Saturday Open Thread

TalkLeft was down last night and today until just now. All should be fine now. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Robel Phillipos Sentenced to Three Years in Prison | Oscar Pistorius Release Date Set For August 21 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    PS (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Zorba on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 04:23:35 PM EST
    Meant as a reply to Howdy with regards to "Hannibal."
    And PPS, I don't have a problem with adults viewing all the violent scenes that they want, even though they aren't to my taste.

    zorba there were too many graphic (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 08:12:35 PM EST
    terms in your comment, I deleted it. They bring out spammers and censor software monitors. Please don't use them.

    Okay. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Zorba on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 08:26:19 PM EST

    Geez (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 07:34:13 AM EST
    i don't remember what you said.

    Basically responding (none / 0) (#59)
    by Zorba on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 12:05:16 PM EST
    to your comment about Hannibal, where you described the violence, and then noted that they blurred the daVinci's drawing of the man's nether region.  And I said that I'd rather have had my kids when they were young, see "naughty bits"  (I used the correct medical term, as did you) and sexu@l situations, than violence.
    It's her blog, she can delete what she wants, especially if she's worried about law offices's software blocking the site.

    people can see all the naughty bits (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 11:19:21 AM EST
    they want - in a mirror or with a friend.

    Violence is harder to find if you're lucky.

    Our puritanism makes no sense at all.


    Time for a Triple Crown (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 05:03:57 PM EST
    C'mon American Pharoah. PP 5 in the Belmont Stakes.

    If you are on Facebook, check out (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 06:13:26 PM EST
    American Pharooh's page. His profile picture is so pretty. I love horse faces. On horses anyway.

    Pharoah looks strikingly (none / 0) (#184)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 01:38:43 PM EST
    like Colin, who was an undefeated race horse from the turn-of-century, WWI era.

    Was so glad I remembered to turn it on (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 05:33:21 PM EST
    Hoping to see some history. Sure is a gorgeous horse.

    Favorite pre-race commentary..."well, it's going to be a horse race"


    I just saw that giant... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by desertswine on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 05:44:00 PM EST
    creepy Burger King in the stands at Belmont Park.  I wondered where he'd been.

    Creepy (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 05:51:19 PM EST
    Exactly the term I used to my SO.

    Hooray for AmericanP (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 06:01:01 PM EST
    but Frosted sure is a beautiful animal

    They're finally walking the horses (none / 0) (#10)
    by fishcamp on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 05:50:41 PM EST
    Out for the Belmont at 6:30 pm.  I've never understood why it takes all day for the race to start.  In my case it is just fine, since I just got home from fishing for the third and last time.  We had rain, sun, rain,  off and on all day.  My angler liked that we came in for some tennis, went back out to fish, got rained on again, but just made it in for the horse race.  Oh, and we watched golf too, between fish and rain.  Should be worth a good tip.  I'm only charging him for a half day, even though it took all day.

    We have a Triple Crown! (none / 0) (#12)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 06:00:03 PM EST
    American Pharoah wire to wire!

    After seeing that spurt of Triple Crown (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 06:06:08 PM EST
    winners in my youth, I did not appreciate how hard it was or how long it would be before I saw another. Glad to see it.

    Now Go Blackhawks!


    My endorsement thus far... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 10:11:23 AM EST
    Scott Walker, of all the delightful personages entering the race so far, is my designated winner in the category of the person most ready and willing to openly display fascist tendencies.

    It must have been a close race. (none / 0) (#65)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    The Republican candidates were off to Boone, Iowa to pay homage to US Senator Joni Ernst at her "Roast and Ride" event.  Scott Walker arrived on his Harley at the bikes and bbq gala not only celebrating pork from Joni's hog farm, but also, throwing red meat.  Walker called for a Constitutional Amendment to permit the banning of same sex marriage

    NYT: "The Thrill of Political Hating" (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:08:09 PM EST
    This one's a gift for people on both sides.  (Or for those who would have us believe that there are only two sides.)

    R-E-S-P-E-C-T (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 05:27:47 PM EST
    Hannibal (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 03:56:29 PM EST
    I'm hooked.  I've resisted but I finally gave up after reading a review of the premier of season three.
    I watched the premier OnDemand, set the series to record and ordered the first two seasons from NetFlix.

    At the same time there was a perfect reminder of why I hate networks and usually refuse to waste time on them.

    There is a scene near the end, the end of an episode with gouts of blood, carnage beyond belief and more than a little sex/death stuff, where Hannibal is making an origami heart out of a piece of paper.  The picture on the paper is DaVincis Vitruvian Man.
    They digitally removed his tiny graphic genitals.

    NYTimes (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 04:19:27 PM EST
    I was thinking of trying it this season (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 04:50:03 PM EST
    I;ll do the same, need something new this summer hibernation season.

    "Carnage Beyond Belief"? (none / 0) (#34)
    by EL seattle on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 10:46:40 PM EST
    You definitely haven't seen seasons One or Two yet. There has never been a TV show like this one.

    What I liked about this new episode (besides the usual stuff - terrific cast, wonderfully ornamental cinematography, and spot-on music) was that it seemed to make a distinction between Hannibal's actual actions as a con-man and thug, and the esoteric debates and yadda-yadda that take up most of the episode's dialogue.

    For what it's worth, I thought I sensed a bit of a Highsmith influence to the script (like the NYT reviewer mentioned), but I thought there was more 50 Shades of Grey Dom/sub stuff going on between Hannibal & Bedilia in this episode. We'll see how it plays out over the next season.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 07:28:03 AM EST
    I've seen bits and pieces.  I have several addicted friends.  I do love the relationship.  I always thought that any kind of real relationship was missing from the books.  Although if you read them you know there was one.  A big one that changed the meaning of pretty much everything in the book Hannibal.  I was extremely pi$$ed along with many others that the ending was changed by Hollywood.

    My only point was it seemed really silly, after what we HAD seen to remove that tiny part of a drawing.  But I do understand it was because of the stupid hard and fast rules broadcasters work under.

    I am looking forward to the first two seasons.  I like Madds very much.  Ever see Valhalla Rising?


    Btw (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 07:39:00 AM EST
    i always thought it would be great if, at the end of the series, they revisited that ending.  It would make a lot of Hannibal (book) fans very happy.

    It kills me to defend ... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 05:48:03 PM EST
    ... Marco and Jeanette Rubio, but one paragraph in a New York Times article about the couple's questionable driving habits caught my attention:

    "The lessons apparently did not stick. A year later, in 2010, [Jeanette Rubio] was stopped for driving 23 m.p.h. in a school zone where the speed limit was 15 m.p.h. She was fined $185."

    Really? I don't get the rationale for a 15 mph speed limit in a school zone. Everywhere else I've driven, it's 25 mph, and doing 23 mph in a school zone is considered safe driving. Sounds like a revenue-generating speed trap to me.


    What I'm seeing (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 06:28:03 PM EST
    in a lot of this stuff is it is more, probably other Republicans, dumping opposition research in the NYT and the NYT dutifully playing stenographer.

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 02:24:20 AM EST
    I'm certainly no fan of Rubio, but his wife's apparently lousy driving history and his own four moving violation citations are completely irrelevant to the greater discussion. He's running for president; neither of them are applying for a job as a limo or school bus driver.

    Everywhere I have lived, except (none / 0) (#16)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 06:18:01 PM EST
    California, the school zone speed limit is 20 mph.  Each state makes its own decision on this. 15 MPH does not strike me as unreasonable for a school zone. I doubt this is an attempt on the part of Florida to rake in the bucks.

    As for Jeanette Rubio, it is not like she was a tourist visiting from California and so unfamilir with the law.


    The only two speeding tickets ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 09:13:57 PM EST
    ... I've ever received in my life were for doing 33 and 34 mph, respectively, in the exact same 25 mph school zone -- two weeks apart from one another. Needless to say, 20 years later, I always adhere to the speed limit whenever I pass through that particular school zone.

    I recently got a ticket for going 90 (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 10:11:59 PM EST
    in a 60.  I was actually going 94 but the cop dropped it to 90 so neither of us would have to go to court which is supposed to happen if you are topping the limit by more than 30mph.



    I have driven very fast in very expensive cars (none / 0) (#148)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 11:33:18 AM EST
    on very selected stretches of roadway.  The cars weren't mine but I got to evaluate them (yeah, right) as part of my powertrain engineering, software gig at the time.

    But I don't do that on any cars I actually own.  

    I hate to admit it but my primary ride now is a diesel pickup.  Towing a dump trailer that I use to bring home free composted - or not so composted - manure from nearby farms, 4-5 tons at a time,  so I can let it rot for our gardens, is as close as I have to get to thinking about transmission shift schedules any more.

    When I was a kid the odds of dying as a result of anything, and I mean anything, happening at 70mph were 1 in 4.  Two people in a car turned it into a coin flip.  At 50mph those odds dropped to 1 in 50.  I don't know what they are today, with much improved radial tires and quality control, but I still drive like I did when I first learned how, in the 1970s.

    By and large, it isn't what you do that kills you.  It's what the other idiot does.  You've gotta maintain a margin of error.


    I drive fast (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:25:37 PM EST
    its a fact.  I would rather go out in a blaze than connected to tubes.  I am also a very good driver.  I have never had an accident and I have done more road trips than you would think possible.

    It's Pure Luck... (none / 0) (#162)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:42:15 PM EST
    ...that I haven't had a speeding ticket in at least 5 years.

    I do the speed limit almost everywhere, but when I am on the freeway and it's a ways, I go fast as traffic allows.  Because the difference for me from Houston to Galveston is 1:20 or 1:45.

    Which in my head is just over an hour or just under two hours.  Yesterday, took me 1:50 because of an accident and it felt like forever.

    I highly doubt the fast lane on the interstate has a morality rate of anywhere near 1 in 4 at 70.


    15 mph gives a kid half a chance when he (none / 0) (#31)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 08:30:26 PM EST
    runs out on the street from behind a parked car or tree.  It's not much of a chance but it's better than nothing.  15mph also gives drivers distracted by cellphone conversations half a chance of seeing the kid and stopping.

    I finally found something good (none / 0) (#153)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:04:32 PM EST
    about my new adopted State, Tennessee.

    The local news stations, when reporting on highway crashes (and boy, are there a lot of those!) always state that the offending driver was texting at the time of the accident, if that was the case. Also, when there's a fatality (and, there's also a lot of those.) they always state that the deceased person(s) was, or wasn't, wearing their seatbelts.

