Thursday Open Thread

Last day of court this week. A lot of motions due Friday, though.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Jordan Executes Female Prisoner ISIS Wanted Released | Violence, Vengence and Retribution Serve No One >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A funny one before my game.. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 10:31:48 AM EST
    I got a robo call Monday urging me to press "1" and be transferred to my state legislature so I could leave a message telling him to vote against the medicaid expansion, "Insure Tennessee."

    So I pressed "1" and I was transferred to my rep's office where I urged him to vote for the expansion.

    Revenge is just so sweet.

    The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 01:07:49 PM EST
    at Atlanta, stated that there would be no further action on same-sex marriage cases in that circuit until the US Supreme Court decides the issue later this year (probably in June.)

    Before the Circuit Court was whether to issue a stay that would put on hold a US District Court judge's  decision last week requiring Alabama to recognize and permit same-sex marriages  The Appeals Court rejected Alabama's request for a stay and marriages may begin as of Feb 9.

    However, Alabama has asked the US SC to intervene and issue a stay.  If the SC does so, it would mean that same sex couples would not be able to marry on Feb 9; if it does not issue a stay, Alabama will become the 37th state to permit/recognize such marriages.   And,, it would be a possible indicator of how a majority of justices might rule in the cases before it.   Since no further action will be taken for cases in this circuit,  same sex marriages will continue in Florida.

    The drum beats for confrontation, (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 03:48:49 PM EST
    if not war, with Russia are getting louder and louder.   Merkle and Hollande have traveled to Kiev and are headed to Moscow in hopes of a cease-fire in the Ukraine.   President Obama is considering provision of lethal arms to Ukraine (a $billion or so in military equipment for starters).   The military sees a green light, and, of course, McCain is ready to bomb, saying that he will write legislation requiring the US to send arms to Ukraine if President Obama doesn't.  

    However,  European leaders in Brussels are mostly opposed to sending lethal arms to Ukraine. War and corruption have essentially bankrupt Ukraine. Arms to Ukraine are only a part of the issue, boots on the ground are as well--that is, getting and keeping  Ukrainian boots in the fight.  Apparently, the idea (as opposed to a strategy that seems to have gone missing) is to make the war more costly for Russia (i.e., the internal unpopularity of killing more Russian soldiers),  avoid Chamberlin-esque caving and invasion of Europe, all the while playing chicken with a nuclear power.  

    NATO was put in place for such purposes, if needed.  Although, Ukraine is not a member of NATO and, indeed, Ukraine's potential to join was a fundamental part of Russia's paranoia.  The "Idea" appears to over-estimate Russia's territorial ambitions as well as under-appreciating the history and the appeal of separatism by the ethnic Russians as well as the importance of a ring of security to Russia.

    Militarily arming Ukraine might make some sense if so doing would result in retreat by Russia, decrease tensions, stave escalation of the violence, and promote stability in the area.  Lot's of luck on that.  

    The Obama Administration has been smart, up until now, in dealing with Putin by use of sanctions and economic squeezing, aided and abetted, recently, by falling oil prices.  If the idea is that this is the time to use military muscle, based on an assessment that  Russia is politically and economically on the ropes, that seems misguided.  Nothing like some good old anti-Americanism and threats to the motherland to propel Putin to the top of the charts.

     It is risky business to assume that providing lethal arms to Poroshenko will make things better, achieving stability and peace.  But, then, what could go wrong?  Wars always turn out well, just as expected.

    Very under covered story this (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 03:56:38 PM EST
    it is vile what Putin is doing but I share your concerns.

    Funny not long ago republicans seemed ready to remove Obama and install Pootie in his place.  


    That's because for quite some time now, ... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 07:31:58 PM EST
    ... Republicans been lovin' them some big tough daddies to take charge of life, tell them what to think and believe, and punish all the bad people out there while they watch.

    In fact, they loves them the butch so much that they're hauling poor li'l Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) before the House Ethics Committee, just for redecorating his D.C. office with scarlet walls and beaucoup arrangements of pheasant feathers, like Lord and Lady Grantham do on "Downton Abbey."

    Why, everyone knows that nothing less than the head of an endangered species mounted on a wall will do for a real, honest to goodness GOPer. Aaron's cheapening the brand here. What does he want everyone to think, that he's some kind of deeply closeted headcase? Oh, wait, I'm sorry, but apparently lots of people already do. And I mean, lots of people.

    So much so, that I'm afraid Mr. Schock seems all but destined to eventually follow in the sorry footsteps of State Sen. Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield), the anti-gay gay homophobe who helped sponsor the hateful Proposition 8 and voted against California's Harvey Milk Day, before being outed by circumstances one night upon departing Sacramento's biggest gay nightclub with a known male escort.

    And that's actually rather sad and pathetic, now that I really think about it. But Schock's made his feather bed, let him lay in it. So has Putin, for that matter. Horrid, self-loathing, destructive homophobes, all of them.



    I had read about (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 07:42:23 PM EST
    the Downton Abby congressional office.  Never heard the rest.  

    Thank you for that.


    Wow, this guy's all over the news today. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 08:43:01 PM EST
    Congressman Schock's communications director, Benjamin Cole, has just resigned his position, apparently to spend more time being a total a--hole, after having directed a few racially charged comments at African Americans in general, and at President Obama in particular.

    But hey, the Supreme Court said that there's no more racism, so who are we to believe anymore -- Chief Justice John Roberts, or our own lying eyes and ears?



    Yeah (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 09:01:28 PM EST
    i saw that too.   Love this-

    Another that appears from December of that year describes both a shooting victim and perpetrator in his neighborhood as "hood rats."

    Why are the most twisted ones always closet cases.  It's depressing.  In more cheerful news I just saw a wonderful segment on Maddow about two Oregon bears who own JebBushforPresident.com and plan to turn it into a site about gay rights and issues.


    When I read "Oregon bears", I thought it (none / 0) (#123)
    by vml68 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 09:26:57 PM EST
    was a sports team. Read the article and did some googling. Now, you know about Neem and I know about "gay bears"... :-)!

    Ha (none / 0) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 09:36:26 PM EST
    my "large" hairy bearded straight friend Glen was thrilled when he learned about bears.  "I never imagined I could be a sex object" he said.

    I myself, tho hairy, do not quite qualify for beardom.  I would need to grow more of a beard, stubble doesn't count, and find the 30 pounds I recently lost and about 10 more probably.


    I'm too thin and ... (none / 0) (#182)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 01:43:42 PM EST
    ... I've never liked wearing a beard. The only one I ever had was involuntary, and that's only because I had caught chicken pox and couldn't shave for the better part of two months. And like most 21-year-olds, I was still a few years away from the ability to grow a beard truly worthy of the term, so what I did have only made me look worse.

    But I will admit, by 1984 I did have that obligatory trimmed moustache that was de rigueur for young men in the '80s like me who were dedicated followers of trendy fashion, and of course I just looked MMMmmmahvelous! Jeez, I look back at photos from that era, and I was so cliché that I all but screamed out loud to passers-by, "The '80s are here! The '80s are here!" What was I thinking?



    The President (none / 0) (#120)
    by Politalkix on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 08:45:31 PM EST
    and SoS Kerry, have been resisting pressure from within their own party for a long time now. It is not just Republicans that are interested in committing our nation to war. link

    More on foreign policy rifts (none / 0) (#125)
    by Politalkix on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 09:51:46 PM EST
    within the Democratic Party. link

    Belichick Bruhah (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 03:49:02 PM EST
    I saw THIS a couple days ago, didn't think much of it, but now it's getting a lot of publicity.

    Not being particular close to my parents, I have no idea what is acceptable in regards to kissing as we never really kissed, but is a grown father kissing a grown daughter something worthy of ridicule ?

    I don't get it.

    It is a real shame that people are making (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by vml68 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 04:07:36 PM EST
    a big fuss about this.

    I think some people are uncomfortable because it is on the lips. The same kiss on the forehead/nose/cheek would not get a reaction.

    I honestly don't see anything wrong with it, probably because my father still kisses my brother and me. It's not like he is slipping her some tongue!


    Btw, was sorry to hear that you did not (none / 0) (#93)
    by vml68 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 04:13:22 PM EST
    go to the game. I watched the last 10 mins of the game (husband had the game on) and even though I did not have a clue what was going on, the excitement was palpable.
    I thought of you then and thought you must be having the time of your life watching it live!

    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 04:56:34 PM EST
    ...the whole city was lit up, excitement everywhere and as mentioned I am feeling a bit down over it.  The plan is to squirrel away the proceeds as it will be here, in Houston, in 2017 or when the Packers go, hopefully they will be one in the same.

    I just hope I didn't sell out my one chance to go.


    With the highest SB ticket prices ever (none / 0) (#104)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 06:51:09 PM EST
    selling was a financially wise decision. You drew an inside straight. Brokers oftentimes sell tickets they don't own when prices are high knowing they will drop and thus turning a big middle man profit. This time they didn't drop, the demand stayed high, and brokers had to pay high late letting you make a huge gain.

    For those here that said no one would watch the Super Bowl this year (they will remain nameless), it was the most watched TV show of all time.


    Just goes to show (none / 0) (#111)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 07:48:59 PM EST
    No matter how much the executives at the NFL screw up we will continue to tune in.

    With all its problems it's still the best show on earth.


    I seldom (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by lentinel on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 12:30:36 PM EST
    talk about myself...
    But there is a story I would like to share.

    I was alone - in New York City - in the lower part of Manhattan.

    There was a child in the middle of the street. I saw an approaching car, and, abandoning all thought of self I whirled across the intersection , dived, swooped up the child, and rolled us both to safety as the car whizzed by.

    And then I, ... what's that you say? I wasn't actually in New York at that time, and I didn't save anyfkingbody? I was in Ohio?


    Well. I had a "memory error"
    Sorry 'bout that.
    These things happen.

    So the terrorist are saying airstrikes (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 12:32:47 PM EST
    killed an American hostage.  So of course, based on their history of honest communications on such thing we should all believe them and call for an end of airstrikes.

    Poor young woman (none / 0) (#175)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 12:53:48 PM EST
    I find it impossible to believe that somehow she was the only victim, which they reported as well.

