should aid the machine candidate.  

    Emanuel's infamous penchant for bipartisanship may have backfired for him in the election of his Republican equities friend, Bruce Rauner as governor.  Rauner, a rich man's first try at public office,  is reducing state funding to the City.  Even if Rahm triumphs in the April election, he should be humbled.  But I doubt it.

    Parent

    A humble Rahm (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 07:52:28 AM EST
    Surely you jest. 😄

    I seriously doubt the man knows how to spell the word let alone know the meaning.

    Parent

    In a system uncorrupted by money... (none / 0) (#128)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 10:26:09 AM EST
    I think Chuy wins in a walk...35% percent against an incumbent with more money than god?  That's impressive...for Chicago's sake I hope he shocks the world in the run-off.

    Parent
    Sometimes, kdog, it reaches a point where ... (none / 0) (#154)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 02:55:21 PM EST
    ... no amount of money available is going to save a particular politician's a$$. We have a new governor out here in the islands who ultimately won more than handily last November, despite being outspent 15-1.

    The Chicago mayoral election may be going the same way. If Mayor Emanuel couldn't close it out against a crowded field with all the money he had at his disposal, my own experience tells me that his electoral support will likely remain at 44-45% in the runoff unless he succeeds in making his challenger Chuy Garcia the issue, rather than his own administration.

    This election could well be Garcia's to lose, depending upon how he responds to the mayor's attempts to deflect voter wrath away from himself. But personally, I think Rahm Emanuel is channeling the ghost of Michael Bilandic.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Rahm's father was in Irgun, right? (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 03:18:12 PM EST
    right wing Israelis have a track record of being very open minded on the subject of the efficacy of "enhanced interrogations"..

    And the Chicago cops were maybe worried about a few ticking time bombs at Cabrini Green and other places on the South side..

    Parent

    Chuy Garcia (none / 0) (#164)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 04:01:24 PM EST
    has a real chance now that the perception of Rahm's inevitability has been dashed.  As Megan Stielsra wrote in a NYT op ed the Monday before the Tuesday primary, Rahm is nobody's favorite favorite.  "He has already won," which is alarming because no one seems to like him very much."  

    It reminds me a little of what, apparently, only Michael Bloomberg knew in his run for a third term against William C. Thompson, Jr:  he was not well liked, especially resented was his end-run around term limits.  It was a wonderment, for many New Yorkers, as to why Bloomberg was spending so much money on what was thought to be a shoo-in re-election. Bloomberg knew--spending about $90 million of his own money.  The election was unexpectedly close (51percent to 46  percent).  

    Chuy worked, in the 1980s, for the insurgent campaign of Harold Washington, the first (and only, so far) black mayor of Chicago and knows both the challenges and opportunities.  Money will surely help, but dispelling the notion of futility against the machine's odds will be a big factor.

    Parent

    Ignorance is no excuse... (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 01:50:52 PM EST
    he's the mayor...I would hope his re-election chances are the least of his problems after this startling revelation.  

    In a better world he'd be worried about being prosecuted...but since he's Rahm, and this is America, no worries outside of election chances.

    Parent

    Mayor Emanuel is likely in trouble. (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 03:11:04 PM EST
    He really needed to win the election, and not have it prolonged by a runoff. While he's likely still the presumptive favorite, his chances just got a whole lot murkier, and are highly dependent upon whether or not his opposition can or will unite behind Chuy Garcia, yesterday's runner-up.

    If Garcia can rally the city's black and Latino residents and simultaneously turn out the white progressive vote, the way the late Harold Washington did in the 1980s, the incumbent will have to campaign ballzout in order to retain his seat. The reports of a CPD "black site" probably don't help him.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    So, there's this (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 11:46:05 AM EST
    Climate change may cause this tiny Alaska town to move

    Talk About Playing Both Sides of the Fence (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 04:23:04 PM EST
    "Senator Murkowski acknowledges the impacts of climate change on Alaska's coastal communities and believes that the federal government should step up its relief role, but she does not want Alaska's rural communities used merely as political talking points," said her spokesman Matthew Felling. But Murkowski does support using federal dollars to help Alaska native communities protect their communities and even relocate if that's what's they choose to do, he said.

    IOW, the Fed should pay, but no one needs to know about it.  

    Maybe Jim can go up there and explain to these people how climate change is a myth, and that they are fools for thinking the very ice they survive on isn't actually disappearing.  Maybe he bring articles written by an anthropologist explaining exactly how wrong they are.

    Parent

    Is anyone here flying anywhere ... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 03:32:13 PM EST
    ... on the U.S. mainland with Southwest Airlines over the next few days? If so, please be advised of some potential delays in your departure / arrival times due to that company's grounding of nearly 20% of its B-737 fleet because of overdue maintenance inspections.

    I strongly suggest that you check online or call Southwest to see if your flight's on time, so you can revise your plans accordingly if necessary. Speaking from experience, it's far better to sit at home for a few extra hours, than to have to wait it out at the airport.

    Aloha.

    From our "'Oh, Really!' Factor" file: (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 04:00:58 PM EST
    Drip, drip, drip. Bill O'Reilly is hardly indispensable, and there's certainly no shortage of blowhards in the country's political punditocracy. At what point does Fox News start quietly looking for his potential replacement?

    When he stops bringing in the viewers. (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 04:28:24 PM EST


    Parent
    You're 100% correct, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 09:23:33 PM EST
    Faux News could care less about truth, and since their base doesn't either, well ...

    Parent
    When Abraham Lincoln noted how ... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 02:26:02 AM EST
    ... you can fool some of the people all of the time, he was talking about Fox News viewers.

    Parent
    Awesome... (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 10:03:50 AM EST
    ...please answer the question replacing the name with Brian Williams and NBC.

    I find your hypocrisy endearing at times because its so partisan, you don't even try and hide it.

    Parent

    Yes, indeed (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 10:21:25 AM EST
    One particularly funny example when the Williams scandal was breaking but before the O'Reilly scandal(s) broke:

    Of course Williams is seen as the Left by the Right. And by the number of people trying to change the subject from his lies to FNC and Reagan, etc., it is evident that he is considered of the Left by them. And yes, some take a more principled stand and want him gone. That many members of the Far Right community would defend O'Reilly is a given.

    Guess who was defending O'Reilly when the Falklands scandal broke?

    Parent

    My Favorite Jim Bit... (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 12:15:48 PM EST
    ...regarding Williams was when he wrote "It Transcends Politics."  And yet here we are and politics as far as I can tell are the exact same, minus one desk jockey.

    Good to see Jim admit he is the far right and that people with principles would want liars fired.

    Parent

    Yep, and his explanation ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 09:40:31 PM EST
    ... for this latest fabrication is that he was referring to seeing "horrendous images" of nuns murdered while reporting from El Salvador, not witnessing those murders firsthand.  His statement was "I saw nuns get shot in the back of the head".  Now, even if someone is inclined to believe this silly explanation, it doesn't explain his other statements on this subject:

    On the September 27, 2005, edition of his talk-radio program The Radio Factor, O'Reilly said, "I've seen guys gun down nuns in El Salvador." And on the December 14, 2012, edition of his Fox News show, O'Reilly spoke of telling his mother that "I was in El Salvador and I saw nuns get shot in the back of the head."

    Parent

    This should be fun (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:12:17 AM EST
    Former Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) is thinking of challenging Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) in the 2016 Republican primary for Senate.

    "I have not ruled anything out," the 2012 nominee said, according to The Hill on Wednesday. "I think there is a high level of dissatisfaction among conservatives, that they have to some degree been pushed out of the Republican Party. The sentiment is there. The Tea Party is skeptical and wants some fresh blood, not just the same establishment guys."

    A day earlier The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that Akin was considering running for Senate.

    "Roy has burned a lot of bridges with a lot of conservatives in the state," Akin told the Missouri newspaper. "Anything is a possibility." link

    Nutty being challenged by bat sh!t crazy. Anyone looking for a moderate Republican candidate in MO will have to look to candidates like my sweet Claire on the Democratic side of a ticket.

    Wow (none / 0) (#110)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:31:34 AM EST
    The same Akin who said that victims of "legitimate" rape rarely get pregnant, called abortion providers "terrorists" and said they performed abortions on women who were not actually pregnant?

    Do you think he has a chance?


    Parent

    Definitely the same (none / 0) (#113)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:44:45 AM EST
    "legitimate" rape guy.

    I wouldn't think he had a chance based on the fact that McCaskill defeated him. Prior to his comment(s), my sweet Claire was considered one of the most vulnerable incumbents up for reelection.  

    Then again, it seems that MO gets politically crazier by the minute so I guess anything is possible.

