Monday Night Open Thread

Time for a new open thread.

I missed doing a Sunday Night TV and open thread last night -- mostly because I was busy watching Season 2 of the Swedish drama, 30 Degrees in February on Netflix. I only got through 1 episode of Season 1 -- it was just too depressing to watch. Then I read about Season 2 which just finished airing in Sweden, and started that. It was really good. I watched all the episodes in one day. This article does a good job of explaining the plot and characters. It's about some unhappy Swedes who move to Thailand to look for a better life. Lots of seemingly unconnected stories going on at once,n and it turned out to be very uplifting.

In welcome news from Telemundo today, Chema from last season's El Senor de los Cielos will be getting his own show in which he continues his role as a drug trafficker loosely based on Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman. And Senor de los Cielos has been renewed for a 5th season. [More....]

I have no interest in watching more Narcos or the planned new History channel show written by a Narcos writer. I don't like shows told from the point of view of police. They aren't "the truth" but the Government's truth and there's a big difference.

Meanwhile, the Mexican female drug/money mover called Queen of the Pacifica, aka Sandra Beltran-Avila, has given her first in depth interview since being released from prison. Contrary to most media reports, she has nothing to do with the fictional La Reina del Sur (Queen of the South), Teresa Mendoza, who fled Mexico in her early 20's and went on to form her own cartel in the South of Spain. Even Geraldo got that wrong in his interview of Kate del Castillo -- his narrative said Teresa was the head of the Sinaloa cartel -- she wasn't. The Mexican cartel, and Sinaloa in particular, were her enemy. Her boyfriend was a pilot for the Sinaloa cartel who decided to do some deals on his own and the head of Sinaloa had him killed. Unbeknownst to Teresa at the time, her boyfriend was really a DEA informant. It was the DEA who phoned her when he was killed and said "Run." She ran to Spain, after trading his secret notebook filled with names to the man who ordered him killed, in exchange for him letting her leave Mexico alive. He let her go to the south of Spain, where she ended up getting involved with a guy who operated a speed boat driving hash from North Africa. After he gets killed, she starts her own drug business, teaming with the Russians against the French and Italians. She built a global empire, become the biggest cartel leader in Europe and North Africa. The Sinaloa chief decides to go into politics and eliminate anyone who knew him when he was a trafficker. He sends a hit team to Europe to kill Teresa, but she and the Russians made mince-meat of them. When the murdering Sinaloa chief is about to become President of Mexico, the DEA arranged for her to testify against him in Mexico and then retire in some gorgeous seaside villa in an unidentified country without ever doing a day in jail. So Sandra Beltran-Avila is not Queen of the South or the real life inspiration for the fictional Teresa Mendoza, played by Kate del Castillo.

Season 4 of Senor de Los Cielos, which is now airing and takes place around 2012, has the corruption of the Venezuelan military and the oil business front and center. Very interesting, considering how in real life, Venezuela is on its last legs and a total mess.

The keys on my 3 month old Dell laptop are sticking like crazy. It takes forever to type a sentence. I hate it.

On a related note, my newest Comcast complaint: Their on demand versions of certain shows (like the first episode of the new season of Food Network Star) are only available in SD, not HD, even though when the show first aired just a week ago, it was available in both formats. That sucks, and makes on Demand not even worth paying for. It's like a bait and switch. HGTV has become more interesting than the Food Network. My favorites are Caribbean Life and Masters of Flip.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Mexican Court Supports Extradition of El Chapo to Texas | Vox: Bernie Too Far Behind to Win >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Samantha Bee (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:03:28 PM EST
    provided a masterful history lesson on the origins of the political movement, called the Religious Right.  The origins were not abortion, but good old white nativism and anti-government anger when the IRS challenged Evangelicals god given right not to go to school with black people.  And, of course, the unmasking of their holiness in going off with Trump.

    Two articles today (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CST on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:59:29 PM EST
    On a subject rather close to my heart.  The gender gap in tech/engineering.  I've been having a debate recently with some friends about whether things are actually getting better or not.  Personally, I think in a lot of ways - they're not, maybe even getting worse.  In any event, here are the articles:

    "Girls outscore boys on inaugural national test of technology, engineering skills"

    "The number of women working in technology jobs in Massachusetts has barely increased in recent years even though the industry has added thousands of new jobs to become one of the biggest and best-paying fields in the state."

    I still hear a lot of the "nature" arguments.  Hopefully this first article will help put that assertion to bed.  But as you can see from the second article, we've still got a loooong way to go on the "nurture" front.

    Close to my heart too (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 06:56:03 PM EST
    Ive been in tech/engineering since the early 80s and I can't say I have seen much of a change in the proportions since then, despite working for a couple of companies that made real affirmative efforts at diversity, and more that did nothing overtly to discourage women. I've seen a lot of things going on - overall I think the environment is very tough for women. When I first started out, computing resources were limited - they still are for full up integration and test environments, requiring people to work all kinds of crazy hours to get lab time, and a lot of overtime to both learn the tech and get products out, and lots of work travel with male teams. This makes it very hard to have a 'normal' social life, which I think is more important to more women than it is for most men. So I saw a lot of women fall by the wayside for those reasons.

    Also, what I don't see mentioned much, is that so many women, even though they may be in tech jobs, still have better verbal and writing skills than a lot of the men in tech jobs. This means we tend to get handed tech writing and managerial assignments. I've been in that position many times - I wanted to be a team player, so did not refuse these assignments, but it did mean my technical skills did not improve or diversify as much as my male colleagues. Now I am in a position where people, even my bosses, that have not known me for a long time do not even know I started out as a programmer, and it is hard to get back into it.

    I haven't seen a lot of overt discrimination or harassment type behavior from men I have worked with, so I don't know how much of an issue that is overall. I have 4 brothers - I see a lot of my coworkers in that light. I don't mind blue humor or ribbing, etc. I've travelled and worked many times as the only woman in the group, and though it is not a problem, I do miss female companionship at work when I am on teams with no other women. It feels good to just have someone to relate to. So in some ways I think the lack of women just perpetuates itself - it's just not as pleasant to work with all dudes - no offense dudes!


    Simple example of the last point.... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:03:03 PM EST
    Sometimes you want to wear a cute outfit - I feel totally out of place in a cute outfit amongst a team of guys in jeans and t-shirts. I don't like to go dress down to that level, so I go for the boring pants and shirts a lot.  A long time ago I worked on a programming team with mostly women - have no idea how that happened, but it was great. We wore our cute skirts and heels and no one felt like they were too dressed up for the team.  

    A recent quality survey in GitHub (none / 0) (#102)
    by Mr Natural on Wed May 18, 2016 at 10:00:28 AM EST
    which is sort of an online project collaboration - repository - version control system, tested code quality of its male vs female contributors - anonymously.

    Evaluated without knowing the sex of the programmer, women's code was rated higher quality.

    No idea why but that's what they found.


    I work in high tech here in Portland (Hillsboro) (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cashmere on Tue May 17, 2016 at 03:30:31 PM EST
    I work in high tech here in Portland (Hillsboro).  I went back to school and gradualted in EE when I was in my 30s and have been working in engineering ever since.  I am a 52 year-old white female. It is both demanding and rewarding.

    My wife's boss made the cover of Time (none / 0) (#107)
    by Mr Natural on Wed May 18, 2016 at 10:31:00 AM EST
    - twice - after rising to the top job at General Motors.  Mary Barra's path began in manufacturing, continued through engineering and more manufacturing.  Vehicle programs are extremely complex and require intense collaboration and management of that collaboration.  My wife describes Barra as "scary smart," which is scary because I'd describe my wife as scary smart.  She reported directly to Barra before her last two promotions and was responsible at one point for about a billion dollars worth of program engineering and manufacturing budget.

    That world is intensely territorial and political.  I literally do not know how either woman did it.  The sexism runs so deep that both Barra and my wife had to be much better than their peers.  There are many more women in engineering now than when my wife began.

    My wife retired last year so we're out of it.


    I don't feel disrespected here ... it is a very (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Cashmere on Wed May 18, 2016 at 04:36:04 PM EST
    diverse workplace and I am happy in my work environment.  It is, however, a grueling pace of work and a position that I cannot leave when I drive home at the end of the day.  I am online from home a lot!  This drives my husband, who is a university professor, NUTS!  So, the stress level is high.  I went back to college after our boys were in school and a bit older.  My husband was able to help with most childcare and transportation issues, allowing me to focus on my career.  He is 10 years older than me (FYI).  

    Fortunately, I have my 2 month sabbatical starting in August this year, so I can get a break then.   Our sabbaticals are vacation time, not like the university sabbaticals my husband takes where he does research.  We are expected to sign out, leave the laptop home, and unwind!  I cannot wait.