    Oh (none / 0) (#176)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    and by amazing coincidence Jordan just executed a female terrorist suicide bomber.  
    It's absurd.  Even if it's true, which I personally don't for one second believe, she was put there for that purpose.

    War is ugly (none / 0) (#178)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 01:09:56 PM EST
    God knows (none / 0) (#179)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 01:28:21 PM EST
    heres what happened IMO.  They had this woman.  They were never going to release her.  But they know they already jumped the shark the the recent video horror so no way we're they going to do an orange jumpsuit video murder of a woman.  
    Oh my, look, the coalition airstrikes killed the American woman.

    Jordan calling the ISIS claim (none / 0) (#188)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 02:09:17 PM EST
    A PR stunt.

    To continue the vaccine "debate" (2.00 / 1) (#1)
    by toggle on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 08:39:59 AM EST
    I would point out that the reports of increasing measles prevalence are misleading and the attributions of it to popular anti-vaccination movements are erroneous.

    First, the uptick in measles cases in 2014 resulted from an outbreak among the Amish, not liberals in California: LINK

    Second, the majority of the measles cases in the recent outbreak have been among adults, people who were too old to have missed vaccinations because of the recent scares; or the very young who wouldn't have been vaccinated anyway (between them: 70% of the cases).  LINK

    Third, while measles is not a fun disease, and the fears of the vaccines are misplaced; measles is not particularly dangerous and the outbreaks are relatively small and are under control. There is still very strong "herd immunity" in this country. And there are a million things we could do that would help people more than increasing vaccination rates, things wouldn't require us to forcibly inject people with drugs they don't want. Think about the precedent that sets.

    Have you ever had them (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 09:03:05 AM EST
    or known anyone who has?

    I had them (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 12:25:24 PM EST
     but I'm old enough to have got them before the vaccine. I don't remember because I was 18 months, but my mom tells me it was severe and scared her to death. I had a 104 f temperature and cried non stop.

    I just remember (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 12:30:19 PM EST
    my mother looking like a burn victim with her skin, all over-at least the parts I saw, I don't want to think about the parts I did not,  being about 1 inch thicker that usual.

    I had them, and was probably around (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 12:45:52 PM EST
    four or five at the time - which predated the introduction of the vaccine by about five years.

    I also had pertussis (whooping cough), mumps, chicken pox and rubella (german measles).  I remember having all of these, strangely enough.  My brother and I had mumps at the same time, but he had a milder version.

    Whooping cough was the worst, though, because of the cough, which was just relentless.  I got the tDap booster two years ago, when my older daughter was pregnant - apparently, having pertussis does not confer lifetime immunity.

    My kids both had chicken pox, pre-vaccine.  Older daughter got them on Mother's Day and younger daughter got them on older sister's birthday, three weeks later.  That was a pretty bad month or so, I can tell you.  Older daughter had a much worse case - with pox in her throat, mouth and nose.  She was miserable - and so was I, because there wasn't a whole lot I could do to make it better.

    None of it was any fun, that's for sure.  I don't know why anyone would deliberately risk their child getting any of these things if there was a way to prevent it.


    I too had measles, pertussis, mumps, (none / 0) (#80)
    by vml68 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 03:16:15 PM EST
    german measles and chicken pox as a kid (all by the age of 8). I don't remember much about those incidents except for the fact that I thought it was pretty cool I had "german" measles considering I was not german.
    And, when I had chicken pox my grandmother covered me from head to toe in neem paste. Being 5 years old, it was kinda fun to hang out naked covered in green goo!

    You made me google Neem (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 03:21:17 PM EST
    how could I have lived my whole and never heard of this apparent miracle tree?

    You're making my point for me (2.00 / 1) (#6)
    by toggle on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 09:31:18 AM EST
    I don't, because the disease was and is spectacularly rare in the US.

    If you are really worried about it, focus your efforts on the countries where it remains endemic. If the whole world had the vaccination rate of California the disease would disappear entirely.


    The 100 people (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 09:34:45 AM EST
    who now have it there would be happy to hear that I'm sure.

    Btw.  My mother had them when I was a child.  I remember it looking pretty horrible.


    A hundred people (2.00 / 1) (#9)
    by toggle on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 09:49:46 AM EST
    There have been similar outbreaks here many times before. But for a little perspective, there are dozens or hundreds of such outbreaks every year all across the developed world. For example, there were more than 30,000 measles cases in Europe -- in one year, 2010. 14,000 cases in France alone in 2011. Etc.

    Why? (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 05:46:42 PM EST
    If you are really worried about it, focus your efforts on the countries where it remains endemic. If the whole world had the vaccination rate of California the disease would disappear entirely.

    Even if your claim about the vaccination rate in California was true (it's not), we can't control the vaccination rate of the whole world.  We can in our own country.


    Measles can have serious consequences (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 09:09:25 AM EST
    for the very young and the immune-compromised.  It can also have serious consequences if contracted during pregnancy.  The protection afforded by herd immunity diminishes as the number of unvaccinated individuals increases.

    Am not suggesting forcible vaccination, but I am suggesting that downplaying the outbreaks, as well as the possible consequences of contracting measles, only ends up supporting the belief that it really isn't that important to be vaccinated, and it isn't really that serious if one does get the measles.

    Think about that.


    You're wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 10:32:52 AM EST
    Hufpost with stats.  Herd immunity is non existent in parts of California because too few people have been vaccinated.

    The county northwest of me has a 75% vax (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 12:02:06 PM EST
    rate.  Herd immunity requires 92-94%.  That herd immunity is what protects babies who are too young to have been immunized.

    Specious (none / 0) (#127)
    by toggle on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 10:58:57 PM EST
    That's the immunization rate of one grade year of school children, not the rate of the population at large.

    The measles epidemic of 1848 ... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 01:15:22 PM EST
    toggle: "Third, while measles is not a fun disease, and the fears of the vaccines are misplaced; measles is not particularly dangerous and the outbreaks are relatively small and are under control."

    ... reduced the population of the Hawaiian Islands by 50% in only six months. Even in U.S. communities on the North American mainland where the population had collectively built up antibodies from repeated exposure to the virus, measles still killed an estimated one in five children.

    Measles is a virulent, dangerous and potentially deadly contagion. So is rubella, mumps and whooping cough. Why do you think that such a widespread and sustained effort was made to get children and young adults immunized against such diseases as quickly as possible, once vaccines became widely available in the 1960s and '70s?

    I caught chicken pox in 1982 when I was 21 years old, and it knocked me out of an entire term in college. It was a horribly painful and debilitating experience that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Further, my former boss was killed by chicken pox in 2002 at age 72, after having been exposed to the virus while on a site visit to an elementary school in wealthy Prince George's County, VA, where vaccination rates were much lower than the national average.

    So, please don't understate so cavalierly the possible consequences of such matters as though you're an expert in epidemiology and public health, when you're quite obviously not.

    People do not enjoy a unilateral legal right to put others in harm's way and place public safety at risk, due to their own self-absorbed paranoia about vaccinations and fact-free delusions about public immunization programs.

    To quote the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., "Nothing is more dangerous in all the world than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."



    Donald, when you had chicken pox (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 03:26:51 PM EST
    it put you in a high risk state for having Shingles.

    And Shingles is one nasty and painful disease.

    But there is a immunization drug available.

    You should discuss this with your PCP.


    I wouldn't resort to PCP... (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 03:32:05 PM EST
    even if I had shingles.

    One dance with PCP was enough...never again! ;)


    D (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 02:26:10 PM EST
    you made a comment in an earlier thread that I think is now closed about liking the original Star Trek crew.  Yes!  I love them as much as anyone but I gotta say I really like the new casting.  The last movie was a bit if a disappointment, I like the first one a lot, but I think that is the result of probably wanting to milk the franchise as much as possible.  The third movie really only now begins the "5 year mission to seek out yadda yadda"
    I was reading that Abrams said the next movie would be more like Guardians of the Galaxy than Star Wars which upset some but not me.  That sounds like the original series to me.

    I have high hopes for the third movie.


    I particularly didn't care for ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 02:50:11 PM EST
    ... the last film's ending, purloined as it was from the 1982 film "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan," which of course had shocked audiences 30+ years ago with Spock's wholly unexpected demise. This time around, though, for those of us who are fans of the original TV series and movies, that death scene appeared as both contrived and unoriginal.

    Let's hope the scriptwriters do a better job the third time out.


    Totally (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 02:59:34 PM EST
    reveving the meme level ridiculous KAHNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!! scene was an epic fail.  And I think he has gotten that message fairly loud and clear.  One of the reasons I look forward to the next film is he is looking for redemption.

    Question-whos idea WAS that?


    I think that now, the question is ... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 07:46:18 PM EST
    ... who'll dare to own up to that silly idea. ;-D

    That's funny, because up to that point I had thoroughly enjoyed that movie. But what made for a truly inspired ending in 1982's "The Wrath of Khan," proved to be so inappropriately over the top in 2014, when it really should not have been that way at all. It was so jarring to see that they ruined the experience for me.

    I'm looking forward to see how they rebound.


    ... please watch this nearly 40-year-old interview of Arthur C. Clarke at the 1976 AT&T / M.I.T. Conference on Futurism and Technology in Boston, and let me know what you think.

    Did this guy nail it, or what?


    Ha (none / 0) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 02:09:23 PM EST
    seen it.  He did.  

    The Super Bowl (none / 0) (#4)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 09:17:08 AM EST
    OK, so me and my boy had tickets, got them for steal along with an entire package, but we didn't go to the game.

    When we got off the plane in Phoenix, I grabbed a paper, and told my friend, we have to look into selling out tickets, look at what they are going for.  We simply could not justify going holding tickets worth that kind of cash for a game that neither of us really wanted either team to win.  Side Note, I ended up cheering for the Pats, after two days of obnoxious Hawk fans, I was sick of them.  I am in now way a Pat fan either.

    The problem is how, I am not soft, but I was not ready to make a deal like that on the street or in public, in a town I do not know.  So I looked around and it turns out Stub Hub has a Last Minute Service in which you list the tickets, then take them down to their building, they validate and hold, then post your ad.  The problem, they hit the buyer and seller each with 10% fee, yes they were making 20% on those ridiculously priced SB tickets.

    We listed and they sold in about 6 hours.  We made out like bandits and got a free trip out of the deal.  Our package had all kinds of things to keep us busy, including the pre-game tail gate party.  We found a sports bar after and watched the game like everyone else.