     

    Parent

    went to a birthday lunch (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 03:44:21 PM EST
    at the local senior center today.   (If I had to hang there I would HANG there) anyway, overheard -

    "How often do you cut your toenails?"

    "When I have my feet up watching tv and I see light through them."

    The strangest thing I overheard today ... (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 04:31:49 PM EST
    ... was some guy in a suit talking on his cell phone on Bishop Street in downtown Honolulu, urging the person on the other end of the call to "just keep scanning the obituaries on a daily basis, his name's bound to turn up sooner rather than later."

    I hope they weren't talking about me.

    Parent

    does Honolulu have rent-controlled apartments? (none / 0) (#180)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 05:45:37 PM EST


    Parent
    And now for something different (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by CST on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 03:46:29 PM EST
    Some really cool pictures of semi-frozen waves of the coast of Nantucket.

    Slurpie waves (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 04:07:43 PM EST
    amazing

    Parent
    That Doesn't Evne Look Real... (none / 0) (#169)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 04:13:04 PM EST
    ...or rather it doesn't look frozen until you see the side view.  Pretty cool.

    Parent
    Ben Carson at CPAC (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 04:02:33 PM EST
    Ben Carson was asked one good question that all of the media-perceived candidates should be asked: What is your specific plan to defeat ISIS? It would be wise, though, to have an experienced interviewer ask them this, because they will all try to dodge it, because they have no plan. What is Ben Carson's specific plan to defeat ISIS? It's to... tell the military to defeat ISIS!

    "We have two choices," he said. "We can wait and see what they're going to do and react to it. Or we can destroy them first. The mission that I would give our military is to destroy them first."

    LINK

    I bet that is an answer republicans will love, it's bold, has the word 'destroy' in it, and it makes absolutely no sense.  Why not just tell the military to end all extremism throughout the entire galaxy.

    More:

    Dr. Ben Carson, who in his brief career in the conservative-industrial complex has proven adept at separating right-wingers from their money, gave the inaugural speech. Interesting factoid about Ben Carson: he's polling in second-place nationally for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Conservatives love him, even if they sometimes confuse him with the other Republican black guy.
    If you want a good chuckle, (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 04:58:43 PM EST
    check out the highly amusing ways in which the CPAC hashtag #askaspeaker went horribly sideways.

    Enjoy!

    Parent

    One of the side stories (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 05:19:48 PM EST
    a black female atheist speaker at CPAC

    MmmmmmK

    Parent

    It's always fun when they try (none / 0) (#176)
    by nycstray on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 05:24:42 PM EST
    and work the internets . . .   :P

    Parent
    Kudos to "America's sports anchor." (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 05:47:47 PM EST
    Dale Hansen of Dallas ABC affiliate WFAA-TV lambastes those parents and school officials at a suburban, mostly-white public high school, whose students were caught on TV waving "White Power" signs at a recent basketball game which featured an opponent with a decidedly more diversified enrollment.

    Almost a year ago, Hansen similarly refused to pull his punches in calling out the public statements of those who criticized Missouri DB Michael Sam's decision to declare that he was gay in advance of the 2014 NFL draft.

    Too bad we can't clone this guy.

    Live Long & Prosper (RIP) (5.00 / 4) (#202)
    by christinep on Fri Feb 27, 2015 at 12:34:51 PM EST
    Reports: Leonard Nimoy (always known by his Vulcan name of Spock) has died.  

    A good actor in many areas ... yet, I enjoyed Spock tremendously.  A little more than a week ago, husband and dog and I visited a cousin and family out-of-town; and, after dinner at a great Italian restaurant, we codgers binged late into the night on a cache of old Star Trek episodes; and, it was funny & fun.

    Christians, Muslims, Socialists (none / 0) (#1)
    by Politalkix on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 09:13:37 PM EST
    fighting together against ISIS
    link

    and

    link

    Modern Day... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 08:34:25 AM EST
    Abraham Lincoln brigades.  Much much better than a US coalition military intervention.

    Those cheering for a military intervention take note, I'm sure you know where the airport is, no one is stopping you.

    Parent

    If I remember correctly the (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 12:24:22 PM EST
    ALB's were defeated among much death and suffering caused by the extended conflict.

    Of the approximately 2,800 American volunteers,[1] between 750[2] and 800[3] were killed in action or died of wounds or sickness.

    Link

    I hope that will not the case here.

    Plus, the Fascist Franco ruled for around 40 years in which thousands were killed/tortured etc.

    So be careful what you wish for.

    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#15)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 01:04:59 PM EST
    ALB's were defeated among much death and suffering caused by the extended conflict.
    ...

     So be careful what you wish for.

    And that was less than 2 years, while there are people who still wanted us to remain in Iraq more than a decade, in violation of Bush's SOFA/international law.

    Parent

    more than a decade.. (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 01:07:58 PM EST
    and then they want "us" to go "on to Tehran"..

    It's called mental illness.

    Parent

    SOFA stands for (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:03:03 PM EST
    STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT

    Obama had the option to get the SOFA changed.

    The facts are that, as he stated, he didn't want it changed. So he left it.

    The results can be seen on any website that shows the beheadings...

    I'm done here.

    Parent

    Do tell? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:16:09 PM EST
    Show me the option, or it's just more winger BS.  the Iraqi government (and people) didn't want a SOFA and you can't force them to sign one, so the "option" only exists in your dreams.

    Parent
    What Yman said. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:59:16 PM EST
    There was really nothing to change or amend, since the Iraqi parliament roundly rejected the SOFA out of hand.

    Parent
    The "option" was simple (3.50 / 2) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 08:36:23 AM EST
    All Obama had to do was insist that we needed to leave 10,000 troops there for a while longer to insure stability. The Iraqi "government" would have protested but the troops would have remained.

    All of you want to claim that Obama did what he did because of what Bush did.

    Following that logic, Bush signed an EO that opened up coastal waters for oil exploration. Obama blocked it. The blocking was opposed by many. I guess he shouldn't have. (And no, I don't want to change the subject to energy policies. This is just an example.)

    Obama did what he did because he wanted out.

    He got his wish.

    He fled and people bled.


    Parent

    Oh ... that's it? (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 08:44:06 AM EST
    All Obama had to do was insist that we needed to leave 10,000 troops there for a while longer to insure stability. The Iraqi "government" would have protested but the troops would have remained.

    All we had to do was "insist" - heh

    "Insist" - verb - to ignore or violate international law and the terms of Bush's SOFA because we want to.

    Yeah - so willfully violating the terms of our SOFA with Iraq, ignoring the fact that - by doing so - you would completely destroy the credibility of our country.  That would go over so well next time we tried to negotiate any form of SOFA or treaty.

    Not to mention the fact that the American public didn't want us there anymore.

    Oy.

    Parent

    It is clear that the only sovereignty (none / 0) (#103)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 08:53:22 AM EST
    Jim respects is that of the American government, no others.

    Parent
    He just wanted an excuse to say (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 03:22:48 PM EST
    Obama fled and people bled.

    Since he can't use it in the connection to the great Benghazi conspiracy/cover-up anymore..

    Parent

    And you know what that "option" (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 08:53:35 AM EST
    says, jim?  It says to any sovereign nation that its leaders had better think carefully before asking for our assistance or signing any agreements governing our presence, because there's a chance we would impose our judgment and our will in direct conflict with any agreements to which we were a party.

    The Iraqi "government" would have protested but the troops would have remained.

    How is that not an illegal occupation, jim?

    So much for trust, eh, jim?

    Parent

    Anne, when you live in a parallel universe ... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 03:22:14 PM EST
    ... like Jim's, the entire world is subject to Article III of the Platt Amendment.

    Parent
    Everything is always so glib and simple to you ... (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 03:13:37 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ: "He fled and people bled."

    ... and your friends on the right. Unfortunately, it's precisely your sort of mindless abdication of rational thought and lack of sober analysis which led us into trouble over there in the first place. Ergo, you have absolutely no credibility whatsoever on this issue.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Called (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 03:37:05 PM EST
    speaking in bumper sticker

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#17)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 01:27:35 PM EST
    be careful what you  ask for.
    among much death and suffering caused by the extended conflict.

    sounds a lot like Iraq 2003-2011, but we did get to chalk it up in the win column, go USA!

    Parent
    Oh, goody! (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:55:03 PM EST
    FIJoe: "sounds a lot like Iraq 2003-2011, but we did get to chalk it up in the win column, go USA!"

    We're so excited! Finally, someone can explain to us exactly what it is that we won!

    ;-D

    Parent

    Look on the bright side. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 12:57:31 AM EST
    Maybe we'll get a good novel out of it.  