    Up North, from whence I came, it always annoyed me that the news describing traffic accidents never gave the reason, even when the reason was quite apparent.

    One more thing: In Tennessee, there's an epidemic of fatalities with young males driving pick-up trucks. I don't recall the exact numbers, but the broadcasters emphasized that that demographic was "off the charts" in relation to others.

    I guess it's similar to the "macho" morons driving motorcycles without wearing a helmet. They reason that it's their life and nobody should stick their nose into it. And, oh yeah, they just love the feeling of air blowing through their hair.


    Marco Rubio's (none / 0) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 12:44:24 PM EST
    questionable driving habits pale in comparison to his questionable financial habits.   Of course, there is that well-publicized "mis-use" of the Republican Party credit card for personal use and his mortgage problems on a house co-owned with his former housemate, the shady David Rivera.

    But also, his personal and political financing by Norman Braman.  Braman, a billionaire auto dealer (23 luxury car dealerships in Florida and Colorado) has been a really good friend, helping the Rubio's out of their financial problems.

    Mrs. Rubio was hired to advise the Braman Family Philanthroopy, Braman is paying a part of Marco's salary as a part-time staff member at Florida International University, Braman assisted in paying for publication of Rubio's "Memoirs," and the Rubio's have access to Braman's private jet.  My guess is that if push comes to shove,  Braman might be up for  picking-up the cost of the Rubio's parking tickets.

    Rubio is not running for re-election as a US Senator from Florida.  Four years is, apparently, enough for him (it is more than enough for some Floridians).  So, he is rolling the dice--the president or bust.   Guess he will put off making some bucks in the private sector (maybe selling used cars)  if presidenting comes to pass.


    right in my neighborhood (none / 0) (#18)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 06:29:57 PM EST
    this morning

    cops had body cameras - we'll see how it went down

    Doesn't sound much like (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 06:46:18 PM EST
    the deaths that have been in the news lately.  He had a loaded handgun beside him.

    he did (none / 0) (#21)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 07:22:03 PM EST
    & ammunition

    & may be the suspect police were searching for in an earlier crime

    but that is not stopping the local Anti Police Terror Project from planning a vigil named "Shot For Sleeping In His Car" for this person who has not yet been identified, even though we actually do not know that he was "shot for sleeping in his car"

    without information, i am neither condoning nor condemning the shooting

    meanwhile there have been helicopters overhead all day


    Shrug (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 07:31:05 PM EST
    when you brutalize and kill for decades I guess a little overreaction is to be expected.

    and its the flip side (none / 0) (#88)
    by CST on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 04:39:25 PM EST
    Of why cameras on cops is a good thing.

    Car dashcams are $99.95 at Costco (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 05:35:14 PM EST
    I noticed today.  I can't believe I'm saying this but they included GPS location tagging.  $99.95.  Unreal.

    Problems linking with an iPad (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 07:13:32 PM EST
    I have mentioned this and I know at least one other commenter has.  When you click on the link icon it freezes the iPad.
    A while back I posted a long and convoluted process that works, oddly enough, but I realized there is a much easier way.
    Click the link icon with nothing else selected and then copy and paste the string - that I can't reproduce here.  It would not show up since its html code - into something like notepad.

    Then instead of clicking the link box just copy the string from notepad and add the URL and text you want to show.  Much easier than the last workaround I posted.

    In an earlier IOS version I could (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 07:25:17 PM EST
    press "copy" and make an ipad mini link. Now I often cannot. So:  copy URL, paste in comment box, add your words of wisdom, surround all this with [ ], press "preview", and assuming success, press "post."

    No (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 07:29:07 PM EST
    it freezes on the first step.

    And I have the latest operating system (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 07:31:39 PM EST
    Um (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 07:43:37 PM EST
    actually that did work.  At least in preview.  I know I've tried that before and it did not work.

    Perhaps I tried it wrong or it was a different is OS or  something.


    Although my new method is really just as easy.


    You have a mini, don't you? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 07:59:53 PM EST
    I have an iPad 2, iOS 8.3.  You might try using Chrome for your browser, as I do sometimes because it runs as fast as Safari, YMMV.

    I do (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 08:05:30 PM EST
    i have both but I use chrome most of the time.  Using it now.

    My own experience is (none / 0) (#36)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 01:35:53 AM EST
    not to have more 3 or 4 tabs open in Chrome at once, as it sometimes abruptly closes without warning if one isn't carefully. I would suggest in your case to limit it to two or even one at a time if you can, because the less tabs open the less work the OS has to do, and this is probably a limitation of the mini-iPad that might not be addressed by anything less than a newer model or even getting a iPad 2 out of the box, if they're still making them.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 07:30:25 AM EST
    in my previous convoluted workaround you could only have one tab open.  It's not much of a problem.  And it's really the only glitch of its kind I have encountered.

    HRC traces friendly path (none / 0) (#35)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 11:46:23 PM EST
    I think that article (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 07:49:54 AM EST
    is at best a back handed compliment to Hillary.  If that.  It clearly wants you to believe that the populist positions she is taking are appealing only to the far left.  That's IMO complete bullsh!t.  Maher was talking about this on a recent show and was showing national polling on many of the things like policing and legal reform, raising the minimum wage and immigration to mention only a few and every one polled over 60%.  Some others were in the high 80s.  He did it to make the point that the whole idea the times is pushing here, and along with other parts of the so called main stream media, have been pushing for months is pure nonsense.
    But the NYTimes wants you to think that she is running a far left campaign and "ignoring the middle"
    What absolute nonsense.

    The NYTimes has truly jumped the shark.


    Geez (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 08:17:28 AM EST
    the more I read of that the more I hate it.  It's very clever.

    "If you run a campaign trying to appeal to 60 to 70 percent of the electorate, you're not going to run a very compelling campaign for the voters you need," said David Plouffe, a top Obama strategist who has consulted informally with Mrs. Clinton.

    In other words, he has nothing to do with her campaign but would talk on the record.

    "Go ask Al Gore," Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, said about the risk of writing off states such as his, where Democratic presidential candidates prospered until 2000. "He'd be president with five electoral votes from West Virginia. So it is big, and it can make a difference."

    Naturally Liebermans replacement for every republicans favorite democrat makes an appearance.

    "I think that we always appreciate when people want to kind of talk to the whole country and listen to concerns, and I think farm country is critically important," said Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Democrat of North Dakota.

    And the number two runner up for the new Joe

    By emphatically staking out liberal positions on gay rights, immigration, criminal justice, voting rights and pay equity for women, Mrs. Clinton is showing core Democratic constituencies that she intends to give them a reason to support her.

    And there it is.  The central lie.  The cardboard cornerstone for their whole bullsh!t premiss
    These are not liberal positions.  They and positions of large majorities in every single case.


    IMO (3.00 / 2) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 10:14:00 AM EST
    If Joe Manchin and Lieberman are coming out against almost anything, it is a strong recommendation for it.

    What is also hilarious is that Mr. Joementum is giving anyone advise on how to run a presidential champaign. Remind me, did anyone other than his immediate family, John McCain and Lindsey want him to become president.

    What is also telling is that the only consistency in position is that Politalkix is linking to articles against HRC. Doesn't  matter if the article is critizing her for being too corporate friendly or too liberal or whatever, as long as it is critical, Politalkix is for it.


    Our problem with the far left ... (3.50 / 2) (#81)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 04:01:04 PM EST
    ... is much the same as the GOP's with its right wing, in that neither faction really has a friggin' clue about the actual art of effective governance (nor do they apparently care), and both would rather scuttle their own ships with all flags flying, than seek compromise for the sake of the whole.

    That said, the primary difference right now between the two parties is that the far left constitutes a relatively small minority in the overall Democratic Party coalition, while the far right is currently somewhere between 40-50% of the GOP, which can vary from state to state, and the right wing is thus a very critical component in the Republicans' overall electoral calculations.

    The GOP's long-term dilemma nationally is exemplified by what has happened to Republicans in California over the last 25 years. In 1990, the percentage of registered voters in that state who identified as either Democrat or Republican were roughly equal at about 40% each, with the rest saying that they were independent but generally leaning Republican.

    But as of 2014, while Democrats have held onto their share and even gained ground at 43% of all registered California voters, the percentage of voters identifying as Republican has been reduced by nearly half to 21%. Even more alarmingly for the GOP, that share has fallen off by a quarter just since 2010, when 28% of voters were registered as Republicans.

    Clearly, recent Democratic triumphs across the board in California reflect that. A not-insignificant number of GOP moderates are increasingly alienated by the far right and are declining to support their own party's candidates r public office. Meanwhile, independent voters are generally turned off by the far right's oft-stated agenda, which many consider to be too extremist, unyielding and out of touch in the face of current socio-economic challenges and changing community attitudes.

    To the extent that California can be considered a bellwether for the country, the long-term trends offer a dark forecast for Republican prospects in much of the country. Eventually, independent voters will become exasperated by the GOP's extremism and obsolete economic policies, and will seek their answers and remedies elsewhere, leaving that party at serious risk of going the way of the Whigs as the country's politics realign in concert with the present times in which we live.

    The challenge for those on the progressive left is to realize that for political success to be sustained, they need to acquire an ability to play the long game, which will require them to suppress their own short-term desires for immediate self gratification and learn how to align themselves with a governing coalition for the long haul -- which means resisting the urge to abandon ship whenever that coalition faces difficult exigent circumstances, as it inevitably will during the voyage.

    Effective and long-lasting socio-political reforms are almost never realized overnight, and they're never going to be achieved by people who take their ball and run home to Mommy, slamming he door behind them, whenever the game doesn't necessarily trend their way at any given moment. One's political influence within a governing coalition is directly proportional to one's own ability to adapt to the ebb and flow of the political tides.



    The liberal wing of the Democratic Party (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 06:19:35 PM EST
    has been playing a "long" game for decades resulting only in seeing more and more corporatistic and conservative legislation being being labeled as mainstream and voted into law by members of both parties.

    The country was feed the meme that conservative policy was mainstream and Democratic party elites claim the once mainstream Dem policies as being held only by the loonie left to the point that even bat shit crazy right wing policies and policies are now considered acceptable.

    Abortion rights, civil rights and voting rights are prime examples of the Democratic Party adapting to what they claim is the ebb and flow of the political tides to the point with a little more ebbing and flowing for all intents and purposes those rights will be gone forever.


    should read (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 07:00:09 PM EST
    even bat sh!t crazy right wing policies and politicians are now considered acceptable..