    CST, I have a question[s]....... (none / 0) (#44)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 17, 2016 at 06:23:37 PM EST
    You wrote:

    "Girls outscore boys on inaugural national test of technology, engineering skills"

    I assume we're talking about "aptitude," not "achievement," correct? (just making sure)

    And, second (to make it a justifiable criticism,) where you stated, "The number of women working in technology jobs in Massachusetts has barely increased,..............," was the survey done using accepted, empirically correct, standards? You know what I'm asking, like, for instance, for every 100, equally talented male & female applicants, you're saying appreciably fewer females were hired due, exclusively, to their gender?

    Well, if I've got all of that correct then, all I can say is that those employers are idiots.....seriously.

    I've written here before on this very subject. A few hundred years ago, when I was an up, and coming management trainee for a giant national retailer, I was cited for hiring a disproportionately large number of females for certain departments. I'm not saying I was criticized for it, just that it was brought up, and I had to explain it in one of our weekly management meetings.

    Anyway, when it came for my turn to speak, I, being an extremely, unpolished, 20 something, know-it-all, said something like, "Jeebus, it just makes sense, doesn't it?" I mean, women are over 50% of the population, why would you want to eliminate such a large segment of, potentially, smart heads so arbitrarily? That's just stupid.

    A second point was, there are some jobs, and some positions, that are just, naturally, better suited for one gender, or another. For example, in a department such as Lady's sports wear, wouldn't a female be a better first choice to run that area? I would contend that it is, and, i don't believe it would be prejudicial.

    Wrapping up, I always saw the stupidity in bigoted hiring practices. And, it's not that I saw the nobility in "all mankind," or any such lofty idea. It was, simply, because I was paid on a form of profit-sharing, and, being a grubby, money hungry, pig, I saw that the self-inflicted, financial harm of not hiring the very best person, regardless of race. color, gender, etc. was a dumb thing to do.


    Sometimes (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by CST on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:53:09 PM EST
    It's not about fairness, or bigotry, or inherent vs learned differences, or sexism, or good vs bad intentions, or discriminations, or inherent differences.

    Sometimes it's just about life.  Beating you down.


    Ruffian made an interesting point (none / 0) (#69)
    by ragebot on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:20:18 PM EST
    about not wanting to dress down to guys in jeans and T-shirts.  Back in grad school I got a part time job doing automated accounting in the office of contracts and grants.  For what ever reason I was able to understand different dress codes.  Still recall one day I was wearing a pressed and starched dress shirt made out of blue denim.  This was in the 1970s and there was a lot of working class hero stuff going around and it was common for programmers to wear blue denim work shirts.  One of the smartest programmers at school, a guy who was called Big Lee, was called in to the Dean's office and I was called in soon after and comments were made about how it was OK to wear a denim shirt as long as it was a dress shirt well pressed and starched, but it was not OK to wear a wrinkled blue denim work shirt.

    All the female programmers seem to dress much better than almost all the male programmers.  Perhaps one reason I tried to dress well was not only did the bosses like it; so did the female programmers.

    Another thing I noticed is there was a clear pecking order with the male programmers; but it was never clear such a pecking order existed with the female programmers.

    For these and several other reasons there seemed to be a real difference in how management viewed male as opposed to female programmers.


    Interesting about the pecking order (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:46:40 PM EST
    Very true in my experience too. I think men are more concerned with pecking order in general. Did you ever read Deborah Tannen's book about male and female speech patterns at work? Men are much more status oriented whereas women more relationship oriented, smoothing over differences in status. In my experience on woman teams, we made a subtle if not conscious effort to make sure every individual was known for a particular strength so no one was the alpha techie.  You don't see that on male teams - at that same company, even 25 years after the fact I can tell you the relative rank of all the male programmers, as universally acknowledged by themselves!

    Had a dual major in grad school (none / 0) (#81)
    by ragebot on Tue May 17, 2016 at 10:06:22 PM EST
    Urban planning and law.  The planning courses required major statistics courses and econ as well.  Both were heavily computer oriented.  My work in the office of contracts and grants was an off shoot of a grant writing course in the planning department.  The dean of the office of contracts an grants was computer illiterate and I was recommended to him as sort of a translator. FSU had big CDC mainframes for bleeding edge meteorology research (FSU has a world class meteorology program).  But accounting was more of an IBM area and the FSU administration used an IBM.  A lot of what I did was moving CDC files to an IBM system.  The office of contracts and grants was CDC oriented (due to all the grants to the meteorology department) but the feds wanted IBM files. Once I started working my planning/law training pointed me in the direction of land use planning and zoning laws/regulations.

    Really only spent a couple of years as a programmer.  The long hours and low pay compared to a consultant on stuff like DRIs was a no brainer in a career path.  When I got in early on GIS training my computer skills again were useful.  But I always seemed to be on the bleeding edge so a lot of the pecking order stuff was a moot point since I was the only guy in the room with training in the area.


    If Erik Satie were an Avenger... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by desertswine on Tue May 17, 2016 at 05:51:08 PM EST
    The best thing about this might be (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 05:56:59 PM EST
    It's not much of a story

    Senate Confirms Openly Gay Sacretary of the Army

    Actually the bigger story is that the Senate actually did something and confirmed someone.  Anyone.

    Hopefully this tamps down backlash (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:46:11 PM EST
    My husband says there's been some vocalized backlash lately since DADT is gone. Now that it's a done deal some think they can verbalize their displeasure during leadership discussions? It's the Army, not a Democracy, and those particular dark ages are gone as long as the Republic holds.

    For those (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by jbindc on Wed May 18, 2016 at 01:25:34 PM EST
    Bernie supporters who choose to be in a snit and not vote for HRC, here's a list of judges Trump announced he's like to put on the Supreme Court.  Please note that the list includes several former Scalia and Thomas clerks.

    Yes, and for (none / 0) (#126)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:32:57 PM EST
    those who believe that Trump has not targeted gay men and women as did the more vocal former clown car occupants, it looks like he will rely on a wink and nod for the knuckledraggers , and leave that work for his Supreme Court nominees.

    Why does Lawerence O'Donnell (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:09:02 PM EST
    Have a TV show?  


    His lead story (hair on fire story) is


    OMG!  OMG!  OMG!  

    It's. OVER  people.  

    Holy hell

    Oh, Captain, (none / 0) (#172)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 19, 2016 at 11:04:59 AM EST
    Thanks, I thought it was me.  Lawrence O'Donnell started with his scream of "national poll" only later to be noted as a FOX poll; and it when downhill from there. An analysis of previous Clinton polls which prove his point, which apparently is to turn super delegates to Bernie, or something.

     The more logical conclusion, based on O'Donnell's hair feeling the burn,  would be to urge Sanders to quit so that the Democratic nominee could focus on the Trump menace.

     Turned the show back on after awhile (nothing much else, but those adolescent, obnoxious twins finding mold in their renovations, once again. And, doing a complete renovation job in which all look alike,  for $10,000)only to find it continuing with a critique of Mrs. Clinton's entire public record by a former Reagan staff guy.  Unwatchable, might as well go to the real thing--FOX NEWS.    


    He is in the 'run to the remote to turn him off' (none / 0) (#177)
    by ruffian on Thu May 19, 2016 at 01:09:56 PM EST
    category for me. He is such a blob of nothing.

    Then change the channel. (none / 0) (#180)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 19, 2016 at 01:49:54 PM EST
    It works for me. Seriously, an hour with Lawrence O'Donnell is literally an hour wasted that you'll never get back. Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow are the only prime-time MSNBC shows worth watching anymore, and even then, I tune in perhaps twice weekly.

    RIP, Morley Safer (1931-2016). (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 19, 2016 at 02:00:00 PM EST
    The legendary CBS News correspondent and journalist retired from "60 Minutes" only last week.

    Little Sister of the Poor (none / 0) (#1)
    by debbiehamil on Mon May 16, 2016 at 10:54:12 PM EST
    What does the Supreme Court's ruling means?

    In my comment (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:15:25 PM EST
    in a previous thread, I proffered my view that, given the circumstances, this was a win for ACA.  The Little Sisters of the Poor (among a consolidation of seven cases) may take solace in that they will not be fined or taxed for non-compliance with the governmental work around. However, they did not win on their goal of not having any role in giving their employees access to contraception. And, the sub rosa goal, of discouraging or denying their employees contraceptives.

    Among the given circumstances is the eight-member Court, the likely split decision, and the clear-cut loss if not for dead Scalia. The non-decision is being described by many as a "punt," which, in reality, is a remand to the Appellate Courts (which, save for one, rejected the challenges of the Sisters et al), for a compromise in the work around, but will still "ensure that women covered by the plaintiff's health plans receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage."