    But even today, I am still somewhat saddened that we didn't go, numbers in an account is much less satisfying than going to the greatest game on the planet.  Maybe that will change when I treat myself.

    On the Carol call, it is what it is, two weeks ago the guy is genius for beating the Pack, this week a leper because Wilson threw an interception and Butler made the play of the year.

    What no one is talking about, what I would consider the real genius behind the play is Belichick not calling a time out and, more of less, forcing the Hawks to make an instantaneous call that seems unlikely had they the Pats taken a timeout to leave Brady a little time to get into field goal range.  Whatever you think of Carol's call, the fact is they would not have been forced to throw had the pats used a time out.  I think it's a damn shame that Belichick isn't getting any props for letting the clock run and forcing Carol to throw on at least one down to stop the clock.

    I can say this, Phoenix was over run with Hawk fans, the delight in seeing all those obnoxious jerks with long faces was worth the price of admission.  I actually like the hawks, but their fans...

    I Almost Forgot (none / 0) (#7)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 09:34:21 AM EST
    I must have missed the part where Wilson scolded god for not giving him the skills to win the game.  

    I joke, but the point is if you are going to publicly praise god for giving you the skills to win, then you should do the same for a loss.  Not really, you should just STFU about what god did or didn't do for you, IMHO.

    No one cares that Wilson has deluded himself into believing god some how likes him more than others and afforded him a skills set that millions would kill to have.  Because Sunday, Mr Wilson, god apparently decided Mr. Butler deserved the skills to win.


    Nobody cares (none / 0) (#10)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 09:56:07 AM EST
    That you don't believe in God.

    What is the point of your post other then to criticize someone that shares a belief that 74% of Americans also share?

    Believe what you want to believe but you seem to be doing the exact same thing that you're complaining that Wilson is doing.


    I Know I Don't Believe in That God... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 11:20:36 AM EST
    ...the one who is a needy insecure being that needs more and more public praise.  Nor does it play some sort of twisted game in which we have free will, yet if we don't execute in the a very specific way, we are doomed to an eternity of horrors.

    Do I believe in a something you would call a god, yes, but my god isn't a Hollywood of an NFL star, it is simply the creator of life, not man, it created the single cell programmed to evolve and spread throughout the universe to bring life and beauty to an where there was none.  It does not sit in judgement or promise eternal damnation or fantasy, nor does it care if it is worshiped, it is not that vain.  

    My 'god' is the master inventor who not only created life, it created the physics that built the universe and everything within, it does not create this or that formation, it created the processes that gave us Earth and every other solar body in the Universe.  My god created the building blocks of everything, forces like gravity, electromagnetism, light, life, and any others we may uncover.

    Try another angle, because your god loses the popularity contest once you include all of mankind, not just your kind.  My god doesn't give a rat's A about being popular.


    My apologies (none / 0) (#23)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 11:30:16 AM EST
    I thought your shot at Wilson was a little harsh.

    My apologies for presuming it was wrong to do so.

    I also cringe when people get preachy after sports games.  In that case I thought he was fine but I understand your point.


    According to some people, ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 09:13:36 PM EST
    ... I've likely been destined for eternal damnation for some time now, which is fine with me. To quote Billy Joel, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints; the sinners are much more fun."

    I've made no secret of my Roman Catholicism, but as far as to the particulars of my own faith, I consider it generally wise to keep my own counsel. Suffice to say I believe that there are many possible and different paths to your ultimate destination -- especially when you're booked on United Airlines.



    Speaking of Airlines... (none / 0) (#140)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 08:30:04 AM EST
    ...last night I saw a faux commercial for Northwest Airlines, and it was hilarious.  Starts out like, "Do you want to visit you family for the holidays ?", then shows a guy looking sad in the airport, then "If the answer is NO, fly Northwest."

    Then it goes on with various crew members telling you how hard they work to ensure you never reach you final destination.  It ends with the guy looking at the destination board, and all the flights are cancelled, then the guy jumps up in the air in glee.

    I can't for the life of me remember where I saw it and I can't find it on the interwebs.


    There's a big difference (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 10:07:53 AM EST
    between believing in God - and believing in a God that favors you above others.

    Or follows football (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 10:09:31 AM EST
    And on the seventh day, (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 10:16:48 AM EST
    he parked himself on the Laz-y-Boy with a bag of chips and watched the game.

    And it was good.


    The Hole in the Roof (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 05:53:44 PM EST
    When Texas Stadium, now gone, was built, it had a unusual roof that covered the people but not the field, creating a "hole in the roof."

    And why did God do that?  So, he could watch His football team play on Sunday.


    What else is she supposed to do? (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 12:14:02 PM EST
    I dunno. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 01:19:56 PM EST
    Offer to get him a beer?

    I wonder what would happen if a football game (none / 0) (#49)
    by ZtoA on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 12:31:02 PM EST
    was played by artists. Long, grueling, so many watching, in the zone the whole time. Artists experience the zone all the time, so that would not be new to them. The microphones after a completed 'work of art' might be rather new to most. Performers would be better at this kind of football game, Rolling Stones and YoYo Ma come to mind. Authors and visual artists might say things like "I simply disappeared and my higher self took over (or the spirit of the moment etc.)" - which is the appropriate lingo for that field (the art field not the football field). But that would mean pretty much the same thing as thanking god = "I do not feel like I can fully take credit for the zone".

    Yes there is (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 11:45:54 AM EST
    But I didn't think that was what Wilson was saying.

    Also lets keep in mind these guys and gals are getting a mike stuck in their face minutes after accomplishing a huge goal and are emotionally spent.   We can cut them a little slack for sometimes blurting out a little God talk cant we?


    fwiw (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by CST on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 11:53:21 AM EST
    I don't care that much - I find it more amusing than anything else.

    If anything I think it bothers me less because I don't believe in any kind of God, and it all strikes me as rather silly, but it doesn't offend my sense of how one should relate to God - because I don't really get it at all.  But I'm more than used to athletes and politicians and other people who talk about it non-stop.  The athletes bother me a whole lot less than the politicians - because I don't feel like they are going to be using it as a weapon against me.

    I was more responding to your post questioning Scott.  And his interpretation of it in his post, vs what you had said in response.


    I hate politicians (none / 0) (#41)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 12:10:35 PM EST
    Because more times than not unfortunately they use it as a political tool rather than an expression of what they actually feel.

    It's why I lean more libertarian now then conservative because I get tired of the preaching.


    Where does Scott say he doesn't (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 10:17:06 AM EST
    believe in God?

    I don't know if he does or he doesn't - and really, that's his business, not mine - but I think all he's saying is that he's tired of all the god talk, tired of athletes claiming God's special interest and attention is what's allowing them to win games.  Maybe God was distracted when Butler jumped the route and intercepted Wilson at the one yard line?  I mean, how deeply are we supposed to go here?

    I'm not here to say what people should believe or not believe; I guess religion and faith are so personal to me that I prefer to keep whatever my thoughts are about god's influence and control over my life to myself.  And I guess maybe Scott feels something similar.


    Pretty harsh. (none / 0) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 12:56:27 PM EST
    Besides, try to understand what Scott is saying.

    Please keep up (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 10:24:32 AM EST
    .....and the glory of the things one accomplishes (none / 0) (#20)
    by vicndabx on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 10:47:07 AM EST
    goes to God.  That it is football is irrelevant.  What is also a fact is many many many people have a few hours of happiness when these people play. Why is that so hard for people to allow w/o ridicule?

    Here's what I think it is... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 11:10:54 AM EST
    If there's a problem, I think it's with the whole idea that people on a national stage feel that somehow they must share all their God feelings with everyone.  

    I frankly just don't need to know that Wilson is grateful to God.  Whatever he feels, whatever he says, doesn't need to be my business, too; that's between him and God, in my opinion.

    I don't know why this point of view is so hard for some people to understand, but apparently, just saying you're tired of the constant Hallelujah Chorus by athletes makes you a bad person or something.  I'm expected to be tolerant of others' need to broadcast their God feelings, but respecting others' desire not to have to hear these constant expressions is apparently not something that gets much consideration from the Praise Jesus crowd.


    televised track and field meets.

    They interview the winning athletes after every event and I'd say at least 50% thank god in those interviews.


    my favorite post game interview (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 11:38:16 AM EST
    will always be this one.

    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 11:48:31 AM EST
    Although I'm sympathetic (none / 0) (#27)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 11:39:57 AM EST
    To your opinion it's free speech.

    Most Americans believe in God in some shape or form.  40% or so really believe and would fall into the evangelical camp.  So when one of those gets interviewed they will probably thank God.

    You don't have to like it but it's just speech and it's harmless isn't it?  Why does he need to change his views so as not to offend you?

    He's not forcing his views on you he's expressing his own as is his right to do.   Then you have the right to criticize him and point out that God could care less who wins a football game.

    Many Christians feel certain points of view and cultural ideas are forced on them by Hollywood and the entertainment industry.  Why isn't the media more sensitive to their point of view?

    Because they shouldn't have to be and the "offended" have a remote control and can turn it off.


    First of all, I'm not asking or demanding (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 12:05:38 PM EST
    that anyone change their religious beliefs.

    Second, I did not say that God doesn't care about who wins a football game.

    Third, all I was trying to express was my own preference to not have to hear every athlete who catches a ball, shoots a three, birdies a hole, lands a triple axel, hits a home run, turn his or her accomplishment into a God thing.  Trust me when I tell you that I know where the mute button is and I use it.

    This isn't about the majority nature of the Christian population having to somehow be accorded more respect and deference for how and where they express their beliefs.  

    I never said all the God praise was harmful; it's not hurting me, it's just annoying me.  Am I allowed to be annoyed, do you think?  

    Maybe it's just that I'm skeptical of public figures who wrap themselves in God and the Bible - too many of them turn out to be doing some very un-Christian things on the side, you know?  


    Lately the wrapping doesn't stop (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 12:39:39 PM EST
    at God and the Bible; the Flag and an impassioned appeal to people's tribal instincts generally plays a big part. And lets not forget the 2nd Amendment.

    "God Bless you all, and God Bless the United States of America!"

    Personally, I don't think God blesses "us" anymore than he/she blesses Lichenstein or Suriname.