    Anybody remember For Whom the Bell Tolls?

    Parent

    War without end (none / 0) (#3)
    by Politalkix on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 11:09:27 PM EST
    From the New Yorker, 2003. link

    From the dark days in 2003

    "There is little doubt that some of the most hawkish ideologues in and around the Bush Administration entertain dreams of a kind of endless war. James Woolsey, a former director of Central Intelligence who has been proposed as a Minister of Information in Iraq by Donald Rumsfeld, forecasts a Fourth World War (the third, of course, having been the Cold War), which will last "considerably longer" than either of the first two. One senior British official dryly told Newsweek before the invasion, "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran." And then, presumably, to Damascus, Beirut, Khartoum, Sanaa, Pyongyang. Richard Perle, one of the most influential advisers to the Pentagon, told an audience not long ago that, with a successful invasion of Iraq, "we could deliver a short message, a two-word message: `You're next.' "

    And now, in the language of Beltway strutting, are we really to "do" Syria or Iran?  

    Why? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 06:07:37 AM EST
    And now, in the language of Beltway strutting, are we really to "do" Syria or Iran?

    Has someone said we are going to "do" Syria or Iran?

    Parent

    It looks (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 09:40:57 AM EST
    as if the new Republican majority is slavering to do just that.

    It seems to me that their interest in having Bibi address congress has much more to do with sabotaging any rapprochement with Iran than it does with any particular love for Jews or the State of Israel.

    I am heartened by Obama and Kerry finally standing up to these cretins.

    Parent

    The Israeli Dick Cheney (none / 0) (#55)
    by Politalkix on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 08:20:28 PM EST
    will be here to beat war drums against Iran in life and death terms. link Republicans will trip over each other to do the same. The media will be complicit in drumming up support for war as they were in 2003 (remember WMDs, aluminum tubes, yellowcakes in Africa?). The American electorate can easily be misled by the media once again because the vast majority of people in our country hardly pay any attention to foreign affairs. Fear about ISIS beheadings can easily be manipulated by the corrupt media into Islamophobia and to support war against Iran (even though Iran is fighting ISIS) just as reaction to the 9/11 attacks was used to attack Iraq (even though Saddam Hussein was a terror to Islamists in Iraq). Many Democratic Party politicians will be ready to once again be willfully bullied.

    I do not want to be overly alarmist; however, now is the time to be very vigilant and vocal about non-intervention in any war. All Democrats who run for the Presidency, Senate and House seats should be asked over and over again whether they will be willing to sign a pledge regarding non-intervention in ME wars under any circumstances.

    From the NY Times article...
    "Nearly three-quarters of Republicans now favor sending ground troops into combat against the Islamic State, according to a CBS News poll last week. And in Iowa and South Carolina, two early nominating states, Republicans said military action against the group was, alongside economic matters, the most important issue in the 2016 election, according to an NBC survey released last week."

    Parent

    You're dreaming (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 08:34:41 PM EST
    All Democrats who run for the Presidency, Senate and House seats should be asked over and over again whether they will be willing to sign a pledge regarding non-intervention in ME wars under any circumstances.

    Uhhhmmmm, first of all, why would they sign the same pledge multiple times?  Secondly, there is not a single candidate who would make such a pledge, including Obama.

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#76)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 10:33:44 PM EST
    if they were to make that pledge, it would be meaningless because once in office they'll do whatever they want - and give us the finger in the process.

    Parent
    Maybe you demandt Obama (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 08:03:10 AM EST
    sign that non-intervention pledge right now as an example of the right thing to do.

    Just think of it. The drones could stop immediately. All troups could be brought home. No more troups would be there for any purpose including training and no more money would be sent to arm any group in the ME.

    Parent

    How that subject line got so messed (none / 0) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 08:07:09 AM EST
    Up is beyond me.

    The sentence should read:

    Maybe you should demand that Obama sign that non-intervention pledge right now as an example of the right thing to do.

    Parent

    Maybe you should get treatment (none / 0) (#188)
    by Politalkix on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 07:12:47 PM EST
    for your ODS. The post was about Netanyahu, Iran, Iraq and politicians who would run for office in 2016.

    Parent
    Different standard, huh? (none / 0) (#193)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 07:46:03 PM EST
    You want the candidates who might run for office to sign this pledge, but not the actual POTUS who has been the CinC for 6 years and will be for 2 more.

    Why is this not remotely surprising?

    Parent

    this question should be posed (none / 0) (#66)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 08:50:51 PM EST
    to Democratic presidential candidates only by questioners who are actively trying to elect a Republican president next year

    All Democrats who run for the Presidency . . . should be asked over and over again whether they will be willing to sign a pledge regarding non-intervention in ME wars under any circumstances.


    Parent
    Are you a Democrat? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Politalkix on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 09:04:15 PM EST
    You seem very gung-ho about getting America involved in more wars in the ME and stirring up Islamophobia in the way some Republicans do. I have still not been able to figure out your tenacious criticism regarding the President's choice of words about ISIS.

    Parent
    unbelievable (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 09:51:31 PM EST
    if i "seem" to you "gung-ho about getting America involved in more wars in the ME and stirring up Islamophobia in the way some Republicans do," the issue would "seem" to be your perceptions

    likewise, if you "have still not been able to figure out [my] tenacious criticism regarding the President's choice of words about ISIS," that too would "seem" to be your own intellectual challenge

    are you going to ask Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), who did two tours of duty in Iraq, if she's a Democrat? ask away

    the comment of mine to which you are responding had to do with what i see as the manifest political stupidity of repeatedly asking Democratic presidential candidates to sign a pledge that they will not pursue further military engagements in the Middle East

    why would you assume that the stupidity i see has to do with staying out of the Middle East? & why would you then go on to question whether i am a Democrat (which, apart from being irrelevant, is none of your f^cking business)?

    you can comb through 5 years of my comments if that will help you decide whether i am a Democrat

    in the meantime, do you want Rep. Tulsi Gabbard & me to sign a loyalty oath? if so, where should Rep. Gabbard & i direct our unconditional loyalty? perhaps to Barack Obama?

    Parent

    Wars (none / 0) (#73)
    by Politalkix on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 10:09:47 PM EST
    are a deciding issue for Democrats (whether you like it or not), just as taxes are a big issue for Republicans.

    Why wouldn't Democratic candidates sign pledges regarding war if Republican candidates can sign pledges relating to taxes? The majority of Democratic party voters are sick and tired of ME wars and would like Democratic candidates to listen to them.

    Parent

    with Democrats like you, (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 10:34:43 PM EST
    the GOP can spend 2016 shooting fish in a barrel

    & you have the nerve to ask me if i'm a Democrat

    anyone with an ounce of political smarts would take you for a Republican mole

    Parent

    Ha Ha (none / 0) (#79)
    by Politalkix on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 10:48:41 PM EST
    I am sure you have the "political smarts" of Mark Penn that advised HRC to double down on her support for the Iraq war when she ran in 2008.

    Parent
    Or the "political smarts" ... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 06:20:41 AM EST
    ... of a POTUS who starts with an approval rating at near historic highs and might be able (with a little luck) to eek his way back to 50%?  Guess that's what happens when you don't have the "political smarts" to avoid writing checks/making promises you can't cash.

    Parent
    you want to talk about 2008? (none / 0) (#81)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 11:23:51 PM EST
    heh - i voted for Edwards

    but here's your address on Memory Lane

    it's so clear that you don't have the mental, emotional, or political maturity to participate in an exchange that challenges your mind-set

    so sad

    Parent

    Because pledges, besides being stupid, (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 06:45:06 AM EST
    are utterly meaningless.

    And everyone knows that, or at least I thought they did.

    Rather than play along with the GOP and start trying to one-up them in the pledge game, wouldn't it make more sense to call them on their fakery?  I don't think it would be that hard to do.

    Yes, a lot of us are tired of war, of war talk, of saber-rattling, of being manipulated and okey-doked by the security/war/military monolith, and I think we're also feeling largely helpless against it, but a pledge isn't going to help and it isn't going to change anything.  

    I honestly don't know what it will take to bring some balance back, since it seems as though all attempts to rein in this area of government, to make them accountable, are met with some form of Fk You, and on they go with whatever they want to do.

    There is no pledge that's going to stop this. All it would do would be to gladden the hearts of GOP strategists, who'd have a multi-org@$mic field day with it.

    Parent

    Thanks Anne... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:05:54 AM EST
    ...and if we are going to start requiring pledges, let's do it for something a little more worthwhile*, like making democrats sign pledges that they will push pre-Obama Democratic Party legislation.

    Never mind, we aren't teenagers and wars/party principles aren't sex or booze.  If you don't like the way they are voting, don't vote for them.  But only republicans and teenagers think pledge hold value.