    Perhaps the real loser here is the Supreme Court. The Court's job is not to propose, craft or attempt to work out compromises. Or, to coerce and cajole parties. It is not a mediator, or arbitration panel.  It is, as W. might say, the DECIDER.  The Supreme Court is to provide the final word on interpretations and constitutionality of the law.

    The Court did not really have a tough decision here, it could easily have decided that the minor paper work, did not place a substantial burden on religious freedom.  Just as eight federal courts of appeals have already done. But, given the circumstances, this is a win for employees and coverage for seamless women's health care.


    I think the coverage (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:47:17 PM EST
    I mentioned on right wing sites is interesting and telling.

    "We won if we say we won"


    That's an interesting question (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 06:43:03 AM EST
    A quick Google will show pretty much every right wing site whooping it up about the "big win for the little sisters"

    It's not that simple in real life.  The Atlantic-

    Even Nuns Aren't Exempt From Obamacare's Birth-Control Mandate
    A federal appeals court rules that the Little Sisters of the Poor received a sufficient religious accommodation.


    Sisters (none / 0) (#12)
    by debbiehamil on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:34:59 AM EST
    That is why I asked because my is right wing and she called up saying that the sisters won Thanks for the article.

    I liked this part (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 11:09:02 AM EST
    "Judges aren't qualified to tell nuns what the right answers are on question of moral complicity."

    And nuns aren't qualified to tell judges what the right answers are on questions of legal complicity.


    Monday nights mean (none / 0) (#2)
    by desertswine on Tue May 17, 2016 at 12:40:41 AM EST
    Antiques Roadshow for me.  I'm so boring...

    James Cordon just really made me laugh, with a joke about someone receiving a head transplant.

    I love that show (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by pitachips on Tue May 17, 2016 at 12:09:55 PM EST
    Especially just listening to the family stories. Same with American Pickers.

    Capt Howdy - how is your nephew? (none / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 05:45:28 AM EST

    Thanks for asking (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 06:28:20 AM EST
    He came through surgery ok as fas as we know.  He was under the knife several hours yesterday.  They were trying to repair 4 damaged vertebra.  Best case, he will be in some sort of brace for several months.

    They were in the center of the back.  The doctor said the unknown was how well they were able to put them back together.  That its is were the nerves controlling the kidneys and bladder leave the spine.  The grim possibilities being obvious for a 16 yo.

    Keep yer fingers crossed for him.


    I am thinking of him! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 12:59:24 PM EST
    If it offers any hope, my own nephew suffered a broken neck from a fall (crazy kid) when he was 19. He was not as severely injured as yours with multiple vertebrae, but recovered amazingly with few lingering effects. He is the one that just graduated from college last week.  

    So I know what you are all going through - it is amazing what the doctors can do -hang in there!!!!


    The narcos truth (none / 0) (#6)
    by nyjets on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:07:17 AM EST
    The narcos truth is probably much closer to reality than the other shows that airs on Telemondo

    That's television. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Mr Natural on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:55:48 AM EST
    This is reality.  Be careful what you click on.  One too curious click and you're looking at photographs of piles of hacked off body parts or video of them doing it.  

    The Preacher (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:31:33 AM EST

    Preacher Review: AMC's New Series Will Show You a Hell of a Good Time

    Kind of excited about this.   Next Sunday.  AMC.

    Praise be! AMC`s Preacher (premiering Sunday, May 22, 10/9c) might be just the series that fans of The Walking Dead have been complaining for two years now that Fear the Walking Dead isn't.
    Based on the comic books by Garth Ennis and Steve Dillon, the sparky supernatural dramedy circles Jesse Custer (ultra-charismatic Dominic Cooper), a reformed bad boy around whose neck his clergyman's collar fits like a noose. But he's got no choice but to stick with the pulpit: He promised his ill-fated father that he'd grow up to be a good guy, "'cause there's way too many of the bad."
    In Annville, the small town to which Jesse's returned to sermonize, the worst of the bad is Donny Schenck (Derek Wilson), a wife-beating Civil War re-enactor who's so vile, his own son asks the preacher to kick his ass. Trouble is, Jesse's only going through the motions, walking the straight and narrow out of obligation rather than a belief that he can make a difference.


    That (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:43:36 AM EST
    does look interesting. I have been looking for another AMC series since Mad Men left the air.

    The Night Manager! (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:35:06 PM EST
    is on AMC, via the UK. Might be rerunning the first episodes. Really good!

    Confused (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:42:16 PM EST
    Are there previous seasons of this.  I have not been watching it because as far as I coukd tell it started with episode 8 (I think).
    Been meaning to try to figure it out now that I have different service.  It looks very good.  Hadn't gotten around to it.

    Nope, it is a miniseries. (none / 0) (#130)
    by ruffian on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:54:47 PM EST
    It has been going for a few weeks - I think last might was episode 6 or 7 - or maybe 8? I think next week is the finale.

    I think it might be available on AMC online, but maybe not all the episodes. Hope they will rerun it.

    My DVR was not good about marking the episodes- like ep 1, 2, etc. I had to piece together by the dates and descriptions. Did not make it easy to come in late to it. but it was worth it!


    Yeah (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 04:00:38 PM EST
    I thought so.  But dish started numbering them at 8 I think.



    On my list (none / 0) (#82)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed May 18, 2016 at 05:59:15 AM EST
    Read the book years ago. LeCarre books are not easy to bring to the screen, they need the length of a miniseries.
    The BBC has excellent versions of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, and Smileys People, my 2 favorite LeCarre books. I believe both were 6 hour miniseries.

    GOT is turning to even more of a blood bath (none / 0) (#9)
    by ragebot on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:57:35 AM EST
    So many characters getting killed.  Sad to see Osha die.  Sansa seems to have convinced John Snow to try and regain control of Winterfell.  I was disappointed Arya was only mentioned in passing by Sansa.  Daenerys pulled another survive the fire episode and in the process burned alive several of those who opposed her.

    I read an analysis after last weeks show where someone bashed Arya as a blood thirsty female but I have to say Daenerys seems to hold the record for a female who has killed the most by her own hand, not to mention those who were killed by her minions.

    This is an amazing thread. (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by oculus on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:51:29 PM EST
    yes, all of us peacenik liberals (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by ruffian on Fri May 20, 2016 at 12:37:23 PM EST
    demanding the blood of our enemies!

    Arya? (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:10:16 AM EST
    After all she's been through?  


    I think her storyline is about to get really interesting. She just finally, after enduring hell, became "no one".   Sansa and Jon will probably have the help of Littlefinger and the Knights of the Vale in their play for Winterfel.  Then they will have a whole new problem.  Littlefinger.  Two people I hope to see dead this season, Littlefinger and Maester Pycelle.  And the High Sparrow of course.  So,three.

    The set piece of the season, where everyone from pretty much every story line comes together, is supposed to be the Seige of Riverrun.  Been trying to figure out why they are being seiged by the end of the season,  it looks like the reason might be that they wipe out the Faith Militant and take one or both Tyrell hostages back.  For some reason I'm thinking only one might make it out.  Probably the Queen.  But I hope I'm wrong.


    About Arya (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:25:18 AM EST
    I was thinking.

    The only problem for an unstoppable assassin/superhero/vigilante who's job it is to right wrongs and deliver justice to the unjust in Westeros would be where to start.

    Girls got a lot on her plate


    I want Littlefinger (none / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:26:41 AM EST
    To stick around.  He's fun!

    I'm ready to say goodbye to Ramsey though.


    I expect he will (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:42:02 AM EST
    But we will probably lose Ramsey.  There are spoilers out there about what happens to Ramsey.  I won't go there except to say I think they are misdirection.  Like Jon Snows sighted funeral pyre.  I think he will die but not as the spoilers are predicting.

    It is really hard to pick out who I most (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:11:48 PM EST
    want to get Ramsey - Sansa, Arya, Theon and his sister, Jon, Brienne? The possibilities are so many - can't wait to see which way they go!

    I don't want to lose Littlefinger quite yet. That little Arran punk can go though, but i fear he is going to be the next 'enfante terrible' after Ramsey.


    I am a little amazed (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 04:27:16 PM EST
    That multiple commenters want Littlefinger to live.


    I will mark it up as one of those things I just don't get.  Like cigars and ice hockey.


    Ha. I just want to see what his plan is before he (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:04:23 PM EST
    dies. He at least has a long term strategy.