    Individual inspirations, ideas, actions, and love maybe God blesses..Maybe.  


    Look at the Hubble deep field and (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 03:43:27 PM EST
    ultra deep field images and tell me that anything capable of creating this is encompassed by any theology that you've heard of.  Most religions are nothing more than paternalistic parasitism and a few nonsense syllables.

    The best provide community and hope, which is good.


    Chuckle (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 05:07:58 PM EST
    As artificial intelligence advances, religious questions and concerns globally are bound to come up, and they're starting too: Some theologians and futurists are already considering whether AI can also know God.

    "I don't see Christ's redemption limited to human beings," Reverend Dr. Christopher J. Benek told me in a recent interview. Benek is an Associate Pastor of Providence Presbyterian Church in Florida and holds masters degrees in divinity and theology from Princeton University.

    "It's redemption to all of creation, even AI," he said. "If AI is autonomous, then we have should encourage it to participate in Christ's redemptive purposes in the world."


    The mind boggles


    If this guy's serious (none / 0) (#116)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 08:28:52 PM EST
    he should take his message to co-located Wall Street, where algos and HFTs devote their every "waking" moment to the sin of avarice, every minute of the trading day.

    It was the machines right along.. (none / 0) (#190)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 02:21:06 PM EST
    Samuel Butler in a (maybe) tongue-in-cheek moment said 150 years ago that we were just the machine's helpers; the hosts..

    Of course conservatives would probably say we're just The Market's hosts..


    whenever a politician starts doing it (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 12:06:52 PM EST
    you just know there's gonna be a catch.

    You are right to be skeptical (none / 0) (#45)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 12:18:23 PM EST
    And it can be annoying.

    Just saying it's not that big a deal.


    I'll happily say it (none / 0) (#99)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 05:53:06 PM EST
    Second, I did not say that God doesn't care about who wins a football game.

    Couldn't agree with Aaron Rogers more ...


    What ? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 12:10:58 PM EST
    Of course it is free speech, never said it wasn't.  What odd thing to say and an odd direction to take this discussion.

    And why has it changed/evolved in the last decade or two.  The numbers certainly haven't, probably less people believe in god, yet the references in sports are through the roof.  Because it's become fashionable, at least in the NFL, and that is my fascination with it, they are disguising their lust of fashion as some sort of religious dedication.  From saying it in every interview, to making some on field dedication, to gold and diamond encrusted crosses/jewelry, to tattoos.  

    God has become a fashion statement in the NFL.

    Beyond these comments, I haven't spend more than 5 seconds of thought on it, it's not a big deal, but I am very entertained when people come out to defend it when it's so obviously a self serving fashion statement.  "Oh look at me, I believe in god so much that I am incapable of holding it in when I do great things."  When they don't, like some sort of miracle, they have the ability to hold it in.


    Exactly My Point... (none / 0) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 11:45:48 AM EST
    ...the logic changes, depending on the outcome.

    Talk about a great gig, praise regardless, so all your kids all die in a car wreck, but thank god chris is still alive or god has a plan.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#34)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 11:57:36 AM EST
    I don't believe God works like that.

    To believe so means that you believe he plays favors. I don't really want to believe in a God that plays favors.

    Free will is free will and ultimately we all make choices in life that lead to good and horrible things that God had nothing to do with.

    Thanks for calling me out earlier we agree more then we don't.


    What is "parayer" (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 01:32:19 AM EST
    ...if it is not asking for some form of exception or heavenly notice for the supplicant above all others who might be in the same situation?

    A prayer is a specific request, or wish, if you will, that something good will happen that otherwise would not without the incantation.

    Doesn't seem much different to me than Ichiro's habit of jerking his right sleeve just before a pitch.  Ichiro thinks it helps, maybe it is part of a spell that works.  He sure hits better than I do.


    For us Cstholics (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by Slado on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 10:59:52 AM EST
    Prayer is a "Conversation with God and a recognition of his presence"

    Since it's a one way conversation it can often boil down to a wish list which God doesn't do per day.  

    Without getting too preachy I believe that he is always there and is a power of true love that we as humans can tap into through prayer, meditation and other forms of slowing down and reflecting without the stresses of daily life.  That power gives us strength, eases our stress, helps us to relax etc...

    He does not however in my view take requests.  He's there for us anytime we need him but he's not a favor giver.


    Slado (none / 0) (#171)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 12:28:52 PM EST
    as usual you have a reasonable and reasoned take on things.  As much as I despise organized religion, of all stripes, I consider myself a more or less spiritual person.  I like the idea of prayer as a form of meditation.  IMO (humble opinion) that's all it is.
    Also IMO the idea of praying for, for example, victory in war is what I would be what I call repulsive blasphemy of the highest order.  The fact that the prayers of many are directed at me, a gay man, with the intent of defeating me personally and or politically, which I certainly realize you would never do, is not lost on me.
    Prayer as a form of introspection and meditation is a good thing.  The other stuff I mentioned is beyond vile.  And if there is someone listening IMO it's why they are losing.

    That is (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by sj on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 03:10:20 PM EST
    ...SO not what a prayer is. Your comment is just as clueless as those made by conservatives or centrists telling us liberals what real liberals think.

    So I'm just going to ignore your comment because I know it is made in ignorance and not malice.

    But... I have been looking for you to comment, because I wondered if you had read this book:

    Roads Were Not Built for Cars


    I Wonder... (none / 0) (#165)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 11:57:20 AM EST
    ...how many prayer requests god is receiving for the $300M+ Powerball winning ticket ?

    I would imagine it numero uno on the request list this week.


    It seems too selfish to pray for the (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 12:14:57 PM EST
    winning lottery ticket, so this is the approach I go with: "Dear God, should this be my lucky day, and I should happen to win the lottery, please help me to remain humble, help me to remember and help those less fortunate, and guide me on a path that is true to my ideals and beliefs."

    I haven't won any lotteries yet, but if God is lending me a hand with these things, maybe I win even if I don't get rich.


    liked your post (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jack203 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 10:23:43 AM EST
    In hindsight.  Yes, Belicheck had a split second call and made the right one.

    Was it genius?  That's a stretch though.  If Seahawks score on that next play...if NE had called a timeout Brady would have had 45+ seconds to get in field goal range to force overtime.  Difficult but manageable.  By not calling the timeout, and SEA scoring NE would have had only 20 seconds, which is darn near impossible.


    Actually... (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 11:38:26 AM EST
    ...there could have been close to -0- seconds depending when they got in, that is the genius of it, which of course isn't genius had it played out differently.  

    Ditto for Carol, genius for calling a slant when you have the Lynch in the backfield, but only if things went as planned.

    Geniuses if they win, lepers if they fail, because both offered huge risks, neither call was the safe call.  Each coach ran through the exact scenarios, in their minds and in in practice, they both knew exactly what they would call in those circumstances IMO.

    Genius in the way of play calling, which is not the same as genius in the real world.  Extremely risky would probably be a more accurate description, but doesn't have the same cachet.


    Are you saying Carol (none / 0) (#28)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 11:41:35 AM EST
    Didn't screw up?

    What I Said... (none / 0) (#57)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 01:10:10 PM EST
    ...was both coaches decisions were decided long before, that both decisions were highly risky, and that no matter what, one was going to be the hero, the other a zero.

    I know you are on the Carol bandwagon, and it seems that most are there, I am not.  I didn't want to rehash, I just simply disagree.  Wilson threw the interception and Butler caught it.

    I did see your comment below about Belichick, and we both agree, he, like Carol two weeks prior, snatched the victory out of the mouth's of their opponents through great coaching and preparation.


    Oh yea (none / 0) (#29)
    by CST on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 11:43:51 AM EST
    And it's risky calls like that which are a big reason for the teams ultimate successes as well.

    Belichek often gets a lot of flack for "going for it" on 4th too often according to the announcers.  But you know what - it works a lot of the time.  When it works they are heroes when it doesn't they're stupid.  I'll take the risky coach every day though over the one that's too afraid to make those calls.  Has it lost us some games?  Absolutely.  But the record kind of speaks for itself.  And it's a little hard to say Carroll is an idiot when his team was a few seconds away from winning the superbowl.  If he was really that bad - the team never would have made it as far as they did.  And I'm sure some risky calls helped get them there.

    Belichek has been calling people out for their reaction to "the call" as well.


    I wrote a long post on this (none / 0) (#35)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 12:01:06 PM EST
    And Carols mistake was not just the call. It was a series of mistakes that started with the fact that he was confident he could run the ball in with Lynch at the end.

    This confidence or even hubris led to him trying to have it all in the last minute and five seconds.   He wanted to win the game, he wanted Wilson to throw the running touchdown pass and he wanted to leave too little time for Brady to mount to come back.

    The other choice was to run lunch in from the 1 yard line with 55 seconds left in the game knowing that then you still had two more chances and a timeout.  That was the smarter play or the play by the numbers. Instead he got two cute in my opinion and try to have it all.


    to be fair (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CST on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 12:05:26 PM EST
    I'm a patriots fan.  So... I think it was the perfect call :)

    But in all seriousness it's also that kind of confidence and hubris that gets you to the big game two years in a row.  And yea - sometimes it comes back to bite you.


    What should be talked (none / 0) (#44)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 12:16:03 PM EST
    About is the play by Butler and the fact that he made that play because of the genius of Bellicheck.

    He sat in those meeting rooms knowing he may not even play in the game. But because of the culture that the his coach has established of "doing your job" he paid attention and when the Seahawks lined up in that formation he knew exactly what to do.  Not only did he know what to do but his teammate in front of him jammed the receiver just as he had been told to do so Butler had a free shot at the receiver.

    That is the reason the patriots won the Super Bowl. The culture of their locker room and their coach led to that unlikely hero making the play of the game.   They just needed Carol just serve it up for them.


    Carrol just over-thought it.. (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 01:12:13 PM EST
    he saw Belichek tweak the defense at the goal line and overreacted in the moment.

    Btw, A lot of people saw Revis get picked by the ref in the end zone on that touchdown.  Is there anything in the rule book dealing with situations in which the ref gets in the way like that?


    No They are Part of the Field of Play... (none / 0) (#62)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 01:23:45 PM EST
    ...no different that slipping in muddy conditions.  What surprises me is that teams don't do it more often, especially at the goal line where everyone is compacted to a 10 yard field.