    * Not that wars aren't important, but in reality, a pledge against war is about as goofy as you get and asking for the opponent to slam with some sort Pearl Harbor footage stating so and so had pledged to not go to war...

    Parent

    Another sucker for drama (2.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Politalkix on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 07:18:31 PM EST
    "...and if we are going to start requiring pledges, let's do it for something a little more worthwhile*, like making democrats sign pledges that they will push pre-Obama Democratic Party legislation."

    Another sucker that wants to go back in time because he is missing missing the drama of those years.

    Parent

    Stupid? Yes! Meaningless? No (none / 0) (#186)
    by Politalkix on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 06:56:52 PM EST
    Ask Grover Norquist. He has got the country where he wanted by making Republican politicians sign pledges. You, on the other hand are left lamenting that the party has left you.

    Ofcourse pledges are just part of the equation. It should be backed by primaries.

    We can all pretend that the Iraq war happened only because of GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld and other Republicans. The ugly truth remains that 29 Senators and 82 House Reps from the Democratic Party voted for it.

    Parent

    Can we at least pretend that we are (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by nycstray on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 07:41:12 PM EST
    smarter than the GOP and not bow  to the pledge? I mean really . . .

    Parent
    And one state senator ... (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 07:48:53 PM EST
    ... from the most liberal district in Illinois gave a speech against it, didn't vote on anything, said he was not against all wars (i.e. wouldn't sign your silly pledge), and later said he didn't know how he would have voted if he had to vote on the AUMF.

    Parent
    What is the freaking connection? (2.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Politalkix on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 08:04:00 PM EST
    But But But But....Obaaaama! This guy really needs a Rorschach test for an evaluation of his thinking disorders.

    Parent
    The "connection" is your contrived ... (none / 0) (#199)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 08:06:50 PM EST
    ... that you dreamed up due to your CDS and your hypocritical double-standard when it comes to The One.  Funny how you want all the Democratic candidates to sign this silly pledge but not The One.  Entirely predictable, ...

    ... but funny and transparent as he//.

    Parent

    He is not running in 2016 (2.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Politalkix on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 08:10:36 PM EST
    Your obsession with him seems to make you forget that.

    Your ODS is at its most advanced stage. You are really messed up.

    Parent

    He's President right NOW (3.75 / 4) (#201)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 08:18:35 PM EST
    If your pledge was so important, you would want him to sign it because he's the actual CinC right now, not just some canidate who might become the CinC.

    But you don't because it's not about the pledge for you.

    Parent

    To sign such an open-ended pledge (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by christinep on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 12:48:22 PM EST
    as you propose, politalkix, would not only be a mark of political foolishness, but also would be an ultimately unenforceable promise to abdicate any foreign policy judgment ... under any foreseen and unforeseen circumstances. I'm sure there are numerous ways to inquire about a candidate's outlook/propensities/predisposition with regard to the Mideast without setting up such a softball.

    What did you think about the foreign policy strengths/weaknesses of FDR, HST, JFK?  Hint: These Presidents are much more than a collection of initials ... imo, they wisely made decisions about war and peace when circumstances arose.  Leaders do that.

    Parent

    Lyndon Baines Johnson. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 12:59:42 AM EST


    Parent
    That's not what she said at all. (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 02:13:38 AM EST
    And who appointed you final arbiter of all things Democratic? Of course Addams is a Democrat. She lives in Oakland. Republicans haven't lived in Oakland since my great-aunt passed away in 1971.

    Give it a rest, please.

    Parent

    If she does not want (none / 0) (#183)
    by Politalkix on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 06:44:03 PM EST
    to be questioned whether she is a Democrat or not, she should not be throwing out wild accusations about me being a Republican mole.

    Parent
    oh, go away (4.00 / 4) (#185)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 06:51:35 PM EST
    anyone can see that you questioned my political affiliation (your comment #69) well before i mocked your "pledge" proposal (my comment #77) as the type of thing that a Republican mole would dream up for some clueless Democrat's electoral campaign

    because the comments do have numbers, you know

    can you count?

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#187)
    by Politalkix on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 06:59:49 PM EST
    This is what you wrote

    "to Democratic presidential candidates only by questioners who are actively trying to elect a Republican president next year"

    Parent

    jesus c - so you can't read, either (none / 0) (#191)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 07:36:18 PM EST


    Parent
    66 comes before 69 (none / 0) (#194)
    by Politalkix on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 07:46:59 PM EST


    Parent
    why, yes it does! (1.00 / 1) (#197)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 08:05:09 PM EST
    so you can count!

    but you still can't read

    pity

    Parent

    Okay, I have to give you some props (none / 0) (#129)
    by Zorba on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 10:49:05 AM EST
    For "The Israeli Dick Cheney."
    Great descriptor of Bibi.
    I am so stealing that.   ;-)

    Parent
    I must (none / 0) (#8)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 09:22:49 AM EST
    say that I am concerned about the drones flying over Paris these last few days.

    Not only are they flying over national monuments, as well as the US Embassy, but they have also been spotted over nuclear reactors.

    I remember when they were building a nuclear reactor in Croton on Hudson. A very heavily populated area in New York - a short drive from Manhattan.

    There were many protests - and the nuclear power industry countered by telling us of the many jobs that would be created by building that potential nightmare.

    They won.

    People who need jobs and an income are held hostage to these behemoths.

    I shudder to think of some freaky people availing themselves of drones. I read that pre-programmable ones can be bought for under $500.

    It would be great if these opposing sides - the ones siding with ISIS and the ones siding with the US - could sit down and negotiate before it is too late to save great numbers of civilian casualties.

    On a positive note, I was heartened by Obama's characterization of the what causes people to become radicalized.

    It is much more helpful than the right-wing knee jerk blather that these people are just born that way.

    If we hope to defuse this most dangerous situation, I think we would do well to take in Obama's formulation. If there is a process to the creation of a radical, there is also a process for un-creating the radical.

    I believe that process to be one of sitting down and listening to each other's grievances.

    That is going to happen anyway.
    It just would be nice if it happened before thousands of innocent people are slaughtered by both sides.

    I Have a Couple of Drones (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:50:43 AM EST
    And for those kinds of dollars, you might be able to carry enough explosives to blow up an ant hill after a couple months of serious training.

    They take skills to operate, and self guiding systems cost a hell of a lot more than $500.  Mine have guidance systems, but only to return home if I lose sight or they lose signal.

    But your point is true, the only difference is I would think for an amateur to buy a drone to carry enough weight and have the electronics needed would be in the $5000 range, maybe, probably closer to $10k.  But they are available over the counter so long as you have the funds.

    IMO this is one area that the media has completely distorted.  I used to play all over the place, now I am kind of confined to parks as the media has made people believable that they can fly over you home and look in your windows, and blah, blah, blah.  For example, out of the box systems use a frequency that requires line of sight, meaning if I go around a corner of a building I lose video signal and the drone loses the control signal.

    Parent

    FYI, most of France's electricity needs ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:16:38 PM EST
    ... are met by nuclear energy. It's not uncommon to see reactors when you're touring the country. The striking thing about French reactors is that theirs is a near-uniformity of design, with strict standards having been codified in statute.

    We actually had a small working nuclear reactor on the grounds of the University of Washington in Seattle, when I was going to school there. I believe that it provided a lot of the electricity for the campus, which is actually quite large. I really didn't have an opinion about it one way or another, since I was only 18-23 at the time and more concerned with far more baseball and girls than with public affairs. But I do remember that because the Three Mile Island incident had occurred the year prior to my arrival at UW, there was a real concerted effort on the part of ASUW (our student government) and faculty activists to get the reactor shut down and removed.

    The UW Board of Regents eventually acceded to public pressure and the reactor was finally taken offline and shut down in 1988, four years after I had graduated, with its fuel rods being removed in the early 1990s. But the building itself, which is called More Hall Annex, remains in place and as far as I know, was still undergoing decontamination as late as 2008. UW initially wanted to tear it down, but apparently it was put on the National Register of Historic Places in 2009.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    UW wants (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 04:24:09 PM EST
    to tear it down.

    Sounds like they are embarrassed to have been part of that research.

    But this article on a fusion reactor by UW scientists is exciting. Fusion would make a lot petro powered devices nice displays in a museum.

    Parent

    As I said above, More Hall Annex ... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 04:11:20 PM EST
    ... is listed on the National Register, so it's not quite that simple. Further, the university has since backed away from its stated initial intent to seek its demolition.