    Who remembers early on (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ragebot on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:32:32 PM EST
    Littlefinger and Varys seemed in cahoots in opposition to the Baratheons.  Varys always seemed to be one of the good guys in GOT and maybe that is why I have given Littlefinger the benefit of the doubt for so long.  But I have to say he seems to have turned to the dark side for some time.  Varys true loyalty seems to be with Daenerys, while Littlefinger's loyalty (except to himself) is not clear to me.

    Ice Hockey (none / 0) (#46)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue May 17, 2016 at 06:44:28 PM EST
    Ohhh, Playoff games are fantastic

    Witnessed Islander Ranger playoff games in the Islanders 80's run at Madison Square Garden,
    Atmosphere, crowd electricity, speed and intensity of the game is without parallel


    Uh-huh (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 06:50:29 PM EST
    Although (none / 0) (#51)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:00:28 PM EST
    We do agree that Littlefinger is a dirty low scoundrel and is deserving of a unfortunate demise

    OMG (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:05:40 PM EST
    I hate him.  He's right up that with Ramsay for me.  At least Ramsay is up front about being a monster.  I almost feel sorry forthat creepy kid, the Lord of the Vale.  (Almost).  You know Littlefinger has his future planned.

    Interesting - no I don't feel that strongly about (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:10:34 PM EST
    him at all. Maybe  since he has not been on much I forgot how bad he is.

    OH geez (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:27:14 PM EST
    His brief appearance in this weeks is a perfect window into his sole.

    He shows up, lies about basically selling Sansa to the Boltons traps Lord Royce in a game with Lord Creepy, almost has him killed, after he took that creepy brat to take care of.  Manipulates Lord Creepy into committing to fight the Boltons so he can once again try to manipulate Sansa into his becoming Warden of the North, remember, he promised Cerci Sansas head on a pike to get that, while all the time planning to toss Lord Creepy through the Moon Door as soon as it's convenient.

    Ramsay is an amature.  I hope Sansa sees the light and twists the knife.  That would be great.  From Jofferys murder to her marriage to Ramsay he has been the font of her misery.


    All in the game (none / 0) (#59)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:36:20 PM EST
    You are right of course. I don't know why I don't hate him more!

    Well (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:39:29 PM EST
    He was a pretty good mayor of Baltimore.

    LOL, entirely possible I am seeing Tommy Carcetti (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:48:10 PM EST
    and not Lord Petyr.

    Ramsey (none / 0) (#83)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:04:17 AM EST
    Does have his plans, I knew his father was short lived once he remarried.
    Bur Ramsey has that sadistic streak where he loves to personally brutalize and demean , Littlefinger is just a conniving (albeit many steps ahead of anyone else) little snit who prefers others actually do the dirty bloody work.

    Not everyone else (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:54:03 AM EST
    Of of my favorite bits frm last season was the secret meeting between Littlefinger and the Lady Olenna.  She worked with him to kill Joffery but she totally has his number.  

    IMO he is not as clever as he believes he is and it will catch up with him.  Sooner rather than later would be good.


    Well I recall he did push his wife through (none / 0) (#132)
    by ruffian on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:56:29 PM EST
    the Moon Door. That was kind of mean.

    HA (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 04:02:29 PM EST
    Of all the horrible things he has done I'm pretty sure you picked the one almost anyone would have done.  Well, I would have anyway.

    Hee hee - to each his own (none / 0) (#179)
    by ruffian on Thu May 19, 2016 at 01:14:32 PM EST
    I have a soft spot for him for helping to kill Joffrey.

    I agree that he's evil (none / 0) (#114)
    by CST on Wed May 18, 2016 at 12:08:24 PM EST
    It's just that he's the manipulative scheming kind of evil that moves the plot and makes things more interesting rather than the sadistic torturer who just likes to play with his food while making stupid decisions.

    I don't think his character is in any way a good person, I just like having him in the mix.


    You know (none / 0) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 12:32:21 PM EST
    I had not noticed this until today when I was watching this weeks episode again but watch the trailer for next Sunday closely.

    One of the first moments you see is Sansa looking stern with Brienne standing behind her looking terrifying and Littlefinger looking like he might be in the process of soiling himself and Sansa says "did you know about Ramsay?"



    Yes, I caught that (none / 0) (#133)
    by ruffian on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:57:23 PM EST
    Let's see him talk his way out of that one.

    I didn't see it because my DVR (none / 0) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 04:03:36 PM EST
    Clipped off the trailer.  Didn't see it until today when I watched it again.

    Fanside (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 01:02:30 PM EST

    Could Littlefinger finally become a decent human being and actually apologize to poor Sansa, who has been passed around like a collection plate at church? Whether Littlefinger feels remorse or not, it seems that Sansa has a new fire in her blood and really wants to get revenge on her enemies, namely Ramsay Bolton. However, Littlefinger could be a great warm up for her. Perhaps she'll discuss his execution with her brother, Jon Snow, or he'll talk his way out of the situation, and she'll just let him go to wreak more havoc on Westeros. One thing is for sure: Littlefinger's death would be so satisfying for many fans to watch.



    I look forward (none / 0) (#17)
    by Chuck0 on Tue May 17, 2016 at 11:00:44 AM EST
    to watching Ramsay Bolton die a slow and painful death.

    Conservative "thought" leaders (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 10:35:17 AM EST
    have their panties in a wad because they say FaceBook is oppressing them

    This could be great news.  Maybe they will get pi$$ed off enough to leave!!  How cool would that be?

    I've an idea.  Start your own version.  You could call it Batsh!tCrazyA$$holeBook.

    It would YOUUUUGE.

    Terrific article on US bombing of Afghan hospital (none / 0) (#19)
    by Green26 on Tue May 17, 2016 at 11:28:31 AM EST
    This is a very good and very interesting article.

    NY Times.

    "Doctors With Enemies:
    Did Afghan Forces Target
    the M.S.F. Hospital?"

    October 2015 in Kabul.

    An example of the fog of war.

    Unhappy Swedes moving to Thailand. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue May 17, 2016 at 11:39:02 AM EST

    The lengths people will go to in order to get away from lutefisk is just amazing.

    Ben Carson blabs Trump VP list. (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Tue May 17, 2016 at 11:43:24 AM EST
    Awesome. Carson, Palin, Christie, Kasich (who preemptively declines), Rubio, and Cruz. Sorry, Newt.  

    I'm pretty sure this has already been walked back. (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 11:47:09 AM EST
    Both by Carson and Trump.  Trump said Cruz was never considered and some other things about the others and Carson admitted this was just a list his personal "suggestions".

    Where did you get this if I coukd ask.


    Google news. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by oculus on Tue May 17, 2016 at 12:01:11 PM EST
    Realtime tv (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 04:24:41 PM EST
    "Coming up Ben Carson!  and he has promised to tell us EXACTLY who is n the VP list......I'm kidding, I'm kidding.

    Ben Carson is with us next."


    Hilarious (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 04:40:39 PM EST
    "Let me just ask it simply, what is your role when it comes to the VP process?"

    "(Long silence)........well no significant roll at this point because the names have been submitted.  Waiting for Mr Trump.....mumble.....mumble......mumble....lots of things need to be done.....mumble some more....."

    "No, I understand that.  But your role.  Is it to facilitate, is it feelers, is it to reach out potential people who.....who.....the campaign may want to vet?   Is it to.....what is it exactly as you understand it?"

    ".........like I said, the.....names.......have .......been submitted.
    Mr......Trump is now......making.......a....decision.   Soooooo the next move will.........be.......a move......by him!"

    It goes on like this for a while.

    "......the other day.......the Washington Post ......they gave me ......a survey.......and.......I just said, you know........they're all on the list........and..... You know that's .....mumble.....mumble...."

    It goes on for a while more.


    This is actually some seriously scary s*** (none / 0) (#164)
    by Mr Natural on Thu May 19, 2016 at 09:28:03 AM EST
    Doctors are supposed to be the smartest people in the room.

    Carson is a morooon.  WTF?  Did he catch one of those weird brain diseases from his patients?


    It was like an (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 19, 2016 at 09:34:01 AM EST
    Evil Dead movie.  Horrifying and funny at the same time.

    IBTimes (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 11:51:43 AM EST
    Donald Trump on Sunday night denied the information about his search for a vice president that Ben Carson gave the Washington Post, saying that Marco Rubio is not being considered for the ticket.

    MSNBC just told me (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 03:59:15 PM EST
    That even if Hillary wins tonight she doesnt really win.


    I knew this would happen.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Cashmere on Tue May 17, 2016 at 04:01:41 PM EST
    because of the "closed primaries".  So sick of this!

    November (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Tue May 17, 2016 at 04:07:52 PM EST
    can't get here soon enough.

    Jon Ralston (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Tue May 17, 2016 at 04:47:08 PM EST
    Will be on MSNBC (among other networks) tonight to discuss the Nevada debacle.