    Okay. My question from the other day ... (4.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 01:51:41 AM EST
    ... still stands: What are YOU personally going to do about it? I'm sorry, but you're just offering up more lame excuses to do more of the same, which is absolutely nothing.

    Oh, boo hoo and woe is us, the corporatists are always getting their way and we can't do anything to stop them, so why not just stay home and watch Oprah and complain to others like-minded about how everything is going to hell in a handbasket?

    I'm telling you that the cockeyed notion of your own individual political impotence is just so much nonsense, plain and simple. You and everyone else here have long had it within yourselves the capacity and ability to effect meaningful changes, starting in your own respective communities.

    That's how I got started, and within a decade after I helped to protect at the ballot box the last undeveloped stretch of southern Oahu coastline from resort development through a successful land use initiative, I was serving as senior staff to the Speaker of the State House.

    So please don't insult my intelligence by insisting to me that what I did can't be done or replicated by others, and that whatever you do makes no difference, because that's just a lot of malarkey and poppycock.

    Rather, be honest with both yourself and with me, and admit that you either can't or don't want to do it. Perhaps you have other personal commitments that supercede your getting involved at the level where I found myself. I can respect that. Family comes first and if it doesn't, you better have a good reason why that's so.

    But what I can't abide are people who throw up their hands at the first sign of difficulty, and offer excuse after excuse as to why they can't or won't make even a minimal political effort to help themselves and their own communities. I'm telling you that corporations and oligarchies are merely an excuse, and by doing nothing to oppose them, you create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    The raw fact of the matter is that Obama supporters -- many of whom had earlier lectured Hillary Clinton supporters like me about their commitment to socio-political justice and reform -- walked away en masse from their president in 2010 when the going got tough, many of them denouncing the fact that they weren't going to get single payer health coverage, Guantanamo wasn't being closed, &etc. As a result, Democrats lost the House, important governorships and numerous state legislatures.

    Last year, they walked away en masse again because the economy wasn't recovering as quickly as they wanted, and Democrats lost the Senate, too. You want to explain to me how we're going to get health reform and close Guantanamo now, under the present political conditions and circumstances -- conditions and circumstances which, I might add, were created by our own failure to stand up and be counted when it actually mattered?

    In the aftermath of the Aurora massacre, Colorado liberals and progressives couldn't even be bothered to defend Democratic State Senate President John Morse from a from a GOP-triggered recall vote -- in a nominally Democratic district, no less! -- after some very basic gun reform laws were enacted.

    I mean, Jesus H. Christ, this was legislation that WE wanted and demanded from Mr. Morse, and yet on recall day, we were clearly missing in action. Our turnout sucked big time, and we lost a good man in public office as a result of it, likely replaced by a right-wing crackpot.

    So no, I quite obviously would very much beg to disagree with you. Progressives by and large have most certainly NOT been in it for the long haul. Rather, many have proven themselves to be self-absorbed politically, flighty and undependable, by insisting on either their way or the highway.

    Instead, we have apparently confused whining and carping about issues ad nauseum with actual political commitment to genuine reform, which admittedly takes much more work than posting comments on an online blog.

    Right-wing Republicans may be batschitt crazy, but they've long understood that the way you effect the change you desire is by getting your own people elected to public office -- not just to the White House, but at ALL levels of government down to the local municipal level. We, on the other hand, are consistently unreliable as a voting bloc unless we're somehow magically "inspired" by a white knight like Barack Obama.

    Personally, I've been involved in Democratic Party politics for nearly three decades, and I'm tired of having to beg my own people to even show up at the polls. If liberals and progressives are so disengaged at such a basic level that they can't or won't vote in off-year elections for whatever their reasons or excuses, it's no small wonder why elected officials feel free to ignore them.

    As so many of the all-too-easily discouraged discovered after the 2008 campaign, there are no "white knights" in politics. Rather, there are simply people like you and me, who are trying to do the best we can with the resources we have at our disposal. Occasionally, we get lucky and end up with a truly decent and even exceptional public servant.

    If you want change, then you have to embody that change -- and that means being fully engaged, at least to the extent of standing by your candidates and elected officials for the long haul. Because when you show them that you have their back, they'll be inclined to be there for you, because that's how they earn your support for re-election.

    But if you're nowhere to be found at key moments -- like, let's say, on Election Day -- well, those candidates and elected officials are thus left to seek out support where they might find and get it. And the fact that you might not approve where that support is coming from becomes a moot point, because by not being there in the first place, you've effectively removed yourself from the ongoing public discussion.



    Yes, Donald (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by sj on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 03:21:15 AM EST
    We already know you're a better Dem than anyone else. Speaking for myself only, I find that I am a better person now that I am free from party affiliation. A body doesn't really need party affiliation to participate in any discussion, public or private.

    We know you help the party (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 09:34:04 AM EST
    At every opportunity marginalize the left wing of the party.

    Your little rant about people throwing their hands up at the FIRST sign of difficulty is pure BS. I'm at least as old as you so we are talking about decades.

    When we get our message out people like you, the establishment of the Democratic Party, tell us to sit down and STFU because we are damaging the party by not adapting to loving the corporate, right wing, so called  mainstream agenda that the party has adopted. Just in case you have forgotten that exact message of the left is damaging the party is what started this entire thread.

    What I can't abide is people who continue to blame the voters for the Democratic Party's deficiencies. You establishment Dems have managed to turn off an entire generation of young people by the actions of your politicians when they had a majority in both houses of Congress and the WH. The Democratic Party had the opportunity to enact good, people centric policies and keep people enthusiastic about the party for decades. Instead they worked for the benefit of the corporations rather than for the people who worked hard to elect them all the while WHINING the Republicans, the Republicans. They whined and whined claiming to be completely powerless. Why be surprised when many voters took them at their word and decided not to work their tushes off for politicians who chose to be powerless and devote their time to accumulating corporate cash and passing their policies.

    And you joined their

    and supported their policies, the Republicans, the Republicans.  But of course, it is  easier for you to WHINE and blame the voters than admit that the party squandered the opportunity they had to marginalize the Republican Party and maintain an ongoing majority.

    I stand by my candidates (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 11:24:02 AM EST
    But your candidates,  who rightlfuly claim that their policies are the policies of moderate Republicans of the past, are not my candidates. The idea of standing by politicians who vote to give away my rights and to weaken or relinquish the very policies that I have supported for decades is IMO ludicrous.

    You  have effected so much change by your invovlement that Democratic politicians disdain the policies that generations of Democratic voters worked hard to get passed into legislation and you and your crew have given away bit by bit.

    Of course your brand of Democratic politicians, the ones you have worked so dlligently to put in power, are not going to fight the battles of the past because they are more than happy to relinquish those policies with murmurs of we are powerless against the Republicans and all the while they accumulate corporate cash.

    Excuse me if I'm not impressed with what you and your establishment friends have accomplished.


    Your long term involvement, (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 11:35:51 AM EST
    your zeal to stand by Democratic politicians regardless of the policies they support, has resulted in people  like Heath Shuler and Ben Nelson being labeled moderate Democrats. Not a great accomplishment in my view of the world.

    If people want change, the first thing (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:29:50 PM EST
    they have to do - in addition to voting - is to break through the giant wall that state and national party officials have erected to make sure that only those candidates of whom they approve stand a chance at getting elected.

    How many times have we seen a liberal/progressive throw his or her hat into the ring, only to get zero support from the party?  Time and again, candidates who are firmly on the left are shut out in favor of candidates who are more willing to back and carry on the corporate-friendly deals that seem to be the real lifeblood of political parties these days.  It's why Donna Edwards probably won't stand a chance against Chris Van Hollen - not because she won't have people working hard to help her, but because the powers-that-be in the party aren't going to let her.  

    And, sorry to say, but you seem to be of that ilk, the kind that works to keep people like Donna Edwards off the guest list, preferring cooperative little corporatists like Van Hollen, who can bring more money into the party than Edwards.

    I wish I understood why it is that you must always assume that no one here actually does anything more than whine and complain.  People write letters to the editor, they call and e-mail their representatives, they volunteer on election day, they do GOTV work - it all has value, it all reflects interest and a desire to participate in their government.

    Truth be told, it surprises me the endless ability of people to keep doing these things in the face of it appearing to change exactly nothing most of the time.  We keep doing what we do, fearing that to stop might be worse, always hoping that this letter, or this phone call will turn the tide.

    We've been down this road with you before, Donald, and you just don't seem to be getting the message that while this is a forum for people to rant or vent or whatever, it doesn't represent the totality of people's lives.

    It also seems to me that it is when liberals express a desire for liberal policies and liberal legislation and liberal candidates that you go off the rails, and we get a lecture about why we aren't good enough Democrats or aren't working hard enough, or are beating a dead horse, or some such nonsense that puts the blame for the lousy, right-of-center, GOP-pandering, state of Democratic party culture on us.  It's our fault.  We need to be practical.  Baby steps.  The perfect is the enemy of the good.

    Defeatist in the extreme, devoid of imagination or innovation. You rise to the occasion only to make sure the rest of us know our place.



    This is absurd (none / 0) (#166)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:48:33 PM EST
    He rises to no such occasion.  He is only reminding all of us that complaining on a blog instead of organizing and putting in blood, sweat, and tears gets us mostly no place and little understanding of the reality on the ground fighting for the solutions.  If we get something we want, it usually isn't because of complain blogging, someone else did the work for us.

    So tell me, MT (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by sj on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    You have bragged about traveling 1000 miles just to protest and possibly get arrested. It's true: that is something I would never do -- there is plenty to protest right here at home.

    But to Donald's point (over which you are currently virtually swooning), what Dem party water carrying have you done? I've done years of activity in the party -- been a precinct captain, a district captain, a representative to the state convention, added amendments to the state platform, canvassed my precinct, my district, and whatever phone list was put in front of me.

    I attended caucuses -- he!! I've organized and run caucuses; voted in primaries and every d@mn election that was held. I am so totally unimpressed with what he has to say on this score.

    Donald does his screed every couple of months or so as if everyone here exists only on this blog. You may think it's all that, but to most of us who care and have put in the work, it's just a tired-a$$ whine.

    Nor am I impressed with your protest to support Cindy Sheehan (though I am impressed with Ms. Sheehan herself). But you've impressed yourself with it, so that's something, I guess. It gives you (or you think it gives you) something to use as a club when striking out others.

    Seems to me to be a hollow club though.


    What a bunch of hooey, which I (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 01:23:53 PM EST
    suspect you're hurling mainly because of who is on the other side of this.