    When I was attending UW, the structure was known simply as the NRB, or "Nuclear Reactor Building," and it was a fully-functioning facility. It was only renamed More Hall Annex after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, because up until that time all maps of the university still labeled the building as a nuclear reactor site. Even though it had been decommissioned in 1988 and subsequently dismantled, school officials didn't want the structure to attract undue attention as a potential target.

    The Dept. of Nuclear Engineering was formally abolished by the UW Board of Faculty in 1992, with some of its programs absorbed by other departments in the UW College of Engineering. With the building now stripped of its nuclear capacity, it's actually a striking example of mid-20th century modernist architecture. The public purpose underscoring its initial 1961 design and construction was to allow anyone to walk right up to its floor-to-ceiling glass windows, and look inside to glimpse the peaceful pursuit of nuclear research in action.

    Personally, I believe that More Hall Annex should be retained for use as a museum showcasing the work of the UW College of Engineering. This will preserve the structure as a reminder of an earlier era when only the sky seemed the limit for atomic energy, and relatively few people in power paid heed to the possible adverse consequences of placing a nuclear reactor in the center of campus at a major public university, which itself is located in the core of a major metropolitan area.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Yes. (none / 0) (#53)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 05:20:52 PM EST
    It is true about France and its dependance on nuclear power.

    My main concern, my main fear, in the US as well as in France, is that these nuclear plants are not as invulnerable as their proponents and government officials would like us to believe.

    People approaching these sites with drones - drones that can be purchased for under $500 - drones that can apparently be immune from the restrictions of so-called no fly zones - might be used in a manner that could compromise their structural integrity and endanger civilian populations in the surrounding areas.

    Talks are needed.
    Heated rhetoric is not needed.

    Parent

    Dude, as much as I enjoy your posts... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 01:16:09 AM EST
    A $500 drone can barely carry itself and a cam aloft.  No worry that it will penetrate the containment structure surrounding a nuke plant.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#122)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 10:00:07 AM EST
      and it's doubtful machines capable of carrying such a payload will ever be cheap, but the drones could well serve other nefarious purposes such as surveillance which would provide helpful information as to how sabotage facilities through other means.

    Parent
    A little history (none / 0) (#87)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 01:34:17 AM EST
    of the reactor.

    No turbines.  No electricity.  Just another tiny teaching reactor.

    Parent

    Thanks for the link. (none / 0) (#173)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 04:53:29 PM EST
    That's a good article. I used to walk right by the Nuke Building on a daily basis during the winter and spring quarters of my sophomore year, when I was on my way from my last classes of the day at Smith and Gowen Halls to the UW athletic complex for our required afternoon workouts and practices.

    During my freshman orientation for incoming student-athletes, our campus guides proudly showed off the reactor to us but otherwise, I never really gave its presence and proximity all that much thought for the entire time I was there. In fact, I only first remembered it again in years, when lentinel brought up the subject of drones allegedly hovering around French nuclear facilities. I really need to reacquaint myself with my own alma mater's history.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    FL fisherman prevails (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:02:37 PM EST
    @ SCOTUS.

    Only John Law... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:16:57 PM EST
    would try and spin it that fish are documents, and fishermen are accountants, in order to get a stinkin' scalp.

    Though I guess if you're not gonna use the law to catch high-finance crooks, why not use it against the working man?  Waste is a sin;)

    Parent

    Interesting article. fwiw, people who (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:58:27 PM EST
    catch and keep undersized fish are properly named "poachers." They are stealing property owned by you and me, the citizens of the US.

    Trying to apply SOX does seem like a stretch though, I would think there would be some more appropriate destroying evidence type charges.

    Parent

    Poaching the king's deer, eh???? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 01:02:21 AM EST
    Where's Robin Hood when you need him?

    Parent
    The Sherwood Forest is not safe from Robin (none / 0) (#132)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 11:34:49 AM EST
    either: Redwood burl poaching.

    Parent
    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:25:57 AM EST
    but I wouldn't exactly call it stealing from you and me...I certainly stake no claim to the ocean, aside from the right to bath in it, it was here before us and will be here after us.

    Semantics aside...ocean life conservation is certainly a good idea.

    If this guy got and served 30 days, the real oceanic criminals over at BP must be looking at 30 years...lol.

     

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#112)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:42:58 AM EST
      The BP case is currently in civil  trial. Only the amount (and perhaps payment structuring) is at issue.

      The government is asking for over $ 11 billion and BP doesn't want to pay more 2 something. (The judge has already wuled the maximum fine authorized is 13.7 bill.

      BP has also paid 40+ billion in cleanup/compensation costs.

      Other corporations that had responsibilities for Deepwater Horizon operations also have been or will be fined large sums.

      I would venture a guess that if  the government uncovered any evidence that any individual actors had attempted to conceal or destroy evidence relating to wrong doing or to calculating the proper measure of losses, it would not hesitate to prosecute for such crimes.

       I think we can have serious concerns about whether existing statutes and regulations and the "preventive enforcement" is adequate but I really have seen nothing to suggest the government is not acting properly in seeking after the fact redress.

    Parent

    While civil remedies... (none / 0) (#125)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 10:14:33 AM EST
    drag on forever in court, the contract ban placed on BP for their continued negligence was lifted last year, right before the government auctions for drilling leases were about to begin.  A very nice Deep Water Horizon anniversary gift from Uncle Sam to our friends at BP.

    I wonder if the spreading of toxic dispersants by BP could be considered destroying evidence (or hiding evidence on the gulf floor) of the crime?  If we're gonna play fast and loose with Sarbanes-Oxley.

    I wouldn't put money on your ventured guess my friend...evidence has been uncovered that HSBC and other bankster families have done just that, with an upmost hesitance to prosecute to the full extent of the law.  BP is in the same privileged corporate class.

    Parent

    "property owned" (none / 0) (#130)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 10:56:26 AM EST
    I'm sure the fish have a different opinion.

    Parent
    LOL... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 11:12:00 AM EST
    property ownership is a myth...we're all just renting;)

    Parent
    This may be a tad dry (none / 0) (#133)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 11:39:51 AM EST
     but it's an excellent treatise on the origin and development of American property law using a discussion of the first case many law students encounter in property class.

      Pierson v.Post  (It's not about the fox)

       You can substitute fish for fox.

       Current law (oversimplified some, note for example, the federal Endangered Species Act has been found constitutional though it very much limits states' power to regulate acts affecting wild animals within their borders) is that wild animals on land or in water or air are the property of the state in which they are situate (including wild animals on private property), and subject to state regulation. But, once lawfully killed or captured, become an article of commerce and a  state's power to regulate is subject to constitutional limitation imposed by the commerce clause.

       As Yates was in federal waters, we don't have any federalism issues and the fish were the property of the United States and under any legal view, public property of the United States over which the government can exercise dominion in accordance with properly enacted laws.

      Ethics are debatable as to whether it is "right or wrong" for man or government to own animals,  but the law is clear that Yates took property that he was not entitled to take because it does in fact belong  "to us."

     

    Parent

    Recon, your link is wack. (none / 0) (#135)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 11:47:53 AM EST


    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#137)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 11:56:36 AM EST
      the link is to a .pdf, and I guess I don't know how to properly format that.

      If you are interested, google:

    Duke Law Journal
    VOLUME 55 APRIL 2006 NUMBER 6
    IT'S NOT ABOUT THE FOX: THE UNTOLD
    HISTORY OF PIERSON V. POST
    BETHANY R. BERGER

    Parent

    It's actually a pretty good read, (none / 0) (#141)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 12:34:43 PM EST
    for a legal discussion.

    Parent
    Segue... (none / 0) (#136)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 11:52:48 AM EST
    I've been meaning to ask for awhile Recon...did the "R" used to be a "D" if you know what I mean?

    If so...good to see ya;)  

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#138)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 11:57:04 AM EST


    Parent
    I had a feeling... (none / 0) (#139)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 12:08:28 PM EST
    Where's Peaches?

    Parent
    I remember those days with fondness. (none / 0) (#142)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 12:35:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Indeed... (none / 0) (#144)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 12:38:31 PM EST
    on a slow day I'll hit up the archives from that era. Some excellent educational, and civil!, debates.

    Parent
    Dude that's awesome. (none / 0) (#147)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 12:55:24 PM EST
    If you remember, next time you find a good'un, post me up a link?

    Parent
    Seems Peaches has been gone since 07 (none / 0) (#148)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 01:03:59 PM EST
     No idea why.

     Speaking of old threads here is one I found lookimg for when Peaches was lsst around.

    circa 2007

      Not a lot of Peaches but some comically classic old school BTD. In a (perverse) way, I miss that.