    Just said in another thread (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 05:59:35 PM EST
    Sanders was getting killed on MSNBC.   Ralston is on now and he is continuing this.

    Same old, same old (none / 0) (#84)
    by Nemi on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:43:00 AM EST
    Q: "When is a win not a win?"

    A: "When Hillary Clinton is the winner."


    That was exactly the theme (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:49:11 AM EST
    On Morning Joe today.  It was rather remarkable.  MJ is a republican show for republicans.  They are absolutely loving this.  They correctly IMO assume the longer Sanders stays in the more he damages Hillary.

    Their laughable concern trolling for poooooor mistreated Bernie and the awful rigged system is a sight to behold.

    The up side not that many democrats watch morning Joe.  Or if they do I expect they do it for the same reason I do and are fully aware of their agenda.


    Morning Joe (none / 0) (#146)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed May 18, 2016 at 07:27:44 PM EST
    Is chock full of liberals,

    The only Republican on the set is the RINO, Scarborough.

    Everyone else is full blown liberal.

    Little Mika does give Madame Sec a hard time, (she falls in the group that doesn't find her truthful) but she is a big supporter of Bern policies.


    That comment is more (none / 0) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:56:46 PM EST
    About you than Morning Joe.

    Nah (none / 0) (#184)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu May 19, 2016 at 05:08:08 PM EST
    More about you.
    Other than Michael Steele, Nicole Wallace, what Republican regular is on?
    Mike Barnicle  Bleeding liberal Boston writer
    Jonathan Capehart
    Steve Rattner
    Eugene Robinson
    Howard Dean
    Sam Stein
    Donnie Deutche

    All regulars, all Hillary supporters

    Except for Mika, she does not like Madame Sec, I think it is those trust numbers. Would say she prefers the Bern


    Pfft (none / 0) (#185)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 19, 2016 at 06:12:49 PM EST
    So the "liberal" placeholders/punching bags who are constantly shouted down and talked over and who are really there only to serve as foils and straight man for the two hosts (it's hilarious you think the Meat Puppet is a liberal) make it a "liberal" show.

    Right.  Stick with FOX Trevor.  It's less nuanced.


    You (none / 0) (#186)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri May 20, 2016 at 06:04:59 AM EST
    Protest too much

    It is one of the most balanced shows on

    But I know, the media is usually in the tank for the liberal cause, so balance seems askew


    Balance isn't truth (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by CoralGables on Fri May 20, 2016 at 10:06:23 AM EST
    but truth has a liberal bias.

    "Balance" (none / 0) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 20, 2016 at 12:01:43 PM EST
    Is the problem

    "Trump Boasts" (none / 0) (#45)
    by Mr Natural on Tue May 17, 2016 at 06:41:12 PM EST
    Latest FEC financial disclosure shows 'tremendous' success"

    The Trump campaign claims the new form, which is being processed by the FEC and is not yet publicly available, shows income "in excess of $557m", "tremendous cash flow", and "a revenue increase of approximately $190m dollars".

    A Wall Street Journal analysis of Trump's finances published over the weekend estimated Trump's 2016 pretax income to be about $160m. Trump's last financial disclosure form showed between $78m and $232m in cash, stocks and bonds.

    Mr Natural your last comment (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:57:29 PM EST
    was deleted for being a spam and censor blocker attracter -- please do not write about p*orn on this site, especially without asterisks.

    I bet the Congressional candidate wishes (none / 0) (#157)
    by Mr Natural on Wed May 18, 2016 at 10:51:36 PM EST
    his "unfortunate" facebook posting could vanish as completely.

    Very close in KY (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 06:51:28 PM EST
    Out of about 250,000 a difference of about 600.


    If Bernie wins (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 06:56:24 PM EST
    Does he really win?

    (That was rhetorical)


    Hillary now ahead (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:02:26 PM EST
    By 39

    39 votes not 39%


    With 382,200 votes cast, ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:02:18 PM EST
    ... and 93% of precincts reporting, Sanders is up by 144.

    Rachel Maddow (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:04:46 PM EST
    Is currently explaining how if Sanders wins it will be really really really important.  Because Hillary campaigned there.  But if Hillary wins, meh.

    I have identified Chuck Todd's 'stopped clock' (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:08:25 PM EST
    moment...he is right.

    It's sad (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:16:24 PM EST
    When the only one making sense is the republican strategist.



    Chuck is back to normal (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:24:19 PM EST
    He lost me...how would conservative Dems that put down uncommitted rather than either Clinton or Sanders vote for Sanders if they were not able to say 'uncommitted'? I thought Sanders was supposed to be the liberal hero?

    Wait, I forgot..it's the racism, stupid. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:24:48 PM EST
    Samantha's Bee's show killed it Monday night (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:14:59 PM EST
    Great piece on the religious right, and another about some female city councilwoman in Seattle that are getting attacked online for not supporting a new stadium. Check it out!

    Hillary wins KY (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:17:22 PM EST
    Bub-bye Bernie.

    I'm betting she also wins Oregon.

    Watch out (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:20:36 PM EST
    For flying chairs

    What time does 'the Night Manager' start? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:33:11 PM EST
    Moving on....

    Oh c'mon, the pulled those pants (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:30:39 PM EST
    for Tom Hiddleston out of the spare clothes bin in some tent? Not that I'm complaining...

    Benchmark (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:02:58 PM EST
    has it Bernie +1 but that would be a big time coup for her to win in Bernieland of Porlandia.

    Not so fast... (none / 0) (#87)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:20:41 AM EST
    the people of Oregon came through as expected...I think that's his first win in a "members only" state.

    Can he get Cali for the west coast sweep?  That would be a nice parting gift.


    "Members only" (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:27:42 AM EST
    Apparently referring to the crazy idea that democrats should pick the democratic nominee.

    Yeah, strangely (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jbindc on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:44:27 AM EST
    I support the UAW, and want them to be successful, but oddly enough, they don't let me vote for their leadership.  Maybe because I'm not a member....?

    Does the UAW make law... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:58:11 AM EST
    you must abide by?  Do they tax you?  Provide for the national defense?

    Didn't think so.

    In a viable and healthy 4 party system it wouldn't matter so much, in a two party system I think it might be a good idea to let every voter vote in both primaries, since they gotta live under the winner of a coin flip in November.  Why is it so terrible to let every voter have a say who represents Heads and who represents Tails?  Just because y'all have Machiavellian minds and would play games with such a dual open primary vote doesn't mean the majority of voters are like that.  I'm not like that.


    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by jbindc on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:25:12 AM EST
    The Democratic Party doesn't make laws I must abide by, nor do they tax me, nor provide for the national defense. What you want to live in a parliamentary system with multiple parties - we don't have that here.

    But ok, here's another example.  What if I want to vote for mayor of NYC? I'm accused of always supporting cops, so what if I think NYC is returning to it's crime-filled days of the 70's and the city needs someonesomeone to get tough on crime again - like Guiliani.  Why can't I vote for someone like that, just because I don't live there? NYC is an important city in this country, and it's certainly in my interest that crime is reduced.

    Why should someone who can't be bothered, or someone like you, who by your very principles and stated beliefs specifically does not want to be associated with, nor a member of the Democratic Party - why should you get a say?  You made a calculated choice not to be a Dem,  but now you think you should have a right in who the Dems choose as their nominee?

    You want it both ways, but that's not how it goes.


    Sadly (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:30:55 AM EST
    It does go that way in far to many places.  No more caucuses, no more open primaries.

    Both are nothing but excuses to game the process.  I also don't think people should have the ability to cross over and vote for the candidate they think will lose.  Just shouldn't work that way.


    Btw (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:32:29 AM EST
    If I was Hillary that would be my response to Bernies "no more super delegates"

    Because too (none / 0) (#147)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed May 18, 2016 at 07:31:15 PM EST
    Many voters are now disgusted with both political parties, that the one party that has been gaining membership is Independent,
    Independents should be able to vote in either primary in their state, but just once, not in bot party primaries.

    Yeah, you know (none / 0) (#150)
    by jbindc on Wed May 18, 2016 at 07:46:17 PM EST
    EVERY election people say (and the media drives) the "anti-establishment" mood of the electorate.  Yet, 98% of House members are re-elected, most Senators,  as well as many downticket officials, so pardon me if I don't buy it as a huge issue.

    I discount most house races, (none / 0) (#151)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:04:42 PM EST
    Although there were many changes in 2010 and 2014.
    Senate and national elections more so follow the trends

    This is a anti establishment election, both parties have shown it in their primaries.