    Donald doesn't have to remind some of the most informed, passionate, politically aware and savvy people what they do and don't have to do.  He doesn't have to treat people like he's the Lord of Political Activism, and we're all just the whiny serfs gathering up his gleaming pearls of wisdom.  He doesn't have to act as if he's the only one here who's doing anything - he's not.

    How many times does he - and now, you - have to be told of the efforts people make?  The calling, the letter-writing, the e-mailing, the volunteering for candidates and GOTV and on election day?  What - that's not good enough?  We have to prove to Donald that we're worthy of voicing our complaints/concerns/issues?

    Well, excuse me, but fk that.  That's the refuge of people guarding the gate.  Yes, send the little people out to contribute, keep telling them it's not good enough, and meanwhile, just do whatever it is you're doing to maintain the comfortable, paycheck-producing status quo.

    Next time you get your nose out of joint because someone who doesn't know you dared to make assumptions about you, remember that you just defended someone - Donald - who's doing that exact thing: making assumptions about people he doesn't know.

    It's just that you like his assumptions, and that makes it all okay.



    If Everyone... (5.00 / 4) (#188)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 01:58:43 PM EST
    ...followed Donald's advise everyone would be a politician or trying to be one, or if they really wanted to be jerks, political consultants.

    For you to whine about complainers on a blog is truly rich, or should we forget about your endless ratings non-sense, excuse me, I mean downgrading non-sense.

    What have you done lately, no one cares what you did in the 60's, it's not the 60's, I wasn't even alive then and I am 45 year years old.  And beyond that, your 50 year old credentials aren't even close to what Donald is talking about.

    Not everyone wants to be a politician, and very few actually have the god given talents to be one, and I am in no way suggesting those are talents are to be admired.  Donald acts like just because you want it, it's possible, never mind that over half of them lose every election.  I would imagine there is no other profession with a higher unemployment rate.

    The idea that being a politician is some noble profession is beyond ridiculous.  They are a necessary evil in a republic.

    Donald also forgets that the most predictable variable in any election is the dollars.  That no matter how many people want to change the world, those dollars almost always predict an election.  And sometimes those dollars come from people who like them and don't part from them without some assurances, which are often in conflict with the majority of voters.

    For a politician to rant about how we are the ones not doing what they did is insulting and pretty damn silly.  I don't lecture him on why he should do what I did, or what anyone else has done, and yet here in America he and I can both complain, agree, fight, or whatever else we want to do on a blog.

    I don't have to aspire to be a policeman to complain about police department behavior.  I am a voter and it is my Constitutional right to complain about the elected leaders without aspiring to be one.

    BTW, that was his second rant w/i a week that more of less the same long winded nonsensical rant about how he did what everyone else should, or shut the F up.


    A practical message such as yours, (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:48:36 PM EST
    Donald, is not suffered lightly by those who are inclined to play victim.  For others--such as myself--who agree that the take-the-marbles-&-go-home bunch may cede the political arena too swiftly because of the troughs/setbacks/frailties of any human system, I say Thank You for the message.

    The political sphere can be a reflection of so many things ... not only the candidates and elected officials, but also a partial mirror of those who vote and those who don't vote. What are our expectations?  In this country alone, consider the diversity ... think about the differences of opinions.  Where do we fall on the continuum of expectations?  Many years ago, a major political science study of personalities and expectations was published by T. Adorno et al ... a key conclusion in that seminal work, "The Authoritarian Personality," posited that the further ends of the personality continuum are similar in expectations (e.g., more rigid and less compromising.)  The study did not purport to make any value judgment about right or wrong; it merely noted those findings.

    How one regards the notion and reality of compromise in long-term endeavors--not only marriage and partnerships and friendships and, maybe, careers and jobs--can be attributed to many causes.  One cause is personality.  That doesn't take a study to see, as we are aware of how people in our own families and circles of friends respond differently in time and action all the time.  But, what we do with our expectations in certain areas like politics really does have a lot to do with personality type.  IMO, the late political philosopher and community organizer, Saul Alinsky, understood the connection between personal goals & expectation and personality and how it all fit together in a movement exceptionally well.  Key advice from Alinsky: Find your place within a political move in terms of your personality to maximize your effectiveness.  E.g.: First wave and frontline on a political position, next wave to advance the position, negotiators, compromisers/resolvers.  What all this leads to, of course, is the recognition of difficulty that occurs when one with a frontline fighter personality is cast in/has to deal with the compromiser/resolver phase ... because both phases of an issue(s) may be related, but they call for very different personality attributes and expectations.

    Governance and politics is ongoing; it always will be; and, necessarily, there are fits and starts.  To some, the ups & downs may seem the work of a grand conspiracy, while others of us see the workings of a diverse nation of more than 300 million people.  And, btw, take a look at how far we have progressed on a range of issues in little more than 200 years ... and, having said that, I understand too that those who are the natural catalysts, drivers, fighters in the forefront will not see the forward movement as fast enough.  Understood ....  Yet, I would say to those who may have lost patience with the political process here "For we natural negotiators & compromisers, the trajectory is moving forward ... and, it might move a bit faster when you enter the fray as well."  It does take all kinds, after all.


    Give away the store (5.00 / 4) (#186)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 01:48:00 PM EST
    The Democratic definition of comprmise,

    No one, even the Republicans, are better at playing the victim card than the Dems and their supporters who say that passing Republican legislation is the best that they can do because they are powerless against the Republicans. This is their theme song no matter who holds the majority in the 3 branches of government.

    The trajectory has been moving forward for the last several decades. With the actions and consent of the Democratic Party and their apologists, the trajectory has and continues to move ever rightward. You have compromised and negotiated away many of the elements of great achievements of the party.


    We disagree (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 04:02:45 PM EST
    On expectations and on what has been accomplished.  For now ... you see "give away the store" whereas I see both incremental and fairly large gains.  As I've indicated about all the differences in views: We all have different perceptual screens; and, that is to be expected, because it takes all kinds for a genuine big tent.

    The thorny question that we Democrats face sometimes centers on how we can honor those differences and supplement each other. Neither of us has the elusive lock on truth; nor does the political atmosphere have to be zero-sum game.  In that spirit--and in no way asking each other to forego our internal beliefs--there has to be a way that two people, two liberals can be mutually helpful.


    Lectures on how liberals should honor (5.00 / 7) (#204)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 05:47:51 PM EST
    the differences between the various factions within the party often seem rather ironic since these discussions come about after members of the "moderate" wing goes on a rant about what all is wrong with the "far left."  See the source on how liberal policies will destroy the  Dems changes for victory that started this discussion.

    First: people in Europe and elsewhere where the far left actually exists as a political entity roll on the floor laughing at these remarks while sputtering "what far left." The only far left of any consequence in this country is in the imagination of those in the party who use those labels to shut down advocates of liberal policies and to ensure that liberal policies are not enacted. They might threaten the contributions from the rich.

    Second: insults and demanding I wait a few more decades or become a politician or STFU does not put me in the mood to sing kumbaya.

    Third:  let's look at what the Dems compromises have done in the area of a woman's right to choose. The Dems started by thinking if they compromised just a little here and a little there women could still get the services that they needed and the issue would go away politically. The issue has not gone away but after more and more compromises the ability for a poor woman to choose has in many areas of the country been made almost impossible. We have moved backwards, not forward, on that issue as well as civil rights, maintaining constitional rights, voting rights, education and income equity. We are not better off in those areas than we were 10, 15, or 20 years ago.


    BTW, I have heard partisan Dems (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 06:32:26 PM EST
    talk about the demise of the Republican Party for at least the last decade. There is a real problem with that meme since high ranking members of the Democratic Party keep rehabilitating the GOP by accepting and validating their policies while keeping up a constant stream of deriding and strong arming the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.  

    Get out there, get organized, and make a difference in your own community, and never doubt for one instant that you can't.

    That's the only way you're EVER going to realize the change you seek. You need to make yourself matter to the very people you're bi+ching about.



    I've been that route (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 08:48:46 AM EST
    As along as the people I'm b!tching about can continue to have people like you carry their water with their votes and by parroting their messages marginalizing liberals they can continue to ignore us when enacting their policies.

    But for heaven sakes continue to preach against the left wing of the party with the same old tired messages while you strengthen the conservative agenda with your rhetoric and your right leaning politicians strengthen them by passing their legislation. And for heavens sake continue to preach we are not patient enough if we voice our displease and then in the same breath preach that we are not doing enough. You and the party have got the game down pat.


    One Problem (5.00 / 6) (#124)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 08:58:10 AM EST
    Our problem with the far left...

    Is that they always seem to be on the right side of history.

    On everything.

    I can see how that could be a problem for everybody else.


    The main problem with (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 02:14:18 PM EST
    the "moderate democrats", moderate Republicans, AND the hard-right Republicans is that they all seem to consistently, studiously avoid the subject of the rampant undermining of democratic process caused by the role of money to the point of seeming to unconsciously accept the right and hard-right's equation of money and power with "meritocracy"..

    Certainly no one ever broaches the subject here.."That's just the way it is" "That ship sailed" seems to be the mentality.

    Those Supreme Court justices are so well-educated, have so much power and prestige, they must know what they're talking about; if they say 'money is speech', it Must really be true that it is..  


    As always Donald (none / 0) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 09:44:09 AM EST
    Spoken like someone who actually had the job and the responsibility of governing.

    To call Greens the "far-left" (5.00 / 4) (#180)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 01:24:51 PM EST
    is just a smear concocted by yuppie corporatist Democrats -- Eisenhauer Republicans, who at bottom believe the well being of Wall St should always have priority over sustainability and the well being of the biosphere.

    Plus, everyone knows that since the McCarthy era "far left" always means communist..


    "yuppie corporatist" (none / 0) (#197)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 04:23:46 PM EST
    A little comment: Wouldn't it sound more passionate and power-laden to convey disdain by an alternative adjective or phrase?  Seriously, "corporatist" almost gets overlooked anymore because it is as bland a word as the boardroom that it connotes.

    When I was growing up, my Dad advised (and I listened) to be cautious in broad political view since, ultimately, the "plutocrats" would seek to merge & to control whatever they could.  Yes, he came of age in the 1930s; and, he idolized the one oligarch who seemed to abdicate his class, FDR. Actually, the word "plutocrat" is much stronger than gray words like "corporatist" or "bureaucrat."  In my very biased opinion, "corporatist" already seems like a shopworn buzzword that is overused ... but then, that is just my push for the re-emergence of a real enemy, the bad old Plutocrat.

    Sorry.  I seem to have political dyspepsia today.