    Parent

    Classic. (none / 0) (#150)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 01:40:36 PM EST


    Parent
    I saw parts 1 and 2 on Netflix streaming (none / 0) (#26)
    by McBain on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:08:52 PM EST
    a few months ago.  I don't know if it was a director's cut?  

    Somewhat related, I also saw Blue is the Warmest Color on Netfix streaming.  I enjoyed that one even more.  

    There have been some great foreign films broken up into 2 or more parts on Netflix.  Mesrine and Carlos are both worth checking out.

    the comment you replied to used (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 10:09:58 PM EST
    the full name of the movie "n*mph..." without asterisks. I had to delete it. Explicit words like that will get this site banned by censor software at law firms and businesses. Please don't spell out the word.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#75)
    by McBain on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 10:32:47 PM EST
    I never would have thought that was an explicit word. I won't use it.  

    To better answer Howdy's question....  I now believe I didn't see the director's extended cut. Let me know what you think of it.... without using the N word.  

    For those who aren't familiar... Lars Von Trier is an extremely talented filmmaker who often makes depressing and explicit films.  Some I can handle, some I can't.  Breaking the Waves was a masterpiece.  

    Parent

    Von Trier fears he is done with cinema (none / 0) (#114)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:45:40 AM EST
    Says alcohol was the fuel he created with, and now that he's sober, uh oh, he may not be able to make films anymore. My guess is he will be able to, they will just be different. How would they not be? (link)

    Parent
    That's actually (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:55:37 AM EST
    kind of a sad story.  His work obviously comes from a rather tortured place.   As art often does I guess.  

    Parent
    OTOH from the worlds trippyest director (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:58:32 AM EST
    We all want expanded consciousness and bliss. It's natural, human desire. And a lot of people look for it in drugs. But the problem, is that the body, the physiology, takes a hard hit on drugs. Drugs injure the nervous system, so they just make it harder to get those experiences on your own.

    I have smoked marijuana, but I no longer do. I went to art school in the 1960s so you can imagine what was going on. Yet my friends were the ones who said, "No, no, no, David, don't take those drugs." I was pretty lucky.

    David Lynch



    Parent
    I actually have never found Lynch trippy (none / 0) (#123)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 10:03:39 AM EST
    He has always seemed a tourist to me, for some reason. Perhaps this is why. Some of the most incomparable art has been created with the aid of substances ingested, other has been made by the opposite method, and many others in between. Art has no roadmap. If it did, damn, what a depressing sameness it would result in.

    Parent
    The summer Eraserhead came out (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 02:53:30 PM EST
    s a midnight movie (remember those) I was unemployed and saw it every Wednesday on acid.  
    Maybe I am projecting.   Scenes from that movie are certainly burned into my memory.   Mulholland Dr.  was pretty trippy.  Have you ever seen his short films?   I have a dvd called The Short Films of David Lynch.  Also pretty trippy.

    Parent
    Rabbits is pretty cool (none / 0) (#170)
    by McBain on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 04:22:14 PM EST
    He used part of that Inland Empire.  

    Parent
    David Lynch's work is hit-and-miss with me. (none / 0) (#178)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 05:32:37 PM EST
    I loved the first season of his TV series Twin Peaks, but quickly soured on its second season and stopped watching. (I still don't know who killed Laura Palmer.)

    The Elephant Man showed that Lynch could go toe-to-toe with any director when it comes to straight drama. (Mel Brooks, whom few people realize was that film's executive producer, offers a quirky backstory on how he came to settle on Lynch as its director. "[H]ow does a guy who is known for the best fart jokes in cinema go on to make The Elephant Man?")

    I consider Blue Velvet to be a true work of cinematic genius. One would be hard pressed to find a more thoroughly repulsive movie villain than Dennis Hopper's Frank Booth -- except perhaps Henry Fonda's Frank, the railroads' sociopathic tool who haunts Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West,.

    But to be honest, and unlike Mel Brooks, I didn't care at all for Eraserhead, and I found Dune to be an overly ambitious mess and a complete waste of a viewer's time.

    It took me a while to figure out Mulholland Drive in my head, before I could determine whether or not I liked it. And yeah, I do like that movie, but Lordy, it was an awful lot of work to get there.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Dune was awful (none / 0) (#179)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 05:43:47 PM EST
    imo he only did it to get the money for  other things he wanted to do.  He clearly never took it seriously and had fun with it.   I think Mulholland Dr is a minor master piece.   And it does take a while.  The way I figured it was the first part is the fantasy story of going to Hollywood and the last part is what it's really like.
    He is impossible to categorize.  Ever see The Straight Story (LiNK)?  I think you would like it.  Story about an old guy who drives a lawnmower across country to see the brother.   Very unLynch and great.

    I can't push the short films enough.  IMO that is his best medium.  The Amputee is pure art.  Also The Grandmother.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 08:17:50 AM EST


    Parent
    All is not lost (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:29:20 PM EST
    Good news.

    The data from the European Space Agency CryoSat-2 satellite suggests that Arctic sea ice volumes in the autumn of 2014 were above the average set over the last five years, and sharply up on the lows recorded in 2011 and 2012.

    According to this research, Arctic sea ice volumes in October and November this year averaged at 10,200 cubic kilometres.
    This figure is only slightly down on the 2013 average of 10,900 cubic kilometres, yet massively up on the 2011 low of 4,275 cubic kilometres and the 6,000 cubic kilometres recorded in 2012.

    And it depends on which side of which sea...

    This below-average Arctic extent is mainly a result of lower-than-average extent in the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk. On the Atlantic side, Barents Sea ice extent is near average. This is in sharp contrast to the general pattern seen since 2004 of below average extent in this region, but above average extent in the Bering Sea. Ice extent is also near average in the East Greenland Sea, Baffin Bay and the Labrador Sea.
    Did you ever notice how ... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:50:39 PM EST
    ... the best evidence deniers can come up with are not scientific studies by actual experts in climatology, but opinion pieces from "Dr."s from other fields (in this case, as social anthropologist - not that you would be able to tell from the article), mangling actual science?

    Weird, huh?

    Parent

    Climate change deniers... (none / 0) (#59)
    by desertswine on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 08:38:19 PM EST
    for hire.
    Recently released documents show that fossil fuel interests paid more than $1.2 million to fund the research of a prominent climate change-denying scientist affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Now, a Democratic senator is calling for an investigation into whether other coal and oil companies are funding climate deniers.

    The New York Times reported this weekend on documents that Greenpeace obtained under the Freedom of Information Act that show that Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, has accepted funding from Southern Company, Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.

    Soon's research suggests that variations in the sun, not the burning of fossil fuels, is causing the climate to warm. Soon has testified before Congress on his claims, and climate-change deniers inside and outside of Washington frequently note his work


    Really, the climate change debate is long over. The only thing worth debating is what we're going to do about it, if anything.

    Parent
    This is what Jim (none / 0) (#105)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:04:37 AM EST
    didn't mention from the second link.  Here's a link to the Feb article.

    Arctic sea ice extent was the third lowest for the month of January. Ice extent remained lower than average in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk, while ice in the Barents Sea was near average. Antarctic sea ice extent declined rapidly in late January, but remains high.



    Parent
    Climate denial is really approaching (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:39:09 AM EST
    self parody.  

    Parent
    I believe the term of art (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:49:25 AM EST
    for what Jim is doing with info from the national Snow and Ice Data Center, is known as palming the card, especially when you look at the graph here about Arctic sea ice.

    Parent
    I believe the term of art (none / 0) (#117)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:49:25 AM EST
    for what Jim is doing with info from the national Snow and Ice Data Center, is known as palming the card, especially when you look at the graph here about Arctic sea ice.

    Parent
    Note to Hawaii Republicans: (none / 0) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:32:57 PM EST
    This sort of nonsense is why yours is an increasingly rare presence at our State Capitol. Suffice to say that we're certainly not Louisiana, and that mangy dog is more likely to get shot out here in the islands, never mind hunt.

    I Still Can't Figure Out... (none / 0) (#39)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 03:20:47 PM EST
    ...who exactly makes up the pro-abortion coalition that conservatives keep harping about.  In this case, the governor of Louisiana.

    Parent
    It's not just abortion. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 03:41:15 PM EST
    The subject of human sexuality in general tends to quickly get these guys' knickers all bunched up in a twist. Locally, Rep. Bob McDermott's made a virtual career for himself as Honolulu's resident moral scold.

    Whenever he opens his mouth like this, he makes me want to tell people about the time I had to fish him out of the Capitol pond at 11:00 p.m. one night over a decade ago, after he accidentally fell in while dead drunk.

    But you didn't hear that from me. ;-)

    Parent

    The disease (none / 0) (#198)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 08:06:06 PM EST
    infects the entire party. The only difference between GA and HI is that people in HI refuse to put up with their nonsense.