    He was picked by the umpire (none / 0) (#63)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 01:29:52 PM EST
    See umpire rules of responsibility from the official NFL rule book.

    As I read it he has a responsibility to get out of the way of the wide receiver but nobody else.

    I've always been taught that all of the referees are part of the field of play so if the ball hits them or you run into him then it's just your fault.


    Was that the play (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 01:33:58 PM EST
    Sherman was taunting about?

    If so, think I have to agree with you, Slado. Instant karma.


    Yes it was (none / 0) (#96)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 05:17:15 PM EST
    Karmas a bi$&x

    I Didn't Get That... (none / 0) (#67)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 01:44:14 PM EST
    ...nor do I think there is much room, at least in that play, for the ump to move around.

    Umpire--Primary responsibility to rule on players' equipment, as well as their conduct and actions on scrimmage line. Lines up approximately four to five yards downfield, varying position from in front of weakside tackle to strongside guard. Looks for possible false start by offensive linemen. Observes legality of contact by both offensive linemen while blocking and by defensive players while they attempt to ward off blockers. Is prepared to call rule infractions if they occur on offense or defense. Moves forward to line of scrimmage when pass play develops in order to insure that interior linemen do not move illegally downfield. If offensive linemen indicate screen pass is to be attempted, Umpire shifts his attention toward screen side, picks up potential receiver in order to insure that he will legally be permitted to run his pattern and continues to rule on action of blockers. Umpire is to assist in ruling on incomplete or trapped passes when ball is thrown overhead or short. On punt plays, Umpire positions himself opposite Referee in offensive backfield--5 yards from kicker and one yard behind.

    He supposed to (none / 0) (#112)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 07:53:31 PM EST
    Try and pick up the receiver in order to avoid him but obviously at the goal line not much room to move.   In that particular situation he might have thought his best move was to standstill so everybody had a fair chance to get around him.  Something I'm sure the Seahawks thought about and why they ran a shallow cross with a clear out on that side.  If the pick works or Revis is behind him easy pitch and catch.

    Then Sherman runs his mouth on the sideline because Revis got picked by the ref.  karma.


    Had Green Bay... (none / 0) (#59)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 01:13:15 PM EST
    ...played a little riskier, they would have beat Seattle, so I completely agree about risky play calling.  

    Playing it safe may keep ESPN off your back, but it doesn't win championships.


    Handing the ball three (none / 0) (#108)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 07:33:07 PM EST
    Times to Lynch from the 1 is not playing it safe or risky.  It's just the most sure way to take the lead in the Super Bowl.

    Then you leave some time on the clock for what is supposed to be the best secondary in football to keep the patriots from tying the game with a field goal.

    As jondee said he just over thought it. Happens all the time in all sports, coaches get too involved instead of letting the players decide the outcome.  

    Think about what Bellicheck did. He let his players decide the outcome. He didn't let the Seattle Seahawks score he didn't call timeouts he knew his guys were prepared and he let them play.  

    But he did come out today and defend Carol in that he is being harped on too much so i'll take the advice of the best coach in football and let it go.   Easy to do since I'm not a Seahawks fan.


    Well, I am a Seahawks fan (none / 0) (#126)
    by ZtoA on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 10:42:36 PM EST
    (odd but true).

    And I still am. Dangerusswilson.


    They Had to Throw One Pass... (none / 0) (#153)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 09:33:25 AM EST
    ...to stop the clock, now if you want to argue that they should have thrown it out of the endzone, that's fine, but they could not run 3 times in 26 seconds and one time out.

    If you have to pass, the best time to do it when the D is lined up for the run.  Even Belichick called the questioning of the call "Totally out of line."

    Let it go, the set of plays was determined long before game time, maybe it's not what you would have called, but for the love of god quit insisting that is was the wrong call.

    More from Belichick:

    "There has been a lot of criticism that I don't think is anywhere close to being deserved or founded," Belichick said Tuesday during his weekly appearance on sports radio WEEI in Boston. "That football team is very good, very well-coached, and Pete does a great job.

    "Malcolm and Brandon [Browner], on that particular play, just made a great play. I think the criticism they've gotten for the game is totally out of line and by a lot of people who I don't think are anywhere near even qualified to be commenting on it."


    Amazing Argentine spy story (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 09:23:55 AM EST
    Do cry for me, Argentina. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 12:53:48 PM EST
     President Christina Kirchner does seem like a piece of work.    With the spy case nipping at her heels, she mocked Chinese accents during an official visit to China.   President Kirchner went on about the Chinese difficulty in pronouncing "r" and replaced it with "l" in a tweet.    Not in the same league as the mysterious death of the prosecutor, but a few tears for Argentina all the same.

    Honestly (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 01:01:26 PM EST
    sky case probably understates the situation.  A prosecutor shot in the head the day before presenting evidence to congress supporting her and her aids arrest warrant for murder.

    Also (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 01:53:03 PM EST
    i love the part about the arrest warrants being found in the dumpster behind the dead prosecutors building.

    It is being reported that (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 10:27:26 AM EST
    Brian Williams of NBC news has lied about being in a 'copter that was shot down in Iraq.

    He pleads to having been "confused" after 12 years have passed.

    How sad. I have always rated him as one of the best talking heads and now this.

    "Brian, you've been caught in a lie. Now apologize and get out of the news business. You have zip credibility."

    If Brian (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by lentinel on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 07:00:26 PM EST
    said that, and he claims he said so because he's confused, perhaps he should retire and open a dry goods store somewhere. .

    It brings to mind good old Saint Ronnie Reagan claiming that he liberated concentration camps in WW2. Actually, he had spent a few weeks in California editing raw footage of the liberations - and got confused.

    He should have been swiftly retired to selling umbrellas in an arcade somewhere.

    But he stayed on as President.
    It's a miracle we survived.

    I guess, to be fair, if Reagan, as confused as can be, could be president, Brian could continue to read what is put in front of him.


    He said it on the David Letterman (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 12:09:13 AM EST
    show for one place and is now trying to say he was just confused...

    Again. This has nothing to do with politics. I could counter that Hillary claimed to land while under ground fire. Obama visited states that don'r exist and.... you can keep your doctor, etc....

    But when a scion of network news, a leader of the people who are supposed to tell us about the lies of the politicians then the simple truth is that he should go. His credibility is gone. He has lied to make himself look good. What else will he do to make himself look good and/or curry favor??

    And I again emphasize NEWS. Not opinion. I don't consider O'Reilly or Tweety or Limbaugh or Sharpton or some guest on the various shows a reporter. Everything they say or write I take with a dose of salt. I trust that you also do so.


    Why the immediate call for Williams's (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 01:41:52 PM EST

    It's not like he lied about what he did in the Air National guard during 'Nam.

    Or forced his housekeeper to go out and buy narcotics for him..

    When tinkle-down economics and culture wars aficionado Brent Bozell and Jim immediately go for the kill, you know there's some IMAGINED "liberal media" figure with his neck stretched out..


    You Forgot the Master... (none / 0) (#196)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 03:25:47 PM EST
    ...and how he forgot all about selling arms to Iran to fund Contra in Central America.

    But then again, there is a pretty good chance he actually forgot.


    Well the Right (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 03:36:51 PM EST
    may have bad memories, but they never lie.

    Unless it's in the service of God.

    Or to keep America safe.

    Or in the service of electing people who'll serve God and keep America safe.


    Please (none / 0) (#167)
    by lentinel on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 12:04:32 PM EST
    add to your list Ronald "I don't recall" Reagan who liberated the camps during WW2 - except that he was at a Moviola in California at the time watching films... Oops.

    If you took it with (none / 0) (#181)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 01:43:14 PM EST
    a dose of salt, you wouldn't parrot so many of those opinions practically verbatim.

    Memory is maleable (none / 0) (#131)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 01:02:29 AM EST
    I don't think Brian Williams was intentionally "lying."   Memory can be massaged and a memory of an event can change over time.....This is one of the reasons eyewitness testimony is not all that reliable....

    ....and the reason why the prosecutors at Nuremberg attempted to rely on the Nazis' own documents as much as possible.....and because the Nazis were very good record keepers....


    Look... (none / 0) (#136)
    by lentinel on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 06:26:20 AM EST
    Saying that you were in a helicopter that was hit by a rocket propelled grenade - when you were not - You were in a helicopter that was not hit by a rocket propelled grenade...

    I think I would know the difference.
    But hey, that's just me.

    You don't want to call it lying.


    Then the guy is delusional and should be institutionalized.

    In fairness, I would say that the qualifications for reading aloud the agenda-driven swill that appears on a teleprompter is not rocket science.

    So, it is not really of major concern that a liar or someone whose marbles are missing performs that nightly ritual.


    He is not the only one who (none / 0) (#141)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 08:38:49 AM EST
    has made that mistake....

    I think civilians who are near combat situations may be overwhelmed by it all....the memory can play tricks....

    Why would Brian Williams intentionally falsify his story.....it is an easy falsehood to detect.....If he thought about it, he knew he would get caught....

    The research on memories is very interesting....It is not so black and white....people's memories of static events occurring years ago do change all the time...


    It's sort of funny (none / 0) (#158)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 10:30:42 AM EST
    It began as being misreported on day one.  Then some  people on the Chinook that was damaged began remembering Brian Williams on their Chinook. One of the guys incapable of misremembering was someone who  got a little internally upset when Brian Williams and crew landed and began filming the damaged aircraft. He was worried his wife would see it on the news before he could tell her himself that he was okay.

    My personal opinion (none / 0) (#166)
    by lentinel on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 12:01:35 PM EST
    about this:
    Why would Brian Williams intentionally falsify his story.

    is that it is self-aggrandisement.

    He would like to see himself as a real reporter, instead of the institutional shill that he really is.

    He just reads sh-t that is placed before him, with the intention of selling it to us - or occasionally looking slightly troubled.

    But he would like to see himself as Edward R. Murrow, live. When the bombs are dropping. In the thick of it. With a trenchcoat. The lot.

    So he ... the best you can say is that he hallucinated - and got to where he even believed it.

    People who are this way - do things even though they know that they will certainly be exposed.? Remember Billy Clinton?

    It is a matter of having an enormous ego combined with a capacity for self-delusion.