    I (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 04:35:36 PM EST
    prefer oligarchs , less precise definition, but it sure sounds evil.

    Hippie-bashing is a popular sport (none / 0) (#129)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 09:51:32 AM EST
    among such folks like Donald, it's no surprise you're on board with it as well.

    Let's just remember what Lawrence O'Donnell wrote about liberals in The West Wing:

    Santos: It's true, Republicans have tried to turn 'liberal' into a bad word.  Well, liberals ended slavery in this country.

    Vinick: A Republican president ended slavery.

    Santos: Yes, a liberal Republican.  What happened to them?  They got run out of your party.  What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?  I'll tell you what they did.  Liberals got women the right to vote.  Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote.  Liberals created social security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty.  Liberals ended segregation.  Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Liberals created Medicare.  Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act.  What did Conservatives do?  They opposed every one of those programs.  Every one.  So when you try to hurl the word 'liberal' at my feet, as if it were dirty, something to run away from, something that I should be ashamed of, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and wear it as a badge of honor.

    OMG that's just ridiculous (none / 0) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 10:01:14 AM EST
    Donald is a hippy himself.

    He's complaining about the Left (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 10:03:02 AM EST
    Wing of the Democratic Party,mins' the?

    A thoughtful liberal doesn't engage in hippy-bashing.  YMMV.


    That doesn't mean he isn't a hippy (none / 0) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 10:07:37 AM EST
    He also indicated that many on this blog don't actually do anything on the ground or in the streets to change anything, they just show up here and......

    ex-hippy (none / 0) (#158)
    by sj on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:22:11 PM EST
    And the reformed are generally the worst zealots.

    OMG...the pronouncements (2.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:27:41 PM EST
    Thrown around in this particular thread of a thread are astonishing.

    (Kinda) sorry (none / 0) (#164)
    by sj on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:47:36 PM EST
    Just a little.

    That "2" was just for fun. And once a rating is given it can't go away, it can only be changed. And your breathless, pearl clutching style comment doesn't deserve anything better than a "2" -- not even the poor, under-utilized "3".


    I guess you can't visually see me (none / 0) (#170)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:52:30 PM EST
    I'm not clutching any pearls

    wev (none / 0) (#174)
    by sj on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    And once again (none / 0) (#183)
    by sj on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 01:34:25 PM EST
    Irony is lost on you. You are so often a perfect example of the very things you are accusing others of being. It probably gets lost on a big site like the Big Orange* but it's perfectly obvious here. To most everyone but you, apparently.

    As for your accusation that

    Other participants here have curtailed their participation because of those behaviors.

    ::shrug:: whatever. People come and people go. If, for example, you were to leave, I would care just exactly as much as you would care should I write a GBCW comment/diary.
    * a site that does have downrating once the user has accumulated enough mojo -- at least that's how it used to work. It doesn't seem to have affected participation any.


    And.....I have protested (none / 0) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 10:05:14 AM EST
    Traveled 1,000s of miles to protest. Specifically when arrest was threatened.  I show up.  I do something.  I don't roll around in a puddle of bloggy woe and gloom and doom and self perpetuating grief.

    it's not me you need to convince (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 10:10:15 AM EST
    Of your bona rides, I've been protesting and involved in politics since I was 10 years old, so your credential don't impress me at all.

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#136)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 10:12:25 AM EST
    You lumped Donald and into some sort not real liberals pile.  You don't know either one of us.

    Well, he lumped a lot of people (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 10:24:51 AM EST
    Into the "don't give a sh*t except for b*tching here" pile without any knowledge of commentators circumstances, except for Jim's involvement in his local Tea Party movement, which would exclude him from that category of course.

      I myself was the past President of the local Democratic club, here, and currently I'm the Treasurer of said club, but I don't feel it gives me the right to look down my nose at those who have little or no involvement in political matters outside of commenting here because of the whole judge not, lest he be judged stuff some wandering Jewish hippie was talking about some 2,000 years ago.

    I don't resent a general statement that didn't apply to me, but there are others here who doubtlessly do more than just shoot off their mouth, and if Donald offended them that's his burden, not yours.

    Turnabout is always harsh and unfair, isn't it?


    Donald showed up and he made a difference (none / 0) (#140)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 10:31:25 AM EST
    In the flesh. He committed a portion of his life to making things really change, in his community that sends representation to DC.  There is a big difference between being a professional critic and complainer and doing something tangible about what we want changed.

    I'm not dissing his accomplishments (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 10:41:49 AM EST
    but that doesn't give him the right to sit in judgement over other people of whom he knows nothing except what they reveal when they comment here,

    And, he has made a comfortable living at it, so let's not act as though his accomplishments were some sort of great sacrifice or act of giving himself up to the common good.  Caesar Chavez, he ain't, as is true of all of us commentators here.


    You should see those (none / 0) (#185)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 01:46:02 PM EST
    people at the Heritage Foundation, "making a difference".. Talk about people who walk their talk and fight for meaningful (to them) change..

    Whoops (none / 0) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 10:41:17 AM EST
    Reading too quickly. Missed that the quote was from Lieberman's replacement and not by Mr. Popularity himself.

    That is the (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 08:30:12 AM EST
    whole problem. Nobody is looking at what these issues actually poll at. They're all in their bubble thinking x, y and z. Though I'm quite sure Hillary is looking at issues polling.

    Guess what (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 09:45:24 AM EST
    The polls support the policies that liberals are promoting. Look at the bipartisan support for expanding SS.

    No wonder there are Dem operatives generating OPEDs in the media and on the blogs trying to marginalize the the left by stating that they are damaging the party. Can't have people enthusiastic about policies that would help them rather than the corporations.


    I'm talking (none / 0) (#192)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 03:25:55 PM EST
    about the media. I'm not sure what you're referring to.

    In his opinion piece in today's (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 01:09:20 PM EST
    NYT, Frank Bruni compares the Clintons to none other than Richard Nixon.

    Well (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 02:09:55 PM EST
    at least he was being up front about it I guess.  That thing I was responding to was just insidious.

    Hillary is being "friendly".  And democrats are "troubled".


    I don't really understand why Bruni (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 02:37:24 PM EST
    is so hostile toe HRC.

    Holy hell (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 02:44:20 PM EST
    So here he stands, or rather squirms, exhilarated by what Hillary embodies and repelled by what she represents, wanting to see her take the oath and wanting never to lay eyes on her and Bill again, determined that they reclaim the White House and despairing of the muddy road there and the certain muck beyond. He's a riot of warring emotions, a paradox with a pulse.

    The Clintons will do that to a person.

    Or to a country.

    Are these people for real?


    Interesting.  I just tried your linking thing again and it did not work.  And I think I now understand why it sometimes does not.
    It appears to depend on the text you add after the link.


    There is a reason it is called (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 07:50:11 PM EST
    Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

    I can't explain it


    Btw (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 02:46:43 PM EST
    the thing is titled


    seriously.  WTF?  It's really almost funny.


    Actually (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 02:52:41 PM EST
    if you would, just for grins, try making a link with the URL to that times story and the text "LINK" then try with "times link"

    No need to post just try and tell me what happens.


    Anyway (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 03:05:45 PM EST
    as before it did not work.  Two different ways.  For the record mine always works.  See comment #20.

    Store the string someplace like notepad.  I store it with the text LINK between the >< and then I just grab it and insert the URL between the quotes.

    Badda bing


    Ooook (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 03:33:51 PM EST
    apperrently you have to put a space between the URL and the text AND THEN it works.  I would swear I did not do that yesterday and it worked.
    This is the last band width I will waste on this.

    Here: (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 05:09:48 PM EST
    Yes, I have wondered (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 03:52:57 PM EST
    about the HRC animus of Frank Bruni.  My thoughts are that Bruni's hostility is a mix of NYT culture and the associated careerism, resentment for DOMA, and, not having anything much to write about.

    For the culture part, I recall the ouster of the previous executive editor, Jill Abramson, who was seen to have a "brusque" leadership style and pressed for equal pay to that of her male predecessor, Bill Keller. And, to make matters worse, Jill Abramson, who covered the arc of the Clinton's careers, once assessed the Clintons as accomplished and energetic.

    The present executive editor, Dean Baquet, applauds the critical coverage of Mrs. Clinton by his appointee, Carolyn Ryan. It doesn't take an Einstein to catch on.   Of course, Maureen Dowd is a full-time Clinton critic, but she has been around forever and that is her lodestar.  

    Bruni, as late as 2012, called out Bill Clinton on his signing of DOMA, asking where was his apology--especially since he apologized for other mistakes and mis-steps.  

    And, then there is the issue of not having anything else to write about.  Starring at a blank page can be tough, and he no longer is on the food beat--his real knowledge base.  We hear much about his family, their Italian heritage, and, on occasion, something else.   When the going gets tough, get tough on the Clintons.  


    For the people (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 04:06:17 PM EST
    screeching about DOMA I almost wish we could send them in a time machine back to the 90's and then have them watch a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage pass.

    Yes, the signing of DOMA (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 04:37:14 PM EST
    was complicated and requires the context of the times and the experiences that resulted in DADT--including being burned by Democrats (e.g. Sam Nunn) and his JCS, Collin Powell.

    The threats of a Constitutional Amendment were real, although it is not clear if that would have really occurred.  What was very likely, is that if President Clinton did not sign the Act, his veto would have been over-ridden.  And, that action would have jeopardized his re-election.  While that political calculation was not a profile in courage, it was a profile in pragmatism.  Clinton, politically out-foxed the Republicans who thought he would not veto the Act, and, he even went on to place campaign ads bragging about his achievement.   Not a particularly shining witness to equality.

    Frank Bruni should have been pleased with his December l, 2012 criticism of Clinton for not apologizing for DOMA. A few months later, March 8, 2013, Bill Clinton called for its overturn as being un-Constitutional.  


    It's also helpful to remember (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 04:44:09 PM EST
    that it started with Clinton saying he would lift the military ban.

    Then the sh!t hit the fan and there were no good choices.


    Yes, it was a proposed (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 05:19:05 PM EST
    executive order to permit gay men and women to serve openly in the military.  Richard Socaride (New Yorker link above) describes the subsequent reaction as being "rocky," but, in my view, it was as close as its comes to a coup d'etat.

    It was pay back time for  Senator Sam Nunn (D. GA) who was passed over for Secretary of State  (gay supporters of Clinton lobbied against Nunn for his discriminatory  practices regarding his staff).  

