home

Sunday Open Thread

I haven't followed the news this week, so there's been little to write about. That will probably change soon. In the meantime, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Sunday TV: Series "El Chapo" Premiere | Trump's Latest Whoppers >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Congratulations for losing your leg! (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 09:24:20 PM EST
    "Let's see what he's won!"

    Donald Trump presented a Purple Heart to a soldier and kissed the man's wife a couple of times while congratulating him for his big win of a Purple Heart. Remember, Trump always wanted one of those for himself, but didn't want to earn it.

    Real vets weren't happy.

    What? No comped weekend at Mar-a-Lago? (none / 0) (#97)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 12:43:38 PM EST
    (Use the servant's entrance, please...)

    Parent
    Here's an interesting story about... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by desertswine on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 12:09:46 AM EST
    a huge ancient Indian city that was found in Kansas.  It had a population of maybe 20,000.

    Very cool. (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 12:18:07 PM EST
    Trump's AP interview (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 01:33:37 PM EST
    Friday, at the White House: A dumpster fire of braggadocio, ignorance, and incoherence.

    Replete with the customary takings from his brag book; but included one laced with insensitivity, if not cruelty.

     On his great ratings draw: "CBS Face the Nation host John Dickerson had 5.2 million people.  It's the highest for "Face the Nation"--or as I call it, "Deface the Nation."  It's the highest for "Deface the Nation" since the World Trade Center.  Since the World Trade Center came down.  It't a tremendous advantage."

    Perhaps, Trump does have a point about his ratings draw, albeit a macabre one--all great tragedies yield large ratings in viewer audiences.

    A little bit of advice (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 02:21:25 PM EST
    Do not get an infection in your brain if you can help it. Trust me on this - it really, really, really sucks.

    My god, MileHi, did that happen (none / 0) (#46)
    by caseyOR on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 04:14:16 PM EST
    to you? An iNfection in your brain? Are you okay now?

    How did it happen? Are you all better? I realize I am asking the same questions over and over, by a brain infection sounds awful.

    Parent

    A few questions, Jim (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 03:45:54 PM EST
    what percentage of the world's scientists  is 300?

    Or are you as bad at 'secularist' math as you are at doing an unbiased study of current scientic findings?

    Another one: how does giving attention Only to a miniscule percentage of scientists who happen to agree with the conservative platform prove you have an "open mind"?

    Lastly, what works of Karl Popper have you actually read all the way through?

    I already know the answer, but your little disingenuous tap dances are so entertaining, I thought I'd give you chance to do another one.

    jimakaPPJ: "The point is that belief in God does not negate the theory of evolution."

    ... are mutually exclusive, as you seem to be intimating here. True faith should be illuminating and conducive to personal reflection and revelation, and not blinding to the point of inducing mass hysteria and collective intimidation.

    Theilhard de Chardin (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 09:13:55 PM EST
    paved the way for Catholics....At first, blacklisted, and now accepted by more than one Pope.

    Parent
    But.... (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 09:21:46 PM EST
    scientists will tell you the Theory of Evolution is based on "random" variation or mutation.....and "random" means there is no god directing the process.

    Natural selection weeds out weak mutations or prefers mutations that best fit the environment.

    Parent

    No doubt. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 04:02:32 AM EST
    If we are to take the Book of Genesis at face value, the Lord created man and endowed him with a free will. I see nothing in my own Catholic faith that precludes me from accepting Darwin's Theory of Evolution. The God in whom I believe is not a micromanager.

    As the late Susan B. Anthony once admonished us, those who insist that they know what God wants are likely to employ religion merely to pursue their own personal desires. So, per Abraham Lincoln, rather than claim that the Lord is one with us, we best ought to instead consider whether or not we are actually one with the Lord. Because the essence of immorality, as Jane Addams astutely observed, is our own tendency to make exceptions of ourselves.

    Personally, I believe that the inherent wisdom of faith is not necessarily reserved only for the true believer, nor is it only to be found in select passages of the Torah, Koran, Bhagavad Gita or Bible. Rather, it is nurtured by our own innate humanity and common decency.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Wingers can't even write an honest (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 07:39:23 PM EST
    ... headline>  It was NOT 300 scientists, and the majority of those that were scientists are not climatologists.  But feel free to ask your podiatrist or his accountant to interpret your PSA test.  They're all "scientists", right?