    Parent
    There's a 5+ hour-long "Director's Cut'? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:42:30 PM EST
    Yikes! Wasn't the original four-hour version long enough?

    ;-D

    Ha (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 03:57:03 PM EST
    its the third part of a trilogy.  Antichrist, Melancholia, and this.   I loved Antichrist.  If it's as boring as Melancholia I may not make it through.

    Unofficially known as the Depression Trilogy.  Woo hoo.

    Parent

    Does the trilogy's box set come with ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 04:04:03 PM EST
    ... a ready-to-assemble gallows and noose?

    Parent
    A razor blade (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 08:52:08 PM EST
    easier to package.

    Parent
    I Just Looked it Up (none / 0) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 04:07:52 PM EST
    Two Stars for the original and Three for the Directors cut.  I have never watched something with 2 stars that wasn't, well two stars, aka bad.

    Same with the others, all pretty paltry ratings, but I still added them to my list for a rainy day.

    Parent

    Meh (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 08:47:22 PM EST
    i seem to see quite a few 2 stars.  My stars don't always match the critics.

    Parent
    Are You Recommending It ? (none / 0) (#121)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:59:53 AM EST
    That would be enough because some of your past mentions were well worth my time.

    I watched the documentary about Lance Armstrong last night, two stars so i was expecting much.  It was good, and after I realized people surely graded it on the fact the film made Armstrong look like the countries biggest d-bag.

    He used his fame and power to ruin people's lives, made threats to people who testified, put an end to a federal investigation, fired riders who would not dope, and basically defamed anyone who was not pro-lance.

    Lance Armstrong is a horrible human being.

    Parent

    Not yet (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 02:47:38 PM EST
    i don't want to start it until I have both parts.  Which will be a few days.  I sent a dvd back today so I will get the next one in a few days.

    Parent
    I used to really admire Lance Armstrong. (none / 0) (#171)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 04:23:57 PM EST
    But eventually, like lots of others including yourself, I concluded that he was nothing but a world-class walking rectal cavity.

    He certainly got his comeuppance.

    Parent

    About Von Trier (none / 0) (#115)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:46:09 AM EST
    LINK

    Parent
    Something's fishy (none / 0) (#51)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 04:45:59 PM EST
    Yates v. USA

    John Yates, a commercial fisherman, caught undersized red grouper in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. To prevent federal authorities from confirming that he had harvested undersized fish, Yates ordered a crew member to toss the suspect catch into the sea. For this offense, he was charged with, and convicted of, violating 18 U. S. C. §1519, which provides:

    "Whoever knowingly ...alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20years, or both."

      Yates was convicted and sentenced to 30 days for this an a conviction under a different statute he did not challenge. He appealed the § 1519 conviction on the ground that a fish is not a "tangible object" for the purposes of § 1519.

      The 11th Circuit affirmed holding that under the common definition of "tangible object" a fish meets the definition For reasons unbeknownst to me, the Supreme Court granted cert and reversed holding a fish is not a tangible object under § 1519 because it was enacted as part of Sarbanes-Oxley and viewed in context "tangible object" should be limited to mean only tangible  objects used to contain or store records.

      Given the grave import the case produces a 4 member plurality opinion authored by Ginsburg, a concurrence by Alito, and a 4 member dissent by Kagan and joined by Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas.

       There is apparently no circuit split, as the 11th is the first to rule on this and the case resulted in a 30 day sentence for which Yates gets no actual relief because this sentence was concurrent with the sentence under the other statute and he's still a convicted felon despite having won.  I assume there may be pending actions in lower courts  on this issue in a more important case[s] but I don't know. Given the relative rarity of cert being granted, on the surface  this seems an unlikely case for the Court to take  

      The main reason, I note this landmark decision is this passage from Kagan's dissent:

     As the plurality must acknowledge, the ordinary meaning of "tangible object" is "a discrete thing that possesses physical form." Ante, at 7 (punctuation and citation omitted). A fish is, of course, a discrete thing that possesses physical form. See generally Dr. Seuss, One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish (1960).

    A judge with a sense of yumer. (none / 0) (#52)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 05:02:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Fisherman Yates was guilty, (none / 0) (#92)
    by fishcamp on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 07:10:28 AM EST
    because his fish were way undersize and he had too many.  It has been much talked about down here. But the size limit for grouper in the Gulf of Mexico varies, depending on where you are.  In the Gulf the size limit is 22" while in Florida Bay, which is part of the Gulf, the size limit is 24", and it is difficult to know exactly where you are if you are over by Cape Sable, which is the edge of the Gulf and the Bay.  In all of Monroe County, which is the Florida keys, the size limit is 22".  But Monroe county goes way out into the Gulf, and makes it difficult for both fishermen and fish police.  Recreational fishermen are allowed only one grouper per person and two grouper per boat, no matter how many people are on the boat.  This part of the law sounds funny, until you realize that bad captains load their boat with entire families, to catch more fish.

    Parent
    Both convictions (none / 0) (#107)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:06:02 AM EST
      were for the acts to evade prosecution for illegal harvest, not the harvest itself.

      The conviction which he did not challenge was:

    "DESTRUCTION OR REMOVAL OF PROPERTY TO PREVENT SEIZURE.--Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government's lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

       The fact that conviction was unchallenged and vacating the § 1519 conviction had very little real effect, is one of the reasons the Supremes taking the case is puzzling. The tone of the opinions also suggests a bit of bemusement over the subject matter and a "why is this a federal case" (in the colloquial sense) attitude.

      The illegal harvest  violated federal law  because it was from  federal waters and acts within federal lands or  the maritime jurisdiction of the US that would normally only be state offenses are subject to federal jurisdiction.

       The acts of evasion were within federal jurisdiction despite the CO being a Florida conservation officer because he had been deputized and authorized to enforce federal law. (This is not uncommon generally and many state and local officers are federally deputized and enforce federal laws including drug laws).

       I don't have an issue with the decision to prosecute. (I'm just surprised the case reached the Supreme Court as on the surface it appears too trivial to merit review from the highest court in the land.) It appears that under the specific facts of this case there was only federal (not concurrent jurisdiction) over the illegal harvest and it's not a matter of the Feds taking a case better left to the State because the state had no authority to prosecute.

       

    Parent

    Yes, the issue was evasion. (none / 0) (#149)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 01:13:54 PM EST
    Fisherman John Yates was given a citation by Florida Conservation Officer/Federal Deputy.  The 72 undersized fish were placed in a crate and Yates was told to take the crate to port for seizure.  But Yates had the fish thrown overboard and replaced with larger fish.  A second inspection at port raised suspicion and a crew member revealed the fish story.

    However, it is curious that Yates was prosecuted under financial fraud law executed after the Enron matter (Sarbannes-Oxley, 2002).  Moreover, I, too, am puzzled as to why this case merited Supreme Court attention.

    It may be that the Supremes were in a playful mood that day--a playfulness that carried through into not only the Court ruling, but also, the minority opinion (Justice Kagan referred to Dr. Suess as "authority,"  ...a fish is a discrete thing, one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish.  

    However, John Yates and his fish may be a harbinger for King v Burwell, in the Court's analysis and interpretation of the Affordable Care Act.   The four words, " established by the state,"  as exchanges eligible for federal subsidies, not federal exchanges, may be subjected to the analysis of Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority in the Yates case,..."ordinarily, a word's usage accords with its dictionary definition.  in law as in life, however, the same words placed in different contexts, sometimes means different things."

    Perhaps,  the wet fish case is a dry run.

    Parent

    That's interesting speculation (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 02:08:59 PM EST
    Yates also involves statutory construction-- distinguishing between words that have "plain meaning" or are "ambiguous; and then  the rules for determining the meaning where ambiguity exists, including context,  legislative intent and history, etc. One isolated passage would be worrisome.

    In Ginsburg's discussion of  noscitur a sociis, she writes:

      ...we rely on the principle of noscitur a sociis-- a word is known by the company it keeps--to "avoid ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its accompanying words, thus giving unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress."

     

         Her use of the language "a meaning so broad"  taken literally would not bode well for the availability of subsidies outside the state exchanges, if in fact, there is any foreshadowing intended. Now, that may well have been written only because Yates involved a challenge to a broad reading because the general  principle is to ascribe ambiguous words  a meaning consistent with the divined purpose of the accompanying words whether that calls for a broad or narrow interpretation.

      Who knows? I will say the actual law as to statutory construction is all based on established precedent and Yates is merely  an application of existing rules to a specific statute. It establishes no new law beyong the meaning of "tangible object" in § 1519. The expressed disagreement in Yates is really about whether "tangible object"  has a plain meaning or is ambiguous. The dissent really just says the meaning is plain we don't have to go any further, while the plurality and Alito find ambiguity, then apply familiar rules.