    And, General Colin Powell was, insubordinate.  A sitting Chair of the JCS, publicly opposing the CIC--and to the extent of telling Annapolis cadets that they should resist the executive order if it offended their religious beliefs.

    With these two, then respected officials,  and Republicans still smarting over the defeat of  Daddy Bush (due, they believed to Ross Perot), the codification into law of DADT was necessary for the Administration to continue effectively and move on.  

    But, as important history as this is, it is the history of the times.   And, Bill Clinton is not running for president. Hillary Clinton is.  And, attention needs to be given to her positions now.  And, recently when in a position of power, such as Secretary of State, when she gave an historic (speaking of history) speech to the UN calling on all nations  to recognize gay rights as human rights.  


    Yes (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 05:32:11 PM EST
    Agree. So ... what is Bruni's real issue (none / 0) (#91)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 05:05:25 PM EST
    While I recognize it is all speculation on my or our part, Bruni surely realized that then-President Clinton was inching the matter forward (and, many would argue--myself included--that he was moving as far as may have been possible, inconsideration of the times.)  What did Bruni want in the context of the times ... a mythical heroic knight?  

    Frankly, I've never understood the source of his anger here.  Maybe it is buried so deep that he doesn't know.


    Contagion (none / 0) (#83)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 04:20:40 PM EST
    Whatever it is that Bruni has (and seems to have had for some time in conjunction with the mention of Hillary Clinton), I'm guessing he caught this strange virus from that inimitable NYT columnist-- the Joanie-one-noter (when it comes to Clinton--Maureen Dowd.  

    I made a mistake recently by taking a peek at a Bruni column about Hillary.  It never changes for either of them.  Dully, sadly predictable ... and, I say "sadly" because they both usually write well.  When Hillary is involved, tho, their collective fever renders them both oblivious to their own writing ... they become a screech of Jonathan Swift.  They want so much to twist the knife; but, I fear, neither know how to insert it. With a couple of misguided exceptions, I haven't read anything Dowd has written since her angry apoplexy during the Repubs attempt to impeach Bill Clinton all those years ago. (I don't know if she has authored anything lately about Dennis Hastert, etc.)  

    For me, it is best to ignore the Dowd-Bruni virus, as I hope that it will remain limited.  When I start talking about it--as in the paragraph immediately above--I almost get a reaction fever.  When all really is said and done, I find two reasons for their near-obsessive anger about Hillary Clinton: (1) Green-eyes or a variation thereof.  Sometimes some people really don't like (cannot abide, detest even, kick their feet & hold their breaths about) the likes of a strong, successful woman who appears to have it all (see, e.g., smarts, independently powerful careers, looks, and--ultimately--supportive family.  Add to that: She even has a beautiful granddaughter.) Kipling may actually be relevant here with his caution (to men, at the time) to "neither look too good, nor talk to wise."  You know what? I've known people who resented--and resented powerfully--others who attained what they couldn't or didn't or whatever ... we've all known those kinds of constricted individuals.  (2) Another recent take on the Dowd-Bruni virus: I said to a friend recently about some of the NYT goofy-type articles respecting Clinton "Aha, I've finally got it ... the reputed "liberal press" is going to go so far out there on the attack with anything Clinton so as to set up--deliberately--a backlash against all the garbage masquerading as anti-Clinton matter."  Heck, stranger things have happened :)


    2 (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 04:30:13 PM EST
    waaaaaay too much credit.  

    I go with 1.


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 04:37:57 PM EST
    i think it's more complicated than that.  Or perhaps simpler than that.  The press has always hated the Clinton's since the day they arrived in DC.
    Hicks who did not deserve to be there.  Who had the audacity to be smart enough to work around and without them.
    Back during the impeachment thing I was honestly worried for some of them.  It really seemed that if we, the voting public, didn't GET IT and start hating the Clinton's like we were told to do they would just have an aneurism or something and just keel over.
    The hicks not only won they and prospered and even worse GOD FORBID THEY ARE BACK!!!!!
    8 more years of a Clinton administration may simply be too much for the Dowd/Bruni contingent.  There may actually be fatalities.
    One can hope.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 05:00:02 PM EST
    I think that's it in a nutshell. The old Sally Quinn piece comes to mind about how they are "unworthy" of the White House.

    It's like none of them can get their stories straight either. One moment they're the hicks from the sticks and the next moment they're royalty. It's the same problem the GOP has. They can't figure out a way to attack them that really works.


    A Toast to you, Howdy! (none / 0) (#93)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 05:16:31 PM EST
    You are so correct ... they weren't "born to the manor" (like those suave, sophisticated, and smart Bushes :))  And, on top of it all: The Clintons really don't coddle the press.  It is simple, isn't it?  

    My goodness:  I keep thinking about the excitement of a potential first woman President -- think back to a related real excitement during the general election in 2008-- but, the Press might really miss what is all around them as it moves forward because they are focused on what maybe somewhere, somehow, what might be in Hillary Clinton's emails.


    History (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 05:40:47 PM EST
    and hysteria

    VANITY FAIR 1993

    When Bill Clinton tried to chain up the White House press corps, the correspondents rebelled. Their pointed reports contributed to the president's low approval ratings and forced him to kick George Stephanopoulos upstairs and bring in spinmaster David Gergen. But can the expert media tamer keep the snarling beast at bay? Jacob Weisberg gets in the cage with ABC's Brit Hume, NBC's Andrea Mitchell, The Washington Post's Ann Devroy, The New York Times's Gwen Ifill, U.P.I.'s Helen Thomas, and the rest.

    Btw (none / 0) (#187)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 01:52:45 PM EST
    A person having the unmitigated audacity, the utter impertinence to question and critique the repercussions of a policy tack Clinton took while President isn't the same as attacking the work the Clinton Global Initiative does now.



    C&L (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 10:59:52 AM EST

    On that ridiculous TIMES piece

    So wait -- in addition to (presumably) the Northeast and the West Coast, she's going to look for votes in not only the Great Lakes states but "parts of the West and South"? So where exactly is she withdrawing from the fray? The Marshall Islands? Guam?
    Americans support gay marriage by a 60%-37% margin, and 58% want the Supreme Court to legalize gay marriage nationwide -- and Hillary's is a "liberal position"? There's 72% support for legalization of undocumented immigrants -- and her position on immigration is too left-wing? And when I Google "bipartisan support for criminal justice reform," one of the first hits is a post with precisely that title from, um,FreedomWorks -- but Clinton's out of the mainstream? Oh, please.

    Lawyers Guns and Money on the same

    The Worst Article of the 2016 Election Cycle: June 7, 2015 Edition

    Saudi Court upholds 1,000 lash sentence (none / 0) (#43)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 08:01:45 AM EST
    A Saudi court has upheld a sentence of 1,000 lashes and 10 years in jail on blogger Raif Badawi.  Mr Badawi was arrested in June 2012 for offences including insulting Islam, cyber crime and disobeying his father.

    The ruling against Mr Badawi is now final, Saudi newspaper Okaz reported.

    I'll spare you my cliche constrained tripe on man's inhumanity to man.  The real problem is that this behavior is all too human.  Saudi Arabia is just one more country run by a family of self-serving brutes who use religion as a sop for the rubes.

    But at (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 08:40:42 AM EST
    least they are our
    self-serving brutes who use religion as a sop for the rubes.
    as long as we keep supplying them with weapons that is. Pay no attention to their religious insanity and their support of jihadist organizations.

    Since Saudi is doing this, then (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 10:45:52 AM EST
    per precedent (9/11 - Iraq) it is time to invade another Muslim country that is not Saudi to show that this action will not be tolerated.

    {deep sarcasm intended}


    I remember that Saddam (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 12:26:01 PM EST
    used chemical weapons on his own citizens, allowed rape rooms and had people fed feet first into industrial sized shredders.

    The U.S. didn't invade (5.00 / 8) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 03:41:35 PM EST
    Iraq when Saddam used chemical weapons made from chemicals purchased from the U.S. on his citizens. The U.S. did not invade Iraq upon hearing that Saddam allowed rape rooms or fed people feet first into shredders. Bush invaded Iraq based on numerous lies which were designed to play upon the churned up emotions of our citizens due to 9-11. Which, in case you have forgotten, was carried out primarily by people from Saudi Arabia and not anyone from Iraq.

    and (none / 0) (#62)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 12:30:49 PM EST
    he was notoriously secular.

    So if he had been (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 12:38:26 PM EST
    a radical islamist he wouldn't have been doing it?

    Who (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 01:19:12 PM EST
    cares? Brutal despots and political movements come in all flavors, some play the god card, some don't, same as it ever was.

    Well (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 03:21:47 PM EST
    there have been plenty of people like Pinochet who have done the same thing who the GOP loves. So what's your point?

    Jim's point, as always, is that ... (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 04:20:56 PM EST
    ... Muslims, like all people of non-European origin -- even though a substantial number of Europeans are Muslim, so go figure -- are an evillee and duplicitous people, and that as God-fearing white Christians, we must prepare ourselves accordingly for the approaching Armageddon, so that we might ensure that we continue to pay a reasonable price for a gallon of gas.

    Yeah, that just about sums him up.


    Donald, please don't tell us what my point is. (2.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 07:09:17 PM EST
    I am neither dead or famous so such attention by you is unnecessary unless your intent is to prove how jealous you are of me and just must take out your hate by posting falsehoods.

    I call your attention to my comment #46:

    Ah, but life and society is based on degrees (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 07:35:32 AM CST
    Can you name me another western country who does such?
    I mean in the US we just had a video go viral of a father making his teenage son bust up his Xbox with a hammer because of poor grades.

    I can see a tenuous connection but I can also see a huge difference.

    I'm on my way to church were I am sure the preacher will note that some of my, hopefully not id'd by name, sins were very bad... but he won't be calling for my, or anyone's, stoning.

    If you cannot see the difference... well we both know you can but that wouldn't be PC.


    Many Western countries (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 08:24:44 PM EST
    do not have the death penalty as we do, and consider it equally as barbaric as anything ISIS perpetrates in their pursuit of what they call justice.

    Of course, it's different because we never convict innocent people, and we never make mistakes.</s>


    Yours is a parallel universe, Jim. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 02:19:33 AM EST
    If you want to continue kidding yourself and ignoring reality, then by all means, knock yourself out -- just please do so sooner, rather than later.

    What reality are you speaking of? (none / 0) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:54:16 PM EST
    The reality is that the world has a problem with radical islamists.

    And the moderate islamist haven't been able to get the situation under control.

    Recognition of that as a very real fact shouldn't be a problem.


    "Islamist" (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    what does that make you exactly?