    That is why the one party gaining membership is the Independent

    A change election is on the horizon


    It's fashionable (none / 0) (#153)
    by jbindc on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:08:19 PM EST
    To say you're "independent".  Also, many people say that because it's easier to get along in conversations without getting into arguments.  The vast majority of indies vote for one party or the other up and down the ticket.

    That (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:13:59 PM EST
    is true and it was the point I was trying to make with another poster. They might call themselves independents but they continually vote for democrats up and down the tickets.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:07:56 PM EST
    this is the standard fare of Republicans who are embarrassed about what their party has become "both do it" blah, blah, blah. And the stupid pundits who have been eternally wrong this year.

    There's nobody more establishment than Sheldon Addleson who is giving The Donald 100 million dollars. Do you think that's going to move one Trump voter? I don't think so. They'll just swallow it and move in and say thank you sir.


    Why can't (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:15:27 AM EST
    they commit? I mean it's not like either party is asking you to sign in blood. People who aren't committed to the party really don't care about much. I mean you can look no further than Bernie supporters just checking the ballot for his name with not a care about the fact that the rest of the ballot gets left blank and a wacko gets in the WI supreme court.

    If they truly want change it takes hard work precinct by precinct changing the minds of voters. Too many people buy into the white knight theory of change where electing candidate X is going to magically change the thinking of voters.


    Since you admittedly declined to partake ... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 18, 2016 at 12:31:37 PM EST
    ... in party registration and membership in order to vote for your own "preferred" candidate -- even though you were given more than ample opportunity to do so and participate -- you've really no business criticizing our party's nominating process or its ultimate outcome. Both we and the Republicans have every right to determine the process regarding how we choose our party's respective nominees.

    You, on the other hand, apparently don't want to do any of the heavy lifting yourself, preferring instead to treat politics as a vicarious form of public entertainment whereby you assume the role of The Muppets' Statler & Waldorf, throwing brickbats at everyone and telling us how badly we all suck. But at this point in the game, kdog barks and the caravan has passed.

    Have fun playing in the margins with Jill Stein.


    Yep... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:51:06 AM EST
    that same crazy exclusive unwelcoming idea that makes more adversaries than friends.

    You'd think "the party" would want to welcome new interested voters and hear their voices, to build a stronger coalition under a big tent...lunacy!  


    It does (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:04:31 AM EST
    All you have to do is register as a democrat.  

    Friends don't make friends... (none / 0) (#93)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:08:53 AM EST
    fill out forms.

    Sorry, my friend, but you are (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by caseyOR on Wed May 18, 2016 at 10:49:19 AM EST
    spewing utter bullsh!t. This is the form of government the Founders chose. They did not opt for a parliamentary form of government. Short of a complete, and violent, overthrow of the federal government and a total rewrite of the constitution, this is what we have to work with and within. Deal with it.

    Political parties are private organizations, not government entities. It is ridiculously easy to join one of these political parties. No money required, no secret handshake, no probationary period. Just check a box.  And if someone cannot be bothered to check a box on a paper form or check a box online, then i question just how much they actually care about participating.

    You don't like the Democratic Party? Join the Party and work to change it. Or form your own party and work to get other voters to join with you. But stop the whining and complaining about how hard it is to join the Party.

    It is one of the easiest participatory democracy things you can do.


    I didn't say it was hard... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2016 at 11:07:53 AM EST
    I said I'm not willing to do it, and it should not be necessary.  Change it?  Look at the grief Bernie gets for joining and trying to change it...f*ck that mess.

    No thanks friend, enjoy your party but it ain't my kinda party.  


    Which is your right (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 11:20:06 AM EST
    Don't expect a voice in picking OUR nominee.

    Fair enough... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2016 at 01:20:33 PM EST
    but your party will be courting the independents they did not want choosing your nominee in November...good luck with that after telling them to register D or f*ck off in Feb-March-April-May.

    Like I've been saying, you catch more flies with honey, and your games to prevent people from playing games are just causing people to play more games like switching parties back and forth.

    But as you've been saying, it's your party and you don't need no stickin' tips from no dirty f8ckin' independent who happens to agree with the Democratic base (if not the elected officials and party elites and big cash money donors) on almost everything.  


    Be fair (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 02:09:55 PM EST
    You never would have voted for Hillary no matter what and that's fine. That's your choice.

    However you have to admit there are a lot of people who were voting for Bernie in the primary who never in a million years would vote for Bernie for president.


    Correct... (none / 0) (#128)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:47:44 PM EST
    It's not a "snit" over Bernie losing, I could never vote for Hillary (or Obama or Biden or O'Malley).  Sanders and Warren I could vote for.

    I would think your party would welcome independents excited about one of your horses.  But I guess I was wrong.  You wanted people to check a box in the spring and uncheck it in the fall...sounds like a paperwork circle-jerk to me.  Sh&t more than half of Kentucky is registered D for no other reason than their great grand daddy was a D, yet they vote for R's consistently after picking your nominee.  Makes a lot of sense!

    Yeah, in Kentucky there were a lot of D's who voted for Bernie who will now vote for Trump against Clinton.  No games there, they are loyal registered D's with paperwork in good and proper standing...lol.


    Indy's need to join the party and work (none / 0) (#124)
    by vicndabx on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:11:59 PM EST
    from within.  Foot in the door and all that.  That's how I was raised.

    You can't just start working and expect be CEO.  Insights and process improvements are always welcome.


    I don't want Debbie's job...` (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:55:24 PM EST
    In a two party dominated system, I simply wanted a say in who was on one side of that coin in November without legitimizing a two-party system by registering for one of the parties.  

    That passes for an outlandish sinful request with ill intentions I guess...fair enough.  I can move to an open primary state if it means that much to me.  It never did till 2016, but not enough to register with the crooked DNC or move or find a registered D to sell me their vote like my nephew did. (He bribed his registered D Trump supporting Grandpa to vote for Bernie in NY primary in exchange for household chores...lol)



    Very small number (none / 0) (#125)
    by jbindc on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:18:11 PM EST
    Of indies who desperately wanted to vote in a closed primary (but couldn't) who will have a childish temper tantrum and not vote in the general.

    Weaver (none / 0) (#148)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed May 18, 2016 at 07:33:36 PM EST
    Made the same point, perhaps with a bit more subtlety in a evening news telecast tonight

    Bernie didn't join the Democratic (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by caseyOR on Wed May 18, 2016 at 11:20:40 AM EST
    Party to change it. He joined because he saw it as the easier route to take.. If he was winning, i guarantee you, Bernie would be just fine with "the rules".

    If (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:11:42 AM EST
    they can't even commit to filling out a simple form they would be the first bail when things got tough.

    Why this need to commit? (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:38:41 AM EST
    I don't wanna get married, I just wanna pick a partner for a dance in November.

    I wanna support ideas, policies, and individuals who I believe are serious about them...regardless of party.  Who knows, maybe one day there will be a decent Republican I'd wanna vote for.  Hard to fathom in 2016, but parties change and weird sh*t happens.  Maybe the GOP finds a Trump without the Trump factor that I'd wanna support in 2020, if Clinton governs as I'd expect she will...from the corporate center on economics and health care and education with a neocon foreign policy.

    I have little interest in political parties and power structures easily corrupted.  And less interest in joining one.  Even an exclusive country club allows non-member guests at certain functions.  Ya want my vote in November, but in April ya don't wanna know me?  Message received New York Democratic Party, loud and clear....I can't sign up for that.  


    You don't want to marry? (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:50:15 AM EST
    Just want to dance?  Me too!  But accepted the fact that decision means I will die alone.  

    You can support all the "ideas" you want.  In the fall election.  If you want to shape those ideas, pick a side.   You seem to think you sign in blood.  For life.  That's not how it works.  

    Sorry but your arguments are nonsense.  Jb made a great argument that I can't improve on.  

    Would just add if you have such a deep problem with parties you are not going to change a thing by commenting on a blog.  You change it by getting involved.  IMO if you are not willing to do that,  well.........


    You're right... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2016 at 10:12:08 AM EST
    I am too selfish to "get involved" beyond voting, and the wounds perpetrated by the Democratic Party run pretty deep.  So even if I were invlined to get more involved, it certainly wouldn't be an involvement with the Democratic Party. It would be with a protest group picketing the Democratic & Republican Parties.

    You're a more forgiving sort than I my friend...this is the party who just a few short years ago would deny you marriage rights, and thought we belonged in handcuffs for our lifestyle choices.  

    Call me selfish, call me spiteful, call me unforgiving...I could not and will not do it.  Not even for my boy Bernie. Maybe someday in the future when past sins have been atoned for, and the party processes are democratized...but I do not see that happening.