    BTW - The smear against the NOAA scientist has been debunked numerous times, but don't let facts stand in the way of a winger fairy tale.

    NOAA Scientists Falsely Accused of Manipulating Climate Change Data

    No Data Manipulation at NOAA

    But the claim that Hal Lewis's statement was an "admission" was the funniest part of the post.

    lol wow (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 09:00:41 PM EST
    you can't even honestly and accurately quote your own link.

    Nowhere does it say anything about "Top Ten Scientists", as if the one's mentioned in the article were the most respected scientific minds according to some world-wide poll of scientists.

    You keep ducking my question, Jim.

    Why don't man-made greenhouse gases trap heat the way other greenhouse gases do?

    I ask you about science (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 09:09:21 PM EST
    ...and you respond by referring to Genesis.

    Tells us all we need to know.


    Robert Pirsig... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by desertswine on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 11:52:51 PM EST
    Robert M. Pirsig, who inspired generations to road trip across America with his "novelistic autobigraphy," Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, died Monday at the age of 88.

    Zen was published in 1974, after being rejected by 121 publishing houses. "The book is brilliant beyond belief," wrote Morrow editor James Landis before publication. "It is probably a work of genius and will, I'll wager, attain classic status."

    Indeed.

    "the Zen you bring" (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 01:09:15 PM EST
    "The only Zen you can find on the tops of mountains is the Zen you bring up there."

    RIP RMP


    Parent
    From (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 04:24:22 PM EST
    the lock him up files
    The top Democrat and Republican on the House Oversight Committee announced Tuesday that ousted Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn could have broken the law by accepting payments from foreign governments as a former military officer.

    After viewing classified documents that included his application to renew his security clearance, Committee Chair Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said there was "no evidence" that Flynn made the appropriate disclosures about payments he received from abroad.

    When you've lost Chaffetz.......

    Margaret Atwood and Ivanka Trump (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 07:39:27 PM EST
    and the world through the lens of A Handmaids Tale

    In Donald Trump, Margaret Atwood sees an eerie reflection of her novel.

    "The world always has been quite weird. It's just that we took for granted in certain parts of this country that there was a normality, and that that was normality. And that rights were inalienable. I don't know where anybody ever got that idea, because they didn't come down out of a cloud. They were thought up and fought for by people. That's where rights come from," Atwood said.

    Thinking about the current moment, Atwood invoked the character from "The Handmaid's Tale" who's tasked with beating the new order into Offred and the other women.

    "That's how they get taken away. People take them away. So, what is normal and how much can we count on it? And our idea of what is normal changes a lot, depending on the circumstances," she said. "So, when Aunt Lydia says, `This may not seem normal to you now,'......



    it issues (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 07:52:57 PM EST
    a dire warning for conservative women too.

    Parent
    RIP Jonathan Demme.. (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 12:14:47 PM EST
    Something Wild, Stop Making Sense, and Philadelphia are three of my favorite films.

    He was one of the good guys, by all accounts.

    Stop... (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by desertswine on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 11:36:00 PM EST
    "The Silence of the Lambs" remains as chilling a tale to me today as it was 26 years ago. It's the only horror film to ever win the Academy Award for Best Picture. And its resonance with Academy voters was such in early 1992 that it's also the only Best Picture Oscar winner to have ever garnered that distinction despite being released in the first quarter of the prior year -- February 14, 1991 to be exact.

    (Most major Oscar contenders have release dates in the final three months of the year. And since the Oscars back then were awarded in April of each year, it was a 14-month lag time between the initial release of "Lambs" and its receipt of the Best Picture award. That constitutes rather remarkable staying power with Academy voters.)

    Further, "Lambs" is one of only three films in the Academy's 88-year history to sweep the Oscars in all five of the major categories -- Best Picture, Best Actor (Anthony Hopkins), Best Actress (Jodie Foster), Best Director (Jonathan Demme), and Best Screenplay (Adapted - Ted Tally). The other two films to accomplish that feat are Frank Capra's 1934 comedy "It Happened One Night" and Milos Foreman's 1975 drama "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."

    So Jonathan Demme is in some pretty lofty and exclusive company as a filmmaker. And like so many major figures in Hollywood over the years, he had received his first big break in feature films under the tutelage of legendary B-movie producer Roger Corman.