    There are people in this country (none / 0) (#48)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 08:53:46 AM EST
    who believe in turning this country into a Dominionist Christianist country complete with stoning for blasphemy and other crimes as it dictates in the Old Testament.  They would turn America into a Christianist version of the KSA if they could.  Just a reminder that they're out there.

    Religious (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 09:06:38 AM EST
    insanity comes in all flavors. The "word of God" is a powerful pyschoactive agent.

    Maher (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 09:42:40 AM EST
    new rules

    He is definitely firing in all cylinders on this subject


    Qyburn (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 09:17:51 AM EST
    "Belief is so often the death of reason."

    Ah, but life and society is based on degrees (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 08:35:32 AM EST
    Can you name me another western country who does such?

    I mean in the US we just had a video go viral of a father making his teenage son bust up his Xbox with a hammer because of poor grades.

    I can see a tenuous connection but I can also see a huge difference.

    I'm on my way to church were I am sure the preacher will note that some of my, hopefully not id'd by name, sins were very bad... but he won't be calling for my, or anyone's, stoning.


    I will (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 11:15:11 AM EST
    assume you will not be handling snakes either, but you can not say that of all Christians. You are correct it is a matter of degree, I am glad that you understand nuance. Millions of Christians oppose reproductive rights, some of them commit murder, do all Christians have blood on their hands? Or just the anti-choice ones? Or just the ones who's religious insanity has risen from the normal 98.6 to 109 degrees.

    The religious underpinnings of the kingdom are really only a matter of a few degrees from that of ISIS, yet one is considered an almost existential enemy and the other is a staunch ally. I am so confused.


    Well, when I read (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 12:23:30 PM EST
    The religious underpinnings of the kingdom are really only a matter of a few degrees from that of ISIS,

    I find myself in heartily agreement that you are confused.

    And the government says that it is illegal for Christians to handle snakes because of the danger.

    And killing anyone, even doctors who perform abortions, is a big time no no.

    Unfortunately such thoughtful concern for it's more radical religious citizens is not demonstrated by Islamist theocracies such as ISIS.


    It must be a comfort to know (4.00 / 1) (#175)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 01:16:25 PM EST
    the theocrats, snake handlers, and abortion clinic snipers here are all on your side..

    They have such passion and courage of conviction..

    Plus, if anyone can put a stop to rampant voter fraud, the right wing base can.



    Yeah, because (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by sj on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 10:38:03 PM EST
    Ah, but life and society is based on degrees (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 07:35:32 AM MDT

    Can you name me another western country who does such?

    I mean in the US we just had a video go viral of a father making his teenage son bust up his Xbox with a hammer because of poor grades.

    I can see a tenuous connection but I can also see a huge difference.

     I'm on my way to church were I am sure the preacher will note that some of my, hopefully not id'd by name, sins were very bad... but he won't be calling for my, or anyone's, stoning.

    Because busting up an xbox is just the same as 1000 lashes.

    WTF is your point, exactly? Are you trying to imply that western countries aren't barbaric? Because our botched executions aren't barbaric, nor are our black sites. Or something.

    Jeebus. Incredibly, I've read and re-read your comment and it still reads as nothing but a recipe to provoke... something.

    I miss the timeout, too.


    I'm sorry to have confused you (2.00 / 1) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 08:06:47 AM EST
    I'll try to do better.

    The point is that noting the actions of SA as "one more country" and "religion" without being specific is highly inaccurate and by not naming the problem, solves nothing.

    The Xbox bit was sarcasm meant to highlight the difference between SA and the US. It appears that it was too subtle for you.

    sentence of 1,000 lashes and 10 years in jail on blogger Raif Badawi.  Mr Badawi was arrested in June 2012 for offences including insulting Islam, cyber crime and disobeying his father

    I hope that answers you.


    LOL (none / 0) (#155)
    by sj on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:13:40 PM EST
    The Xbox bit was sarcasm meant to highlight the difference between SA and the US. It appears that it was too subtle for you.
    It connection was so very, very subtle that it was, in fact, non-existent. It was, in fact, the most ludicrous attempt to "highlight the difference between the SA and US" that you have made in long time.

    And that's saying something.


    One more time, with feeling... (1.50 / 2) (#169)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:51:35 PM EST
    The Xbox bit was sarcasm meant to highlight the difference between SA and the US. It appears that it was too subtle for you.

    For MT's benefit: (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by sj on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 01:19:25 PM EST
    That particular "2" is for blog-clogging. And for a brazen representation of "Teh Stoopid And Proud Of It". Go and have the last word jim. I'm sure it won't be worth addressing.

    Sometimes, it just does not (none / 0) (#144)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 10:54:48 AM EST
    pay to appeal--in Saudi Arabia.  The Supreme Court upheld the sentence of Raif Badawi, 1000 lashes and 10 years in jail for "insulting Islam through electronic channels."  The initial sentence  was overturned on re-trial and reinstated with 400 more lashes and three more years in jail (from 7 to 10).  Also, a fine was levied, the equivalent of $266,000.  The decision is final. Only a royal pardon is possible.

    It will be a real question as to a royal pardon.  The new Monarch, King Salman has shaken up the hierarchy putting his nephew bin Nayef in as Crown Prince (first in line) and Mohammed bin Salman, the King's 29-year old son (eldest from his latest marriage) in as second in line to the throne--  Deputy Crown Prince--and Defense Minister.

    Prince Mohammed, according to reports in the Irish Times and NYT, is assuming great power.  The Yemen proxy fight with Shia rebels in Yemen is apparently the work of the new broom.  Unlike most of the Saudi royals, Prince M. was not schooled in the US or UK, but in Saudi Arabia.  His favorite country is Japan, to which he took his first wife on a two-month honeymoon.


    Waco biker bloodbath (none / 0) (#56)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 11:10:41 AM EST
    Who shot who in the Waco biker bloodbath?

    Mystery as witnesses say semi-automatic guns favored by POLICE did most of the shooting in contested accounts of battle.

    I have (none / 0) (#58)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 11:40:42 AM EST
    always wondered about the police behavior in this case. The lack of info is amazing and frustrating.

    There has been certainly been no shortage of confrontations between heavily armed police and crowds of citizens, recently and historically, but this is rather unique. This time the police actually opened fire with assault weapons. Can't really remember the last time that happened.

    This was nothing less then a very brief outbreak of urban warfare deep in the heart of Texas and all you heart is crickets from the media.


    More here: (none / 0) (#70)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 02:37:43 PM EST
    Semi-automatic gunfire dominated Waco biker shootout

    And here's the thing -- only the Waco police had semi-automatics.

    Police have identified only one assault weapon, a semi-automatic gun that fires high-powered ammunition, among the firearms confiscated from bikers, and that was found in a locked car after the shooting ended.

     But several witnesses - at least three of them veterans with weapons training - told The Associated Press that semi-automatic gunfire dominated the May 17 shootout that left nine dead and 18 wounded.

    "I heard, 'pop, pop,' small caliber, and then a rapid succession of shots from what sounded to me like an assault rifle," said William English, a former Marine and Iraq war veteran who was approaching the front door of the Twin Peaks restaurant for a meeting of biker clubs.

    completely, and probably criminally, over-reacted in this situation, I don't think this will turn out to be true:
    only the Waco police had semi-automatics.

    I read that over 100 handguns were taken from the bikers at the scene, I would expect many/most of them to be semi-automatic. An AK47 was also found in the trunk of a car, which is a fully automatic weapon.

    Police also generally carry semi-automatic handguns. And I would expect many/most rifles they may have carried to be semi-auto as well.


    Now the only question (none / 0) (#71)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 02:42:36 PM EST
    Is how that gun got from the fight into the locked trunk of that car.</s>

    Call (none / 0) (#75)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 03:00:12 PM EST
    me a skeptic and lord knows bikers are not the most sympathetic victims, but I smell a bit of cops behaving badly here.

    I have stated in these (none / 0) (#120)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 07:50:19 AM EST
    threads previously that the only narrative anyone has gotten so far is law enforcement's. And the media eats that 'evil bikers' stuff up and just regurgitates what the cops tell them.

    My own sources have told me the same thing. Most of the shooting was from law enforcement. There was one or two handguns drawn in the initial brawl and then the cops opened up and created a firefight.

    The first clue that law enforcement was full of feces was was the meme that MC clubs had put out 'shoot to kill' orders on cops. That's the same garbage that the Baltimore PD pulled out of their rearends about Crips and Bloods. That was a complete lie. As was the kill order by MC clubs.


    The Judge (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 06:53:23 PM EST
    Robert Downey, Robert Duvall, Billy Bob, Vincent D'Onofrio.

    On before GoT, to hot to do anything else.

    But I really like.

    I'm watching the Tony's (none / 0) (#103)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 07:30:31 PM EST
    I heart Kelli O'Hara. Would love to see her in The King and I. someday Imwill see her in SOMETHING.

    Alan Cumming is a favorite too. Glad he is hosting, having fun with K. Chenowith


    IMO, O'Hara had a better part in (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 07:52:59 PM EST
    South Pacific.

    Yes, in general I am not a huge (none / 0) (#151)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 11:57:09 AM EST
    'King and I' fan. But I'm sure I would like her in in more than I have liked anyone else.

    Saw The Judge when it was I theaters. Very good. (none / 0) (#104)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 07:31:43 PM EST
    WOW (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 08:59:03 PM EST
    Stannis is damned.

    He sure is. That was horrible (none / 0) (#122)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 08:36:34 AM EST
    There was plenty of foreshadowing, but I was still not prepared for that. Knew it was coming when he sent the Onion Knight away though, and it went downhill from there.

    The rest of the episode - I did not see that coming. Pretty great.


    And what if it was only Melisandre's way (none / 0) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 09:59:44 AM EST
    Of getting one more claimant to the throne out of the way?

    Whatever her motivation (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 10:36:29 AM EST
    i think, and fervently hope, it will not end well for either of them.

    Of all the awful things, acts, and tableaux in this series so far that is possibly the worst.  She was almost literally the only truly good and innocent person in all of Westros.  It's hard to believe that even the insidious George Martin will not provide an appropriately horrific reward for THAT.

    I'm am pretty bulletproof when it comes to dramatic violence but that actually produced a lump in my throat.  I want them both to suffer.


    Me too. (none / 0) (#150)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 11:51:35 AM EST
    In a show full of horrible people doing horrible things, this was the worst.