    You are making my point (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 10:23:01 AM EST
    Things like marriage rights changed because people got involved.  

    I'm not going to call you anything except maybe misguided.

    But I will say I never NEVER expected to see national marriage rights in my lifetime.   Right up to a very few years ago.   Things can and do change.  But it doesn't happen by itself.  


    It's what they'll call you (none / 0) (#140)
    by glanton on Wed May 18, 2016 at 05:04:04 PM EST
    If Hillary Clinton doesn't win in November versus what they won't call you, because your existence will be irrelevant, if she does win.

    If she wins, for far too many, the explanation will begin and end with what a "historic" moment it is.  There won't even be that much reference to what a ridiculous person the GOP ran against her.  You, and your concerns, won't be considered at all.  As you know well, my fellow old-school commenter.

    If she loses though, it will be your fault according to the same explainers.

    Actually, when you think about it, that's not a bad deal for Clinton.  If she wins it's because she rocks, if she loses it's the fault of the voters who owed it to her.


    You picked a helluva time... (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by kdog on Thu May 19, 2016 at 09:21:18 AM EST
    to stop in old-timer, silly season and all.

    Good to hear from ya nonetheless glanton!


    Jeralyn is still the best blogger out there (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by glanton on Thu May 19, 2016 at 10:56:10 AM EST
    And has the most interesting commenters.  I just go through long phases of not writing is all.  Life gets in the way sometimes :-)

    No (none / 0) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 05:19:19 PM EST
    actually nobody is going to do that because the consensus seems to be that those Bernie voters are not going to vote for her. So nobody thinks Bernie is going to do anything but help Trump. So it's more or less a way of figuring how to win without them.

    For someone (none / 0) (#142)
    by jbindc on Wed May 18, 2016 at 05:29:15 PM EST
    Who thinks it's "owed to her" and expected a "coronation" in a "rigged" system, she sure is working her a$$ off.

    They got it all figured out tho (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 05:42:51 PM EST
    Clearly finding some one or some thing else to "blame" has been discussed.  Hilariously along with explaining winning without them.

    I hope you're right and we don't find out (none / 0) (#149)
    by glanton on Wed May 18, 2016 at 07:35:08 PM EST
    One thing both parties share is a chronic inability to understand why they lose , when they lose .

    Given what a disaster Trump and the GOP are, it'll be a lot better for us if it's the Republican analysts left to the misinterpretations .


    Well (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:58:43 AM EST
    you can always vote for said Republican in the general election but don't you think that the people who actually do the work and the people who actually care about the party should be able to pick who gets to run? I don't think I should be picking who the Libertarians run because I could care less about their party. What's wrong with letting every party pick who they want to run as a candidate and free up the primaries from all the Rush Limbaugh game players?

    Because for every Machiavelli... (none / 0) (#103)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2016 at 10:06:18 AM EST
    there are 10 regular folks who just wanna vote for the horse they like.

    The greater evil is excluding them, the lesser evil is dealing with the Machiavellis. IMO.


    No one (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 10:16:13 AM EST
    is excluding them. They are excluding themselves. I mean if they can't be bothered to change registration to vote for a candidate then apparently that candidate is really not worth the trouble.

    And how do you know about the number of Machiavelli's? In WV it was 40% of the people that voted for Bernie.


    It is way too hard (none / 0) (#158)
    by sallywally on Thu May 19, 2016 at 12:02:21 AM EST
    for some people....

    Filling out forms, I mean.. (none / 0) (#159)
    by sallywally on Thu May 19, 2016 at 12:37:47 AM EST
    Way too unnecessary... (none / 0) (#165)
    by kdog on Thu May 19, 2016 at 09:29:23 AM EST
    for a country always complaining that too few vote and too few are invested politically, we sure don't make it easy to vote and get invested.  I expect exclusion and consolidated power from the Republicans, I thought Democrats were about power to the downtrodden and the voiceless working people of America?  LOL

    Gotta be in the party, gotta check this box on this form and mail it in by the due date, do this, do that, delegates, superdelegates, state conventions, national convention...how about we just vote and count votes?  What kinda puppeteer designed this sucker?


    Just my two cents (none / 0) (#115)
    by ragebot on Wed May 18, 2016 at 12:20:39 PM EST
    The real question is how do the Democrats control who is their candidate and at the same time take into account what I will term who independents take on potential candidates.

    In the current election Bernie's view of trade pacts was much different than Hillary's view; and much closer to Trump's view.  The same goes for what I will call establishment control of stuff.

    A lot of independents (and lets face it the current voter registration is roughly 40% Independents and a little over 30% for Democrats and a little under 30% for Republicans) seem to be in the Trump/Sanders camp in terms of trade pacts and bashing the establishment.

    So the real question is how do the Democrats resolve the problem that Hillary seems to be out of step with a lot of Independents who favor Bernie's positions on trade and establishment bashing.  Letting Independents vote in the primary would allow the Independent's view to be registered, but the Democrats would lose some control.

    As I posted in an earlier thread allowing Independents to vote in a Democrat primary is a double edge sword.  The good thing is you attract some Independents but the bad thing is you lose control.

    I have no idea how many Independents will turn to Trump when Sanders is eliminated; or how far Hillary will move towards Sanders position on trade pacts and establishment bashing.

    Bottom line is you pay your money and take your chances.


    Well (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 12:31:47 PM EST
    you're assuming a lot of things. How many Sanders supporters will be repelled by Trump? And how many people who are Sanders supporters really never were going to vote for Hillary ever and were just messing around in the primaries? I mean something like 40% of Sanders supporters in WV said they would not vote for him even if he was the nominee.

    Your numbers are inaccurate according to extensive polling by Pew. There are a lot of people who call themselves "independents" but really are not. The numbers are 48D/39R and 13I. The truth that the GOP base is unwilling to face is the fact that they have to get almost all of that 13% to win an election. So there is a reason the GOP has pretty much given up on the presidential election and is looking to save down ticket races. They have that same information. And frankly with the way the GOP has gerrymandered themselves they are probably going to be successful with that money.


    Pew link (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by ragebot on Wed May 18, 2016 at 04:19:36 PM EST

    and the blurb from 2014:

    The share of independents in the public, which long ago surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans, continues to increase. Based on 2014 data, 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans

    Similar results from Gallup

    and the blurb:

    Forty-two percent of Americans, on average, identified as political independents in 2013, the highest Gallup has measured since it began conducting interviews by telephone 25 years ago. Meanwhile, Republican identification fell to 25%, the lowest over that time span. At 31%, Democratic identification is unchanged from the last four years but down from 36% in 2008.

    I have not seen more recent data but would welcome links to such.


    Those (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 04:56:28 PM EST
    only tell half the story. The rest is here

    True independents are far and few but somehow the GOP uses those half measures to make themselves feel better.


    You are just making up words (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by ragebot on Wed May 18, 2016 at 05:31:59 PM EST
    like "true independents".  I did a word search on your link and could not find any instance of the phrase "true independent".

    Here are a few blurbs from your link that all point to the number of independents.

    The share of independents in the public, which long ago surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans, continues to increase. Based on 2014 data, 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling.

    The biggest change in partisan affiliation in recent years is the growing share of Americans who decline to affiliate with either party: 39% call themselves independents, 32% identify as Democrats and 23% as Republicans, based on aggregated data from 2014.

    What is true is more self identified independents lean Democratic than Republican.  But that has been true for some time as this blurb shows.

    The balance of leaned partisan affiliation has changed little in recent years: 48% identify with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, while 39% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Democrats have led in leaned party identification among the public for most of the past two decades.

    Bottom line is more folks self identify as Independent than either party and this has been increasing for a couple of decades.


    YOu are completely (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2016 at 05:42:07 PM EST
    missing the point of the poll. While they call themselves "independents" they always vote D. Here in GA you can't even register by party. I don't even know how many other states are the same way. So while you seem to find some kind of bizarre comfort in what people call themselves the truth is 48% of the country is the Democratic base because that is how they vote NOT what they call themselves. Sheesh.

    Yes (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 12:37:20 PM EST
    Upsides and down.  But the more I read about the groups turning massively against Trump, women, AAs, Asians, Latinos and on and on, the better I feel.

    IMO there are not enough independent in the world.  That's my feeling now.  Still Trump has shown a disturbing ability to change the math.

    Watch this space.


    This is great (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 11:18:42 AM EST
    I just heard it on cable and can't find a link but apparently Trump is telling the prospective VPs have to submit their tax returns to be vetted.

    The man is truly shameless

    The operative Big Lie is (well, one of them) (none / 0) (#162)
    by Mr Natural on Thu May 19, 2016 at 09:18:22 AM EST
    that Trump's rich so he doesn't have to be a greedy self serving parasite like all the other politicians.