    A particularly favorite Jonathan Demme film of mine is his quirky and critically-acclaimed 1980 comedy-drama "Melvin (and Howard)," which for all intents and purposes was the director's breakthrough into mainstream motion pictures, and led to his receipt of numerous offers by all the major studios. It proved to be actress Mary Steenburgen's big break as well; she won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress that year for her work in the film.

    He will be dearly missed.

    Parent

    Kind of surprising that Paul Le Mat (none / 0) (#200)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 03:17:00 PM EST
    never became the next big Harrison Ford-type leading man, no?

    He seemed like he was headed in that direction. Certainly he had the talent.

    Parent

    Yeah, that always surprised me. (none / 0) (#204)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 03:55:59 PM EST
    Those are the Hollywood breaks, I guess. It's hard to explain why some great actors like Paul Le Mat fail to gain traction, other than transient perception. It's not unlike what happened to Louise Fletcher, F. Murray Abraham and Helen Hunt, all major talents who actually won Oscars for best actress and actor, and yet their careers subsequently sputtered and stalled despite having received all that critical acclaim. Meanwhile, actors of far lesser abilities are regularly cast in most every movie and TV show, regardless of the reviews.

    Parent
    Maybe he pissed off (none / 0) (#205)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 04:08:55 PM EST
    the wrong person who said "I don't care how good he is, that punk never works in this town again; he's gonna be on the next bus back to Kansas, whether he's from there or not!"

    That's been known to happen, from what I hear.

    F Murray Abraham does great voice-overs for the some of the Nature programs on PBS, though.


    Parent

    That could well be the case. (none / 0) (#208)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 06:34:13 PM EST
    And frankly, movie studios and TV networks could get away with that in the past because there were far fewer of them than there are today. That sort of limited or closed market is why blackballing was so effective and devastating to those in the entertainment industry.

    Since then, however, the increase in the number of of independent film studios / productions and cable networks over the last 30 years, and their proliferation in North America outside of the traditional media capitals of Hollywood and New York to places like Georgia, Louisiana and Vancouver, has offered actors a much greater range of project and career options.

    And now that distributors such as Amazon and Netflix have branched out into content production themselves, the field's more wide open than ever and the overall diversity of work product is astonishing. Further, it's been a godsend to older actors who still want to work such as Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin, Mary McDonnell and Pierce Brosnan. They draw an appreciative older audience on TV, because older adults tend to not go to the movie theatres as much as younger people do.

    As for Paul Le Mat, I'm not sure what exactly caused his movie career to flatline in the 1970s. But since he appears to have found steady work over the years in television, perhaps he's more comfortable working in that medium than on big-screen projects, and has made his choices accordingly.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    In a story about Bill Nye (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 10:28:25 AM EST
    who is anything but a Science Guy, we find Bill claiming that the Constitution calls for government funding research.

    Of course he is as wrong about that as he is many other things.

    Link

    Constitution


    He did not say that (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by mm on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 11:13:42 AM EST
    we find Bill claiming that the Constitution calls for government funding research.

    I saw that interview.  Ney was simply pointing out "science" is literally mentioned in Article 1 of the Constitution.  And he also admitted that the purpose was to help with establishing a basis for patent protections as he explained constitutional scholars agree.

    Typical right wing misrepresentation in order to mislead their followers.  Science bad.  Let's attack Bill Nye.

    Parent

    He not only said that (1.00 / 2) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 12:51:34 PM EST
    he claimed it was in the Constitution.

    Typical Leftie attempt to deny.

    Parent

    This is a false representation of what he said (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by mm on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 01:14:56 PM EST
    the Constitution calls for government funding research.

    If you have a quote supporting that claim, please post it.

    Parent

    No, by even the cherry picked (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 01:19:17 PM EST
    quote in the right wing article you cite, he did not say that.

    According to the article, he correctly quoted the Constitution, and then made arguments about not de-railing science......not what you are alleging.

    This is what your right wing article alleges Nye said:

    And it is interesting to note, I think, that Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution refers to the progress of science and the useful arts," Nye said.

    And the article quotes the Constitution, as follows:

    It reads: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

    Yes, the Constitution does refer to the progress of science.

    But, the clear point here, is that you do not want the government to fund science.

    That is just stupid.  We will fall behind other countries who do.

    Parent

    Watch Bill Nye on Joy Reid's show (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by mm on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 02:08:57 PM EST
    from Saturday.  Apparently he was on several cable shows this weekend.