    I do think Milisandre is playing some king of game that I do not see completely yet. But that does not excuse Stannis. Hard to believe he will find the throne of that miserable place worth it, even if he does win. He deserves a good flaying instead. I am finding myself rooting for Ramsay, and that is hard to do.

    I have a houseguest this week, and he arrived right as Stannis was talking to Shireen. Talk about bad timing. I was screaming 'ooohhhh nooo as I led him to his room! Then had to rewind and replay because I did not really see the scene.  Maybe that was good or I would have been a puddle.


    I think you are right ruff (none / 0) (#157)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:21:57 PM EST
    I think she's playing a king game that her faith/ religious organization is behind.  

    That last scream, that was blood chilling, and great acting thank the Gods :). Some amazing child actors coming out of this series.

    The kids on stage for 'The King and I' were incredible too.


    I think they are going to leave us hating (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:17:52 PM EST
    Like when you couldn't stop hating Joffrey. I knew he was going to bite it, but the series really dragged it out getting to his wedding.

    Sadly, that young actor (Jack Gleason of all names) received so much vitriol in public over his make believe character he played well, he said he was giving up acting. But I think older actors are mentoring him back to stage and screen.

    You know that one main character who will soon be near death?  This is something spouse and I have discussed, what if then Melisadre gives him that strange Lord of Light granted ability to return from death?  She's certainly marked him for something.


    She won't (none / 0) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:46:51 PM EST
    if she is dead as well.

    Here's hoping.


    for a light side (none / 0) (#178)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 01:22:21 PM EST
    Previously.tv headline: Dragon Miss Daisy

    I saw it (none / 0) (#181)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 01:28:39 PM EST
    Penny Dreadful (and its coverage n PTV) also rocked.

    Btw (none / 0) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:47:39 PM EST
    i am very curious to see what the onion knights reaction to this will be.

    Me too (none / 0) (#168)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:50:19 PM EST
    I think he knew it was coming (none / 0) (#177)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 01:19:55 PM EST
    Hence the long good-bye with Shireen, and asking Stannis if he could take her with him to the wall.

    Maybe he will just stay at the wall.


    Knowing (none / 0) (#182)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 01:30:50 PM EST
    and seeing (the tiny charred body) two different things.

    Oh my (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 08:14:25 PM EST
    i think we may find out if Shireen is a Targarian

    Watched The Judge (none / 0) (#128)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 09:47:03 AM EST
    Sunday morning on HBO Go. I like anything with Robert Duvall. After reading Lonesome Dove by McMurtry, then watching the mini series, Robert Duvall was born to play Gus McCrae.

    It seemed like an (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 10:43:39 AM EST
    "old fashioned movie" with actual, you know acting.

    Duvall is always fun to watch and Robert Downey just gets better and better.  I thought the scene at the end in the boat was excellent.  And perfect.


    I also liked that it was the first flim (none / 0) (#152)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:00:37 PM EST
    from Downey and his wife's new production company. Really bodes well for the quality of their venture. I think that is why I went to see it in the theater when I read about it, so as to support that effort and maybe get films in the theaters that I actually want to watch.

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#190)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 02:34:23 PM EST
    Really beautifully filmed with a great cast--all were outstanding.   Jeremy Strong  went deeply into his character, the intellectually disabled son, Dale Palmer.   I did not recognize Strong last seen in Selma (the murdered civil rights worker, James Reeb).  

    I think a case (none / 0) (#107)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 08:03:13 PM EST
    can be made for demonic possession.

    I have seen films of Joe McCarthy - during the Army-McCarthy hearings - the site of the famous line, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" spoken by attorney Joseph Welch to Senator McCarthy.

    This is documented in a film called, "Point of Order"- and McCarthy can be seen in numerous clips on YouTube.

    The point I wish to discuss is that I see a strange and eerie ghost of McCarthy in the manner and style of Senator Cruz. It is so strange to me that I am inclined to believe that the late Senator McCarthy has taken possession of the body and soul of Mr. Cruz. He thinks he can come out better this time around - maybe reaching through the being he is channeling into the office of the Presidency to which he always aspired.

    What havoc he could create.

    I was wondering if anyone else noticed a resemblance between McCarthy and Cruz.

    You must not watch much news (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 09:02:17 PM EST
    this has been a subject of discussion almost since he came onto the scene.

    And yes he does look like him.



    He won't be president (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 09:25:21 PM EST
    in fact if he has an actual opponent he could very well not be a senator much longer.  He is the most hated man in DC.  Perhaps by his own party most of all.

    I find it difficult to look... (none / 0) (#114)
    by desertswine on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 10:38:42 PM EST
    at Cruz.  It's because of his face.  It looks like its a potato.  No, putty.  It looks like its made out of putty.

    Eventually, (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 07:09:39 AM EST
    I find it difficult to look at any of them.

    But, admittedly, some are more immediately repellant than others.


    You want creepy (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 10:17:03 AM EST
    See the NYT re today's SCOTUS (none / 0) (#137)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 10:15:54 AM EST
    decision. Must the  US State Dept. issue a passport stating "Israel" as the place of birth as to a child born in Jersusalem?  Justice Kennedy's majority opinion:  no.  

    George W. Bush signed the law as part of a budget bill but also issued a signing statement stating he would not enforce this provision.  

    Former Republican Speaker of the House, (none / 0) (#191)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 03:13:35 PM EST
    J. Dennis Hastert, has a new attorney to represent him, Thomas Green.    Hastert is to be arraigned tomorrow (Tuesday, June 9) in Chicago on federal charges of structuring bank withdrawals to evade federal reporting requirements and lying to the FBI.  The original arraignment date was postponed.

    Hastert claimed  to the FBI that the withdrawals were based on his distrust of the banking system.  The indictment claims the money was being paid ($3.5 million total, $1.7 million to date) to "Individual A"  to conceal and compensate for  prior misconduct.   The LA times has reported that the misconduct involved sexual abuse against a male student while Hastert was a high school coach.  Mr. Green is a high=powered attorney and Sidley and Austin is a politically-connected law firm.  

    This would be the situation (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 04:00:44 PM EST
    that proves "it's not the crime, it's the cover up" is not necessarily so.
    This whole thing seems so weird to me.  I live in a small town.  Perhaps smaller than the one in this story but still.  It's almost unbelievable to me that with multiple victims which seems clear this could really have been a total surprise to EVERYBODY.
    The story the woman told about confronting Hastert at the funeral of her brother alone would get my small town talking.   Plus she said she had tried for years to get journalists to look into this story.
    People knew.  I'm sorry, but people knew.  They knew and they did and said nothing.   Perhaps worked to keep it in the closet.  
    Pun intended.
    The whole thing is a stinking hot mess.

    OTOH (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 04:03:02 PM EST
    it WAS the coverup that got his sorry a$$ busted.

    I Grew Up in a Small Town as Well... (none / 0) (#200)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 05:03:23 PM EST
    ...and there was a guy who played in for the Pittsburgh Pirates for 10 seasons.  No way anyone would buy their hometown hero did anything bad.  That guy is a celebrity back home, even though he is a professional baseball coach for the Peewee leagues.  Don't get me wrong, he is a nice guy, but there is definitely idol worship when his name is mentioned.

    I would imagine lots of rumors, but no one believed them because he is Dennis Hastert.

    Funny, I just realized there is a Wiki page for my hometown on the link I posted.


    Or they did believe it (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 05:29:14 PM EST
    and figured the violation of a few white trash teenaged boys was worth having a hometown boy third in line for the presidency.

    Which is what I think.


    I went to the same (none / 0) (#201)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 05:16:55 PM EST
    high school as Lindsey Graham. Everybody "knows" he is gay but somehow nobody admits that he's really gay. the same with Strom Thurmond. Everybody knew that he raped his maid and she had a child but nobody knows at the same time.

    I truly believe that the poor lady did try to get the press to cover Hassert's problems but they are too busy making up stuff on the Clintons to get the real stuff out there apparently.


    Barack And Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#196)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 04:03:05 PM EST
    once worked for Sidley-Austin.

    Yes, Barack Obama (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 05:33:23 PM EST
    was a summer associate.  He never joined the firm as an associate.  Obama met Michelle Robinson, who was an associate, during his time at Sidley Austin.

    Sidley Austin is the sixth largest law firm with over 1900 lawyers. It has a long history. Headquartered in Chicago it has both famous alums (e.g. Newton Minnow--TV is a vast wasteland) and clients (e.g. Mary Todd Lincoln).   Hastert better have another $3.5 million of lobbying cash around to cover legal fees.  Doubt it Mr. Green will be doing this pro bono. But, then it may be one for the coach.


    re the recent gun control decisions . . . (none / 0) (#205)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 08:19:51 AM EST
    It seems like the recent decision affirming the San Fran law is contrary to the previous DC decision.

    Could we have a new open thread and discuss whether or not the USSC is implicitly overturning their own decision in Heller?

    Also . . . (none / 0) (#206)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 08:21:17 AM EST
    could we have a thread for us to discuss what we think of the manhandling of the girl in McKinney?  It seems that the LEO was badly out of line; ar there any defenders of him?

    and . . . (none / 0) (#207)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 08:26:56 AM EST
    since I am in Seattle and I read the news . . .

    students at the UW are asking for or expecting or demanding "more" universal restrooms . . .

    I wonder if they could solve the problem by simply declaring that all the mens restrooms are universal . . .

    The excitement (none / 0) (#208)
    by lentinel on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 10:39:35 AM EST
    is almost unbearable at the 16th of June approaches.

    As everyone in the entire country knows, that is the day that Donald Trump will announce whether of not he will run for President of The United States.

    There is tension in the air around Trump Tower in New York City from which this earth-shattering pronouncement is to be uttered.

    Police are gearing up in preparation to contain and control the curious multitudes expected to be cheering and mobbing the area on Fifth Avenue in front of the Tower.

    There is no inside information about what Mr. Trump's decision will be. But, with a coy wink, he has promised us all that the announcement will, "make a lot of people happy".


    I live in the greater Seattle area but not in the city of Seattle and I read the local news on local news websites most every day.

    A few weeks ago there was announced a new initiative taken by the police to encourage reporting of assaults on the gay and affiliated community although the problem of assault in Capitol hill is not limited to gay and affiliated . . .

    In any case, I wrote an open letter to the Mayor and police chief asking them why they do not encourage members of the public to possession pepper spray and to be train in the use of it and laws governing force and citizens arrest . . .

    The topic of arming the public with pepper spray and ongoing assaults on certain parts of Seattle seems to me to be a reasonable topic for an open thread . . .  I posted my letter to them on one of my websites greenlakewalking . net