    The premise is ridiculous.  No one ever piled up that much money by being satisfied with what they had.  They always want more.  There is no end to greed.

    This is also why politicians cling to power.  They can't get enough of it.


    Lenny Dykstra talks about his PED use (none / 0) (#113)
    by McBain on Wed May 18, 2016 at 11:36:58 AM EST

    I used to have debates with friends over who was using PEDs in baseball.  It's amazing how many people  had their heads in the sand and thought athletes with millions of dollars at stake would resist the temptation to take them.  Some didn't think they helped baseball players because it's a "hand/eye sport".

    It's not just baseball and steroids, it's wall street and insider trading or any situation where there's the potential of big money and very little regulation.  If you let them, people will cheat!

    Dykstra used to promote (none / 0) (#161)
    by Mr Natural on Thu May 19, 2016 at 09:12:57 AM EST
    a "sure fire" option trading scheme.  It was complete b/s.  Last I heard he was living in his car.

    Living in the car (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 19, 2016 at 09:30:13 AM EST
    was long ago. He went back into a house, then to the big house, and now back home again on probation.

    Ever watch the news, (none / 0) (#127)
    by desertswine on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:41:36 PM EST
    and the talking head says "A new study reports that..."    John Oliver has a funny bit about that.  Now whenever I hear one of them say that, I think about this Oliver program.

    Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#160)
    by Mr Natural on Thu May 19, 2016 at 09:11:00 AM EST
    Done (none / 0) (#168)
    by jbindc on Thu May 19, 2016 at 09:53:46 AM EST
    Bernin' down the house

    While Mr. Sanders says he does not want Mr. Trump to win in November, his advisers and allies say he is willing to do some harm to Mrs. Clinton in the shorter term if it means he can capture a majority of the 475 pledged delegates at stake in California and arrive at the Philadelphia convention with maximum political power.

    But WaPo is done playing

    Mr. Sanders's irresponsibility is sadly unsurprising. He has stirred up populist energy over the past several months with anti-corporate scapegoating and extravagant claims about policy. He has indulged and encouraged hyperbolic feelings that the country is badly adrift, that most of the nation agrees with a left-wing agenda but is trapped in a corrupt system, and that nothing but a political revolution will do. He has attracted some big, passionate crowds. But as he has lagged in votes, he increasingly has questioned the legitimacy of the process and encouraged his supporters to feel disenfranchised. The result is a toxic mix of unreason, revolutionary fervor and perceived grievance.

    Bernie is putting all this energy into California for naught.  I predict HRC will cross the necessary threshhold to be rightly called the presumptive nominee (even by the networks) before the polls close in CA on June 7th (which will be at 11 pm EDT).  I think she will be over with NJ and the networks would have to (want to?) vall it while they still have an East coast audience.

    Love this cartoon! (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by vml68 on Thu May 19, 2016 at 12:37:38 PM EST
    Sanders news coverage (none / 0) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 19, 2016 at 10:50:09 AM EST
    Is going to go down hill fast.   It's already rollin.

    Man (none / 0) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 19, 2016 at 11:13:54 AM EST
    you aren't kidding. It has done a complete 180 in very short order. Of course, Sanders completely shot himself in the foot with that idiotic statement.

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 19, 2016 at 11:14:42 AM EST
    from what I understand the moment the polls in NJ are reported she will have enough to garner the nomination.

    "Cute" Canadian Prime Minister reveals (none / 0) (#169)
    by Mr Natural on Thu May 19, 2016 at 10:12:33 AM EST
    The jerkiest thing I see (none / 0) (#173)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 19, 2016 at 11:10:06 AM EST
    is your use of "cute".

    You and your fellow Bernie Haters (none / 0) (#178)
    by Mr Natural on Thu May 19, 2016 at 01:14:18 PM EST
    are a continual reminder of what makes lynch mobs work, Coral.

    Exactly what does Sanders have to do (none / 0) (#182)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 19, 2016 at 02:09:36 PM EST
    with the Canadian Prime Minister?

    Both cute (none / 0) (#183)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 19, 2016 at 02:11:45 PM EST
    In very different ways.

    Blue Moon today (none / 0) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 21, 2016 at 12:14:39 PM EST

    WE'VE all described a rare event as happening 'once in a blue moon'.

    But now a blue moon is actually about to happen - and paranormal psychics have shared their concerns that it could signal something terrible is going to happen on earth.

    A blue moon is a second full moon in a calendar month - and it last happened in July.

    But the one due to appear on Saturday is considered even more rare as it is the fourth full moon in one season - even though there would usually be only three.

    You really have to admire the courage involved here.  To actually put your reputation on the line by predicting "something bad" will happen on earth this weekend.

    ITS READATHON DAY (none / 0) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 21, 2016 at 03:14:48 PM EST
    National READATHON Day will take place on Saturday, May 21, 2016. It is a day dedicated to the joy of reading and giving, when readers everywhere can join together in their local library, school, bookstore, and on social media (#Readathon2016) to read and raise funds in support of literacy. This year, Readathon Day is presented as part of ALA's Libraries Transform campaign, and will benefit ALA's Every Child Ready to Read initiative, a program that supports the early literacy development of children from birth

    There was nothing on TV about reading so I was reading this

    No really.  I was.

    ALL THE WAY (none / 0) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 21, 2016 at 09:49:37 PM EST

    Reviews are using words like mesmerizing to describe Cranstons portrayal of LBJ.   It definitely is.  If you lived thru it watching him is almost eerie.  He becomes LBJ.  Its an amazing thing to watch.  He will need to make room next to his TONY for an EMMY.

    But the whole thing was mesmerizing.    Every performance is close to perfect.  Humphrey, Lady Bird, Hoover.  The outstanding acting and the clever combination of archival news footage makes the whole thing feel like a documentary.

    From the Daisy commercial to the Walter Jenkins sex scandal (which I had forgotten about) to the final minutes that inter cut MLKs NOBEL speech with LBJ responding to a hostile crowd in New Orleans while campaigning.    It is a feast for political junkies.

    Cranstons won't be the only EMMY.

    I missed the first 45 minutes so need (none / 0) (#193)
    by ruffian on Sun May 22, 2016 at 11:13:20 AM EST
    to watch again  which I would anyway because as you say, it was truly mesmerizing. Even having seen hm play the role on Broadway, I was blown away. The intimacy of the camera really pays off int his case since he is such an accomplished TV actor.

    Shout out to Melisa Leo as Lady Bird too. I could listen to her voice in any role though, so I am biased.

    So as not to use the whole thread, regarding your 'reading day' post. Coincidentally I was in a reading mood yesterday, and I did not even know it was reading day. Thoroughly enjoyed my afternoon rediscovering my inner bookworm - finished re-reading Gore Vidal's 'Burr', which I started after I got hooked on the 'Hamilton' music. I believe anyone on this blog would love that book. It has all the political intrigue you can ask for, along with Gore's signature wit. Published in 1973, it totally holds up now.

    After that I watched a DVD my brother gave me for my birthday - a documentary called 'Best of Enemies'. about the televised Vidal-Buckley debates during the 1968 conventions. Fantastic doc - puts it all inc context of course, and seeing these two giants go at it was also mesmerizing - and why I as late in tuning in to 'All The Way'.   Interesting, ABS only aired the debates because they were so far down in the ratings, and had no money to match the other 2 (2!) networks in convention coverage, so they rolled the dice on an actual intellectual political debate.  Could have been taking place today. Probably the last one we've had - as some of the speakers in the doc point out, since then political talking heads are so identified with defined view points, organizations, and talking points that there is little independent though represented on the tube. Vidal talked about income inequality and civil rights, and Buckley about cultural decay and  law and order. They did 9 or 10 ever more acrimonious debates. I think Buckley regretted losing his cool toward the end and calling Vidal a 'queer'. Vidal acted like he had successfully goaded Buckley into letting loose with how he really felt by calling him a 'crypto-Nazi'.

    Anyway , really fascinating - find it!


    Intimate camera work (none / 0) (#194)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 22, 2016 at 11:43:30 AM EST
    Absolutely.   It's used a lot to great effect.

    One of the best moments is when LBJ and Hoover are discussing the Walter Jenkins thing.   The whole thing is shot in extreme closeup.  

    LBJ  says

    ....how do you....know.......when somebody's .....


    Well, there are certain signs, mannerisms.   The way a man dresses, or combs his hair.  Walks kind of funny.

    Increasingly squinty side eye from LBJ

    Well, that's news to me.  I'm not questioning you.......I'm sure you'd know .....

    Reaction shot of a nervous squirmy Hoover

    ....in your line a work I mean.