      Does that mean there may be a majority (or plurality and concurrence) that will find "state" is ambiguous and once having reached that determination that the context supports the finding Congress intended for the subsidies to be available for taxpayers in states without state run exchanges?

       Roberts did join the plurality opinion and he was the swing vote in the first ACA case. On the other hand, Kagan is with Scalia Thomas and Kennedy in dissent in Yates (and Alito who was also in the minority last time provides the 5th vote with his concurrence).

      Short version, if it does  mean something relevant to the ACA,I'm not sure re what is.

     

    Parent

    An answered prayer. (none / 0) (#57)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 08:33:20 PM EST
    Trump is making noises about entering the 2016 presidential race.
    In recent days, Trump said, he has hired staffers in key primary states, retained an election attorney and delayed signing on for another season as host of NBC's "The Celebrity Apprentice" because of his political projects.

    In a political season sorely lacking in entertainment value, we could look forward to the spectacle of multiple idiots in debate. Births, evolution, global warming  - all up for grabs.

    The circus is coming to town!

    LOL! (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 08:41:49 PM EST
    I'll pop the popcorn.  I'll even provide some beer.  Pull up a chair.  This could get very entertaining.    ;-)

    Parent
    Trump/Palin (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 08:44:54 PM EST
    Palin/Trump.  Even better Bachman/Trump.  We could have a female president AND a First Lady.  I bet his Christmas decorations would be fabulous.

    Parent
    Think of the possibilities (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 08:41:59 PM EST
    maybe a "new" First Lady mid term.  And also we would have the First Hair.

    Parent
    Just occurred to me... (none / 0) (#78)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 10:37:00 PM EST
    Anybody know what an "election attorney" is?

    Parent
    Someone (none / 0) (#94)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 07:35:31 AM EST
    Who practices election law and can advise him on things like fundraising, advertising, how to get on the ballot, etc.

    Parent
    Just watching (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 08:50:48 PM EST
    David Corn talking about the O'Reilly thing.  Pretty funny.

    Capt Howdy (none / 0) (#80)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 11:16:39 PM EST
    you watching Vikings?

    Great first episode.   Looks like we'll be getting plenty of fighting this year as there are too many kings in too small a place.  

    I have faith Ragnog will stay one step ahead.

    Recorded (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 08:19:44 AM EST
    waiting fir me to get to it.

    Parent
    Pot is legal in DC (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 07:31:44 AM EST
    Mayor Bowser -1, Congressional Republicans - 0.

    Your Parents' Cocaine (none / 0) (#126)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 10:17:34 AM EST
    By Oakland's very own, and incomparably inimitable, THE COUP:

    (LINK) The valet pointed me through the door
    One more shot and you're on the floor
    If cash talks, yours is a lion's roar
    Guesquire, Christian Dior
    You're the asshole ambassador
    But your friends obey like Labradors
    I vomited on the alpine décor
    It's okay, your daddy gon' buy some more

    All your friends from school are here
    Your frat boys got the rufies near
    What will they want when you're out of beer?
    Your parents' cocaine!
    Your graduation monster bash
    The maids will pick up all the trash
    In almost every room is stashed
    Your parents' cocaine!

    Your daddy gon' make you VP of sales
    Don't mix good shit with the ginger ale
    Pacific Heights ain't Sunnydale
    You could murder somebody and be out on bail
    Your mom's Amtrak- she's on the rails
    So many bumps thought it was Braille
    One day, we're all gonna tip the scales
    Cuz me and my crew are too big to fail

    Steve and Katie shut the door
    And fucked all on the bathroom floor
    Now they're up and looking for
    Your parents' cocaine!
    Until you get that trust fund check
    Pretend you worked for your respect
    Janie's asking if she can test
    Your parents' cocaine!

    All your esteemed colleages and guests
    Are here to celebrate your success
    They only say "Good Luck!" in jest
    Your fortune guaranteed at the breast
    And Dave, who let's you win at chess
    Is with your girlfriend in her dress
    They're tired of being your marionettes
    You'll mourn in Rio via company jet

    Your daddy's got a business plan
    Which made wars in Afghanistan
    It bought your house in Bangkok and
    Your parents' cocaine!
    Narcos kicked my windows out
    They beat and dragged me out the house
    They don't give a fuck about
    Your parents' cocaine!

    This just says it all... (none / 0) (#134)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 11:47:26 AM EST
    snowfall prevents 17 of 29 NC State Senators from attending a General Assembly...but all the lobbyists made it in!

    One thing you can't question is lobbyist's commitment to pervert the democratic process...and rack up billable hours, as State Senator Meredith sarcastically pointed out.

    Money Quote (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 12:36:37 PM EST
    "I notice that everyone who's able to bill by the hour is present," quipped Sen. Wesley Meredith, the Fayetteville Republican who led Tuesday's meeting.


    Parent
    FCC passes (none / 0) (#145)
    by CST on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 12:45:50 PM EST
    net neutrality rules

    "Internet service providers like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile now must act in the ``public interest'' when providing a mobile connection to your home or phone, under rules approved Thursday by a divided Federal Communications Commission.

    The plan, which puts the Internet in the same regulatory camp as the telephone and bans business practices that are ``unjust or unreasonable,'' represents the biggest regulatory shakeup to the industry in almost two decades."

    "The FCC says it won't apply some sections of Title II, including price controls. That means rates charged to customers for Internet access won't be subject to preapproval. But the law allows the government to investigate if consumers complain that costs are unfair.

    Also at stake Thursday was Obama's goal of helping local governments build their own fast, cheap broadband. Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, have filed petitions with the agency to help override state laws that restrict them from expanding their broadband service to neighboring towns.

    The FCC approved these petitions, setting a precedent for other communities that might want to do the same."

    I suspect they are going to be getting a lot of consumer complaints about costs.

    On the TV This Week... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 03:08:17 PM EST
    ...they specifically stated that the vote would be kept quiet, that the public would not know the outcome.  Anyone know about this ?

    I got this from Firefox:

    Scott,
    Thank You for helping protect our public resource

    Today will go down in history as the day we won real protections for net neutrality.

    After a long campaign, this morning the FCC voted for what we demanded, and what a few big cable companies did not want: strong, enforceable net neutrality rules based on classifying broadband as a Title II communications service. Huge sums were spent lobbying Congress to try to limit what we can create and build and do online.

    We accomplished what seemed impossible: we stood together, took on the goliaths, and won.

    This was no small feat. It was the biggest show of public engagement the FCC had ever seen -- a mass movement of historic proportions. Millions of public comments flooded Washington on this issue. By banding together, we've helped to keep the Web open and accessible for everyone, equally.

    ...

    Thanks again for your work to make today's outcome possible and for all that you do to protect the open Web.

    Mark

    Mark Surman
    Executive Director

    Not sure what he is thanking me for, I stopped sending them money last year.

    But this is one of those rare instances in which the public triumphs over boatloads of cash from powerful players.

    Parent

    yea (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by CST on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 03:39:20 PM EST
    It probably helps a bit that there was powerful money on the side of the FCC as well.  Google, Amazon, Netflix - any company that makes money off the internet basically.

    I think my favorite part of all this is that it never would've happened if Verizon hadn't gotten so d@mn greedy and sued over the last set of rules.  They overplayed their hand, and this is the result.

    Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of companies.

    Parent

    Yes... (none / 0) (#167)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 04:09:40 PM EST
    ...I forgot about that cash.  But the little guy still won with help of a couple of giants.

    Parent
    Awsum (none / 0) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 05:27:23 PM EST
    The latest news today: we have a setting, and one actor. American Horror Story: Hotel will hit later this year, and will feature Lady Gaga in a role that's still TBD.


    Promo (none / 0) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 06:48:00 PM EST
    video

    Parent
    Weird times (none / 0) (#182)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 06:02:49 PM EST
    DreamWorks Animation is selling its plush, Tuscany-style campus, long a source of pride among the studio's Glendale employees and a symbol of its once vaunted position as an industry powerhouse.

    Studio executives told Wall Street analysts that the company signed a $185-million deal to sell the lot to an undisclosed buyer. DreamWorks will then lease back the 13-acre property dotted with oaks, olive trees and a koi-filled pond.

    The decision is among a series of cost-cutting steps aimed at shoring up the studio's balance sheet.
    And now (none / 0) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 07:36:16 PM EST
    a singing bulldog

    And he's pretty good.   Or she I guess.

    Tuesday Night Open Thread | 201 comments (201 topical)