    As I said, I don't really care.

    The guy just reads the cr@p that is put before him. And he would be replaced by some other  mannequin who would do the same.

    The era of real reporters as "anchors" is long gone - if it ever existed.


    Other lies that Williams told, perhaps (none / 0) (#170)
    by caseyOR on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 12:23:32 PM EST
    to enhance his stature as a reporter, perhaps to make for a better story, are coming to light.

    His claim that during Katrina he saw a dead body float by his hotel room is false. His hotel was in the French Quarter which did not flood. And while he did ride out the storm in the Super Dome, he and his crew left that afternoon. He did not spend the night there and so was not witness to anything that happened in the SD that night. He also claimed to have contracted dysentary from swallowing flood water, but the truth of that claim has also been challenged.

    IIRC, Williams had no real reporting experience before being named as Tom Brokaw's successor. He had always been an anchor. So, NBC started sending him off on reporting assignments in the months leading up to Brokaw's departure. His time in Iraq in 2003 was part of that campaign to get him some reporter credentials.

    As to him being just a reader and not responsible for what he reads, I disagree. Williams is the editor of the Nightly News. He is a major part of the group that decides what stories make it on air, and he writes his own copy.


    This is starting to remind me of the (none / 0) (#174)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 12:49:57 PM EST
    story arc on The Wire surrounding "Scott Templeton:"

    Templeton is assigned the color story about the Baltimore Orioles opening day game. He plans to write a story about a dedicated fan but his canvassing does not render anyone that fits his profile. When he returns to the paper he tells Haynes that his subject is a thirteen-year-old disabled boy who wanted to attend the game but could not afford a ticket. Haynes is concerned by Templeton's claim that the boy would only give his nickname "E-Jay." Haynes asks Templeton for more detail and Templeton claims E-Jay didn't want to give his name because he was truant from school in order to attend. He also says that E-Jay is an orphan who lives with his aunt and was injured by a stray bullet causing his disability. Haynes tries to verify the story by dispatching photographers to find the boy and checking the archives for a story about his original injury. When he is unsuccessful in corroborating Templeton's work Haynes confronts Templeton a second time and Templeton tells Haynes that he resents the implication that his work is fabricated. Haynes is forced to run the piece when Whiting gives Templeton his full support.


    Haynes is briefly impressed by Templeton when he hits the streets and writes an excellent profile of a homeless man who suffers from PTSD after an IED hit his patrol unit in Iraq. However, Templeton also claims in the same episode to have checked on a fraud case, and Haynes later finds out his explanation for the story doesn't check out. The vet later comes in and says Templeton lied about his story as well, from saying they were in a Black Hawk Down-level firefight to saying they had coffee instead of chocolate milk. Haynes goes to the Walter Reed Center in D.C. and talks to a wounded veteran who backs up the interviewed vet, saying he's not a liar. Templeton continues to fabricate information for the fake serial-killer plan that McNulty hatches, and the detective quickly realizes Scott is a fabulist. However, in the end Haynes and Gutierrez both receive demotions for questioning Templeton's work, while he wins a Pulitzer Prize for his "reporting" on the homeless in Baltimore.

    The thing about Williams is that he doesn't seem all that chagrined to have been caught making up a story; I have a feeling he believes he made an ordinary story better by injecting himself into it.  

    One thing's for sure: I bet there are a lot of people out there checking on Brian Williams' reporting.  Too bad it takes getting caught in a lie to get people interested in demanding the truth from the media, eh?


    The importance of credibility.. (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 12:57:38 PM EST
    like the importance of being earnest..

    two words leap immediately to mind: Fox News.


    Reported Where ? (none / 0) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 01:34:04 PM EST
    Got a link.

    And if credibility is an issue, why are you watching Fox News ?  They have been caught in so many lies, and according to you, the entire network should "apologize and get out of the news business".


    linking to a live AM talk radio (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 01:43:33 PM EST
    show is problematic.

    He's right (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 01:44:29 PM EST

    but so are you


    I saw Williams apologize for his (none / 0) (#72)
    by caseyOR on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 02:12:45 PM EST
    "misremembering" on the NBC Nightly News the other night.

    In fact, the Chinook Williams and crew were in was about an hour behind the ones that took fire. I find it interesting that years ago Williams told the story as it actually happened. Then, for some reason, he started telling the false story.

    Now I want to know if he really did spend the night in the Super Dome during hurricane Katrina.


    Scott, why so aggressive?? (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 06:21:51 PM EST
    You should be very concerned when a major network news anchor is caught in such a lie. It completely transcends politics.

    And can you give us a list of FNC's "lies" with a link??

    Now understand, don't give us a list of opinion pieces from O'Reilly, Hannity, etc......

    but real hard news broadcasts.


    You can (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 06:32:06 PM EST
    start here

    Or Google "list of Fox News lies for yourself"


    And I could Google the other networks (none / 0) (#113)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 08:10:33 PM EST
    starting with the one we are talking about right now.  :)

    Or how about Dan Rather? Or how about the Benghazi story on 60 minutes?  

    By your logic we're down to one major news network ABC.

    In my experience FOXNews is the best cable network at doing hard news as it is actually happening.

    Can you really say that Shepard Smith is a partisan hack?

    I understand someone of a particular political persuasion might not want to watch a network that puts out admittedly Republican propaganda on its opinion shows but as far as not being able to link to their website at all when reporting hard news I think that's taking it to the extreme.   No website would qualify under those parameters if applied fairly and not just on a partisan basis.

    Anyways it seems that at least in 2010 by shear numbers more Dems watched Fox news  because more Americans watch FOXNews.   I'd be willing to bet the numbers are similar today since Fox is more dominant then ever.


    He didn't ask about other networks (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 08:15:36 PM EST
    he asked for a link to a list of FOX lies.  I obliged.  For the record while I was there I looked at the lists of some of the others.

    I really do think FOX seems to be leading in this area.


    Hey, too each his own (none / 0) (#115)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 08:25:37 PM EST
    You and me are TV buds.  We both need to cross some networks off our list, too much good TV to watch.

    Today I realized I had 80% of my DVR filled on my DirecTV Genie filled which I never thought was possible.

    Are you watching girls this year? I'm into it so far.  Like to see Hannah back at her base selfish level again.


    Btw (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 08:35:22 PM EST
    i do hope you are well.  My thoughts are with you often.

    Ha (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 08:34:28 PM EST
    very funny.  I, unbelievably, am sitting here deleting old stuff to make room.

    I don't have HBO right now so no.  I will catch up when I inevitably get it again.   One of the reasons the DVR is so full is because I have less commercial free channels so I record everything since I can't abide commercials.

    My favorite thing right now is The Americans.


    The propaganda is the least of it (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 03:28:42 PM EST
    Fox also consistently models incivility, rudeness, intellectual dishonesty in the way they set up and conduct interviews and debates..

    The sandbagging and interrupting and talking over, the sabotaging and distracting with ad hominem attacks..

    What Fox consistently models is an utter terror of intellectual honesty and critical thinking that might threaten any conservative's preconceived notions.


    Fox News is the best at News??? (none / 0) (#130)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 12:50:34 AM EST
    Oh my.

    One of the key ways Fox News distorts the news is just through the selection of the stories it does.....It can report perfectly accurate news about a game of checkers.....but if something else more important is happening, and Fox ignores it, that is slanting the news....

    Fox News, the newscasters--not just the opinion people--just ignore news that conservatives would find uncomfortable.


    Try again (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 11:50:41 PM EST
    Now understand, don't give us a list of opinion pieces from O'Reilly, Hannity, etc......

    but real hard news broadcasts.

    Let's look at some data about (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 07:39:46 AM EST
    "hard news" and Fox:

    Researchers asked 1,185 random nationwide respondents what news sources they had consumed in the past week and then asked them questions about events in the U.S. and abroad.

    On average, people correctly answered 1.6 of 5 questions about domestic affairs.

    Because the aim of the study was to isolate the effects of each type of news source, they then controlled for variables such as other news sources, partisanship, education and other demographic factors.

    They found that someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer 1.04 domestic questions correctly compared to 1.22 for those who watched no news at all. (Ed)Those watching only "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" answered 1.42 questions correctly and people who only listened to NPR or only watched Sunday morning political talk shows answered 1.51 questions correctly.

    Mordiggian (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 09:24:04 AM EST
    to be fair the same studies have failed to determine why Fox news viewers are less informed. They haven't officially determined the cause but have narrowed it to the following two possibilities: They are less informed because they watch Fox news, or Fox news viewers are less intelligent to begin with.

    Fox News watchers (none / 0) (#152)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 09:28:31 AM EST
    Have been shown in other studies not to be getting news from other sources than Fox News, which would explain a lot, and they tend to skew older, as can be seen by the commercials they run as well

    That would be impossible (none / 0) (#137)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 07:22:24 AM EST
    Fox News doesn't do real hard news broadcasts. It's why studies continue to find that viewers of Fox news are less informed than those that watch no news at all.

    When the studies (none / 0) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 08:51:27 AM EST
    are studies of opinion shows then they aren't studies about news.

    And yes, FNC does hard news. You know that and I know that. But then again since I don't think you watch FNC you may actually not know.

    And think of the lack of logic of a claim that says that those that watch FNC are less informed than those who watch no news at all. Huh?? That claim means that ALL FNC broadcasts are inaccurate.

    What the study is about is the viewers.

    We have this:

    The kicker is that MSNBC didn't do all that much better. In one question, some 11% of MSNBC viewers actually believed that Occupy Wall Street protesters were Republicans compared to just 3% of Fox viewers.


    And this.

    "Jon Stewart has not spent a lot of time on some of these issues," said Cassino. "But
    the results show that when he does talk about something, his viewers pick up a lot more
    information than they would from other news sources."

    No, what that shows is that the people who watch Stewart are interested in such and are also using multiple sources.

    This is borne out by:

    Only 55% of New Jerseyans are able to name correctly either Mitt Romney or Herman
    Cain as the Republican candidates most recently leading in the polls.....Those who listen to talk radio are the most likely to answer the question correctly.

    Showing that people retain what they are interested in. And:

    "The amount of time spent on an issue, and the depth to which it's discussed, makes a
    ," said Cassino. "Whatever its flaws may be, talk radio has spent a lot of time
    talking about the nomination, and the basic facts seem to have gotten through."

    e.g. The head of Gallup was on FNC yesterday saying that the U3 numbers are BS. I just Googled "unemployment numbers are misleading" I found the WSJ. I didn't find CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and NBC.

    Strange. You would think such a pronouncement by the head of the worlds most respected polling organization would rate a few minutes of air time. Especially since it confirms that numbers that don't count everyone, including those who have given up are misleading and shouldn't be used. And yes, the Repubs use them.

    Yes, MKS. The bias is in what is put on air.

    But why are you, and others, defending Williams with, basically, a "He's bad but he's no worse than FNC?"

    And now we have this:

    Williams' account of seeing a body float by in the French Quarter -- which remained largely dry -- and even a claim of catching dysentery....My week, two weeks there was not helped by the fact that I accidentally ingested some of the floodwater. I became very sick with dysentery, our hotel was overrun with gangs, I was rescued in the stairwell of a five-star hotel in New Orleans by a young police officer.

    The Quarter was mostly dry and there were no reported cases of dynestry reported and I'll bet that young police officer can't be found.

    He has an audience probably 2 times or so bigger than FNC, MSNBC and CNN combined.

    Shouldn't he have more credibility than Al of "Married With Children" declaring that he scored 4 touchdowns against Polk High?

    Have a nice day. I'll be back in the late PM.


    Sorry, the study I referenced below (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 09:22:49 AM EST
    was about news, not about opinions, about their knowledge of facts, not their opinions on the facts themselves.

    As for the WSJ agreeing with Fox News about the unemployment figures, that couldn't be due to them both being owned by Rupert Murdoch, could it?


    Just another example of you being misinformed (none / 0) (#147)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 09:19:11 AM EST
    Al Bundy didn't play against Polk. Al played "for" the Polk High School Panthers in the Championship game.

    Well, I bow to your superior knowledgde (1.00 / 1) (#192)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 03:03:49 PM EST
    about lies told as part of a TV sitcom.

    Now, if you could just grasp the lies told by Williams it would be wonderful thing.


    I was reading an article (none / 0) (#186)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 01:58:09 PM EST
    about the phenomenon of paid internet trolls the other day..

    I confess that I was inexcusably naïve about all that..

    The Right got lean and mean and well organized and VERY well funded in the last couple of decades.

    Like a giant single-minded hive of African killer bees..

    Saw a video from Tea Bagger affiliated group with a pseudo-patriotic-sounding name with the word "American", "Freedom", or "liberty" in it, and an instructor was telling the participants to go to Amazon and give a one star rating to every "liberal" publication they could find..  


    I Like Brian Williams... (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 09:05:15 AM EST
    ...and for me personally, the guy reporting the news credibility isn't really an issue.  He's not the one putting the words on the teleprompter, he is simply reading it.

    I have read the story, and yes, for him to lie about that is ridiculous, but let's face it, there isn't really many people in public who haven't been caught lying, from Bush to Obama to Fox News to every other news, they have all distorted the truth in some manor at some point.

    The part I find hilarious is statements like "It completely transcends politics" or "Now apologize and get out of the news business."  I would love to hear how it transcends politics.

    And you say I am aggressive, yeah I am not acting like someone caught lying transcends anything.  It's what humans do, it's what you do, it's what we all do at some point as there isn't a human on the planet over 15 that has not told a lie, or exaggerated the truth.  Your the one acting like its a life altering experience.

    You can come clean about your service, but everyone else is to be completely honest.  Not saying you lied about it, I don't believe you have, but alluding to something without giving any details is hardly being honest.

    Brian Williams has a problem, a problem that is going to ultimately be his demise, I just wish you were so quick to judgement when people on your side of the field get caught lying, cough, cough Romney and his income.


    Scott, this issue isn't about me (none / 0) (#195)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 03:20:32 PM EST
    or you. And why you have a problem with a simple seven word declaratory sentence I truly do not understand. I allude to nothing. I imply nothing. I hint at nothing. I suggest nothing.

    And it transcends politics because it is about a man who made up stuff to make himself look good. "Gilding the lily" it is called.

    A man who supposedly is telling us the truth about our so-called leaders and government.

    If he will lie to make himself more interesting, To make himself look "good" what other things will he do?

    That should never be about politics. It should be about the truth.

    As for Romney, I posted both his FIT forms and I don't recall them showing that he lied.

    But that aside, Romney is not the issue.

    Obama, who is a proven serial liar, is not the issue.

    Nor is Limbaugh.

    Nor is the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton.

    It is about Brian Williams telling lies.


    Nothing Foggy About... (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 03:36:16 PM EST
    ...Naval Aviation.

    Please you have been alluding, implying, hinting, that you were in the Navy without actually stating you have.  No mention of the obvious question, where, where, what did you do, and on and on.

    You shimmer around it all the time, especially when there is a discussion about war, stating that you are some sort of military expert because you were in.... drum roll... Naval Aviation.

    If a liberal politician stated he was in Naval Aviation no way would you and your party leave it go at that.  It's deceptive and implies something without actual stating it.  It's why you do it, if there was nothing to hid you would come clean.

    The point stands, we all all less than honest one time of another, I was simply pointing out how you do it.


    Link below (none / 0) (#106)
    by lentinel on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 07:04:53 PM EST
    Amazing but true (none / 0) (#40)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 12:08:49 PM EST
    So my nurse came today along with the girl that does my bath.

    We are shooting the breeze and I bring up the whole measles controversy. My tech says yeah I can't believe people wouldn't get the vaccination, but my actual nurse is very quiet. As we keep talking she starts saying things like well you can't be sure, and that's not absolutely proven, so finally I say do you not believe we should vaccinate our kids?   She says no because the current vaccinations have too many chemicals for her child, she has two older children that are vaccinated her young surprise four year old child is not.

    Needless to say that was a record stop moment.  She said that the epidemic is being hyped up by the media and was armed with data about how the vaccinations have changed over the years and obviously was prepared to defend her opinion and she has probably had to do so in the past. Since she's my nurse and I'm always nice to them I said well we all have our opinions so let's just agree to disagree on this one.

    I would describe her as religious but very into the organic food lifestyle as she lives on a farm and does a little bit of organic dairy farming.

    Couldn't believe it happened after all these posts I've made and read about the subjectt.  

    Jennny McCarthy (none / 0) (#132)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 01:09:48 AM EST
    and her one time husband Jim Carrey were pushing the idea that vaccines cause autism....

    People are suspicious of chemicals in general, which makes a lot of sense....the rates of cancer are now much higher than they have been.....but that skepticism can take way off without a scientific anchor.


    Just to set the record straight (none / 0) (#46)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 12:24:02 PM EST
    Jackie Susann was NOT the first female author to achieve widespread renown in her lifetime.

    Off the top of the head, the names Harriet Beecher Stowe, Alcott, Willa Cather, Isak Dinnesen come to mind as writers who had tremendous success in getting their work published and appreciated before Jackie was a twinkle in some sugar daddy's eye..

    Lets not bastardize history too much, if we can help it..

    That wasn't what I had said at all. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 02:28:53 PM EST
    Please don't take completely out of context one of my many statements from yesterday's discussion to suite whatever your purpose here happens to be. While those women enjoyed substantial acclaim within limited circles, none of them have ever sold anywhere near the volume of Jacqueline Susann's work, even taken all together. Further, in their respective times they were among the very few individual female exceptions in the overwhelmingly male-dominated venue of modern literature.

    Otherwise, the times were such that most women who sought to have their work published often had to use a male (or at least an androgynous) pseudonym. One example would be "Franklin W. Dixon," aka Ms. Leslie McFarlane, who was the principle writer for the popular "Hardy Boys Mystery Stories" of the early and mid-20th century.

    Another is Susan Eloise Hinton, successful author of such popular works as "The Outsiders" and "Rumble Fish," who was initially encouraged to write under the pen name "S.E. Hinton" because even in the immediate wake of Jacqueline Susann's towering success, her publisher feared that Hinton's audience -- comprised primarily of young men -- would cease devouring her books once they realized that the writer was a young woman.

    Susann's mega-success with "Valley of the Dolls" proved conclusively that there was a substantial and heretofore untapped market for female writers / authors of popular fiction. In that regard, she broke the glass ceiling in the publishing world, and paved the way for numerous other women to be taken seriously and published under their own name. That's why, even as a pulp novelist, she's such an important figure in American literature.

    I consider your repeated attempts to diminish and denigrate Jacqueline Susann's accomplishment -- i.e., "Jackie was a twinkle in some sugar daddy's eye" -- as clearly being beneath you, jondee. And that's the last I'm going to say on the subject.



    Actually, Donald (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 02:39:30 PM EST
    that's EXACTLY what you said.

    "The first female author to achieve widespread renown in her lifetime..trailblazer..yadda yadda."

    Spinning it beneath a leaf storm of verbiage and backtracking doesn't change your initial claim.


    The phrase.... (none / 0) (#134)
    by unitron on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 01:42:37 AM EST
    ..."widespread renown" lacks a certain precision, and is therefore subject to interpretation and individual opinion.

    I'd have thought it covered Margaret Mitchell and Harper Lee, even if each were only famous for the one book.

    And considering they made a movie out of one of her books twice and another one three times, it seems Fanny Hurst should qualify as well.

    The name Pearl S. Buck springs to mind as well.

    There may be others, those are ones I actually remember having heard of years before there were search engines.


    You can go back to Sappho (none / 0) (#183)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 01:49:11 PM EST
    if you want to..

    What drives me nuts this very American tendency to unconsciously, automatically associate big revenue streams and monetary success with virtue and profundity.


    I'm sorry, Donald, but in the pantheon (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 03:29:17 PM EST
    of women writers, Jacqueline Susann doesn't merit the kind of acclaim you're giving her.  It's like saying that because McDonald's sells a gazillion Big Macs, and were at the forefront of fast food, the food itself is great.  It's not.  It's cheap and it's everywhere, but it's not "great."

    Are the Fifty Shades of Grey books great because they made mommy-p*rn acceptable?  I mean what are the standards for "great?"

    Susann wrote what I would call "good beach books;" she sold a lot of them, and they were fast reads, but they weren't "great."  And consider also, how women were portrayed in her books; seems to me she perpetuated the woman-can't-handle-independence-without breaking apart  image that made it harder for women to rise above, not easier.

    Anne of Green Gables, Little Women, the "Little House" books of Laura Ingalls Wilder: all about strong girls growing into strong women in spite of the obstacles of the times.  Books that are still good and relevant today; pick up Valley of the Dolls and I guarantee you will be embarrassed to be seen reading it.

    Seriously, I have no idea why you're making Susann out to be something special just because she sold a lot of books.  Who's #2 on your list - Jackie Collins?  


    I thought it pretty settled that Jane (none / 0) (#142)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 08:43:20 AM EST
    Austen and the Bronte sisters were trail blazers and among the first women authors of note....and I am not recalling any others earlier....unless there is a theory that Shakespeare was a woman.

    Mary Shelley too (none / 0) (#144)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 08:53:03 AM EST
    And she was early 19th Century, no?  

    And I don't remember how popular Austen and the Bronte sisters were back them.....Actually, in terms of the pioneers of the novel in the English language, women were right there with the men....Or the men were not so far ahead....

    Dickens was mid 1850s....Earlier American writers such James Fenimore Cooper and Hawthorne, and the British Fielding, do predate the women, I think....

    Perhaps someone here can provide a better list.


    I am no expert on female authors - or (none / 0) (#155)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 09:44:24 AM EST
    male authors for that matter - and the books I mentioned were favorites from my own childhood, and among those that, I believe, have stood the test of time.  In fact, my own daughters read many of the same books I did as a child, which tells you something, I think.

    I have to say that when I read Donald's first comment about Susann, I thought he was launching into one of his silly riffs, until I realized he was serious.  Which pretty much boggled my mind.

    How one views the relative merits of any writer are so subjective.  Many would consider George Eliot to be on the list of important women writers, but if I hadn't been required to read her books for a college course, I'd probably not have gotten past the first 50 pages of any of them - they just didn't speak to me.  Isak Dinesen on the other hand - well, she had me at Out of Africa, and then I had to read everything else she'd written, as well.


    A spin thru Wiki (none / 0) (#157)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 09:57:52 AM EST
    Here is a blurb about Austen from Wikipedia:

    During her time at Chawton, Jane Austen successfully published four novels, which were generally well-received. Through her brother Henry, the publisher Thomas Egerton agreed to publish Sense and Sensibility,[D] which appeared in October 1811. Reviews were favourable and the novel became fashionable among opinion-makers;[77] the edition sold out by mid-1813.[E] Austen's earnings from Sense and Sensibility provided her with some financial and psychological independence.[78] Egerton then published Pride and Prejudice, a revision of First Impressions, in January 1813. He advertised the book widely and it was an immediate success, garnering three favourable reviews and selling well. By October 1813, Egerton was able to begin selling a second edition.[79] Mansfield Park was published by Egerton in May 1814. While Mansfield Park was ignored by reviewers, it was a great success with the public. All copies were sold within six months, and Austen's earnings on this novel were larger than for any of her other novels.

    Austen was a phenom in her own time.   I  remember now that many feminists do cite her.


    Emily and Charlotte Bronte were personal (none / 0) (#177)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    favorites when I was a young man, as handsome as Heathcliff and twice as moody.

    I can't believe that Jacqueline Susann and Dean Koontz, et al, even made it into a discussion of great American novelists.  No denying that their writing holds your attention, but that's a different talent.

    Maybe I'm in a different space than some of you; I've read a lot of female novelists over the years.  There are a lot of them out there, especially in S/F, which is about all I read anymore.


    just gonna chime in briefly to say (none / 0) (#187)
    by CST on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 02:03:30 PM EST
    that prior to this conversation I'd never heard of Jacquiline Susann.  Which is funny - because she's supposed to be renowned for being popular it sounds like?

    I have certainly heard of the Bronte Sisters, Dickenson, Jane Austen, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Lucy Maud Montgomery, Louisa May Alcott, Judy Blume, Tony Morrison, Harper Lee, Zora Neale Hurston, Sylvia Plath, etc... etc...

    Not saying I love all of them - but I've heard of them.


    Big Internet news (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 01:50:32 PM EST
    net neutrality seems in reach

    My techie friends are very excited about this.  VERY.
    Making it an official public utility really is a big deal.

    nother link

    is it just me (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by CST on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 01:59:32 PM EST
    or does Obama seem determined not to be a lame duck.  He's quietly doing a bunch of stuff we all wanted him to do 6 years ago.  Not that I'm complaining.

    Better late (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 02:19:35 PM EST
    than never.  Right?

    Let's talk about Sony again! (none / 0) (#79)
    by CST on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 03:10:42 PM EST
    We seem to be given the first head on the chopping block post scandal - and no surprises there - it's Amy Pascal who is leaving Sony with flowers and rainbows and balloons of happiness assuring us all this is what she wanted too.

    Now, I'm not saying Ms. Pascal is a good person, or that she didn't royally screw up, or that her head shouldn't roll for this.  I just find it not a single bit surprising that the only big head (or at least the first) to roll over this mess is one of their only high-profile/high-paid female employees.

    Basically, what this guy said.

    Wonder how much (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 03:24:43 PM EST
    except guess what? (none / 0) (#84)
    by CST on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 03:30:47 PM EST
    It was Scott Rudin who said that.  Who, to the best of my knowledge, continues to be employed by Sony pictures.

    Does Rudin (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 03:36:14 PM EST
    actually work for Sony?  Asking.  He's a big time producer.  They usually don't work for people do they?  I guess she received and responded to the email.

    Honestly I never paid much attention to this part if that story.


    oh I don't know (none / 0) (#89)
    by CST on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 03:49:36 PM EST
    I'm not really familiar with how the industry works - I just assumed he did because his name was so mixed up in all of it.  I guess I thought he was a producer who works for Sony - but apparently that's not how it works?

    Anyway, yes, he is the one who said it in an email to her.  Her response was presumably inappropriate as well.  Again, I'm not defending her as a person, I just think it's not the least bit surprising that she's the fall woman, and that the fall person is a woman, given everything else that came out of the leaks.


    Not disagreeing (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 03:52:10 PM EST
    i just think that's a classic pic

    in this context, I believe.

    in May.

    Jobs report prediction (none / 0) (#135)
    by Slado on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 06:01:47 AM EST
    Wild speculation but here you go anyway....

    220,000 jobs added
    Rate ticks down 0.1%

    Administration takes credit etc...talks about how we've finnaly turned the corner.

    Republicacns point the participation rate dropped again and we are again at historically low level for that figure while wages also remained flat:

    We shall see.  Either way since it's such an anemic recovery both sides will have something to spin while the rest of us live in the real world.  Which is it's not so great but we're doing better than most of the rest of the world.

    Close (none / 0) (#139)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 07:42:03 AM EST
    Added 257,000 new jobs, but unemployment creeps up a bit to 5.7%

    To add to it (of course) (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by christinep on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 01:57:26 PM EST
    Together with the added 257,000 jobs net this month, the previous two months have been revised sharply upward (in November & December, more than 400,000 jobs in one month and more than 300,000 in the other.) The surprisingly good result: The new job gains are the strongest gains in 17 years.

    The report also noted that more than 200,000 new jobs per month have been added for 11 months running.  The robust growth, undoubtedly contributed to the reported "good side" of the uptick in unemployment (from 5.6 to 5.7) ... more than 1.1 million people re-entered the workforce last month.

    One of the biggest positives in the report--with observers in the news characterizing the economy now as "robust" and similar phrasing--is that that wages have finally increased by a significant amount per hour.  Good, good news for all of us.


    could mean more people (none / 0) (#161)
    by CST on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 11:09:15 AM EST
    are looking for work again.  There was a theory that the unemployment rate was artificially low for years because people just stopped looking for work.  Maybe with jobs starting to come back, they are looking for work again - hence the unemployment rate going up?

    Post-holiday layoffs? (none / 0) (#162)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 11:20:42 AM EST
    I think there are still a fair number of people who have given up on the job market and have stopped looking; I haven't drilled down into the numbers lately, but I have to think this is still a factor.

    Be interesting to note the historical trends for this time of year - do we see a similar uptick in the post-holiday unemployment rate in prior years?


    Ftom the NYT (none / 0) (#163)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 11:29:04 AM EST
    Thanks - so more people moving INTO (none / 0) (#164)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 11:51:23 AM EST
    the job market, as opposed to more people leaving it.

    Makes sense.

    Guess time will tell if those people are able to join the ranks of the employed.


    I wonder too (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by CST on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 02:23:52 PM EST
    if we're not going to see more of the boomers actually retiring - and whether that will impact unemployment at all.  I know that many people were forced into an early retirement.  But those that weren't are still approaching retirement age - even if they put it off after the market crashed.

    I bring it up because my parents are approaching that age - and while they managed to stay more or less (mom more - dad less) employed during the recession, they are now finally at the point where they're just about ready to stop anyway.  When the economy first crashed that definitely wasn't the case.


    I would like to see (none / 0) (#169)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 12:21:58 PM EST
    WHAT kinds of jobs they are seeking?  Low wage?  How many of these people were underemployed (and not counted) and now looking for better jobs?  Are many of these looking for second jobs now that it seems to be picking up?

    New tinder-like dating app: (none / 0) (#146)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 09:09:59 AM EST
    Have fun at Kodo tonight (none / 0) (#149)
    by Dadler on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 09:21:29 AM EST
    Think you'll enjoy it, especially in the smaller venue. Balboa seats what, about a thousand?

    Per wiki, capacity is 1339. (none / 0) (#154)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 09:39:54 AM EST
    This will be an adventure as I've never seen the drummers before.  

    There are mellow interludes (none / 0) (#159)
    by Dadler on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 10:41:17 AM EST
    It's not at all just a cacophany of pounding skins. But when they get to those peaks, yowza, it is an incomparable thing to feel.

    San Diego has lost a legend (none / 0) (#148)
    by Dadler on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 09:20:19 AM EST
    The co-owner of the Casbah died recently. (none / 0) (#194)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 03:12:03 PM EST
    Yemen has fallen. (none / 0) (#156)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 09:47:56 AM EST
    Yemen rebels 'dissolve parliament'

    Yemen's Shia Houthi rebel movement has announced it is taking over the government and dissolving parliament.