    AM Joy

    He was not trying to misinterpret the Constitution, in fact he explicitly stated his understanding of the relevant passage in Article 1 was related to patents.  He was not trying to mislead in anyway. (around the 2:20 mark in the video)  

    I took him to be making the point that our founding fathers had a fundamental respect for "science", whereas today we are dominated by a political party who have made a fetish out of undermining the legitimacy of science.

    Parent

    Then why did he say it? (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 02:40:10 PM EST
    He was not trying to misinterpret the Constitution, in fact he explicitly stated his understanding of the relevant passage in Article 1 was related to patents.  He was not trying to mislead in anyway. (around the 2:20 mark in the video)  

    He was and he has done it before:

    In an interview with Vox, Bill Nye argues that politicians who deny man-made global warming are violating their constitutional duties to the American people. Nye then misconstrues a clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution to support his point.

    "Well, first of all, I think denying climate change is in nobody's best interests," Nye told Vox in a recent interview. "But I also think denying science in general is in no one's best interests."

    "When you have people denying this basic process, and how we all got here, it's offensive to me intellectually," Nye added. "And I happen to think it's unpatriotic. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says the government shall `promote the progress of science and useful arts.'"

    "So if you're a politician looking to derail the progress of science, I think you're not doing your job," Nye said. "I want voters and taxpayers to recognize this. Do you really want to vote for somebody who doesn't believe in the scientific method -- and doesn't believe that we defeated smallpox? Do you really want that person running your government?"

    Link

    Parent

    Bill Nye is stating his own personal opinion. (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 04:54:14 PM EST
    He is not misstating fact and truth, Jim, as you so often do here and probably elsewhere. He qualifies each one of his statements by first saying "I think," "I also think," and "I happen to think" before reaching his well-considered and thoughtful conclusion.

    That's reflective of someone who's clearly offering an opinion and a basic tenet of respectful debate. And in my own personal opinion, you could learn from that but you likely won't.

    Have a nice evening.

    Parent

    You're reaching Donald. (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 08:10:43 PM EST
    So his incorrect personal opinion broadcast to millions is okay?

    Parent
    It's not incorrect (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 10:27:03 PM EST
    It's an opinion.

    But if your sensibilities are so offended, you can start with the false facts spewed by your orange POTUS to millions on a daily basis.

    Parent

    So the opinions of Sean Hannity (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 08:16:04 AM EST
    are okay to be broadcast to millions?

    How liberal of you. I am impressed. Good for you. We might even become buds.

    Parent

    It's ALSO in the Constitution (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 10:10:34 AM EST
    So the opinions of Sean Hannity are okay to be broadcast to millions?

    The Constitution says they are.

    Do you accept the Constitution on THIS subject? I do, and I agree that Mr. Hannity has the right to say anything he wants.  You will note that he does not use the public airwaves to do it, so it is beyond regulation.  In this instance, vast sums of money give him more First Amendment rights than you or I have, because money from right-wing anti-Americans buys him a big megaphone.

    Parent

    People watch shows (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 11:21:35 AM EST
    to be informed and entertained.

    When that stops he will be gone....unless the Left manages to destroy him.

    But it looks like he will not role over and play dead.

    Parent

    Waaaah! (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 11:47:45 AM EST
    People watch shows to be informed and entertained.

    When that stops he will be gone

    Bill O'Reilly had great ratings.  Obviously people were entertained while being MISinformed.  Why did he get fired?  

    unless the Left manages to destroy him.

    It certainly wasn't "the left" who employed him and therefore had the ability to fire him.  He got fired because his sexual predation was costing more than he was making for them

    Parent

    I haven't seen a summation of O'Reilly's (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 01:44:19 PM EST
    sins. But did they rise to having oral sex with a very young employee? You know Clinton did that.

    Did you condemn Clinton? I doubt it. BTW - Back in the day sex between a top executive and an employee was deemed not consensual by feminists thus forced, which is a polite way of saying rape. What was your position on that? Did Clinton rape Monica?

    This is not to excuse O'Reilly. Show me what he did and I will look at each separately as I did the multiple claims against Clinton.

    But I find this a "snow flake" example. From an interview of Christian Powers on CNN.

    And I did his show regularly, you know, for a long time, and I was thinking about an incident that had happened early on in my career there where I was on-air there with Margaret Hoover, who's at CNN now, on a regular segment, we were on every Monday. And he got Margaret's name wrong, and Margaret said, `Hey, get my name right,' and he said, `Oh, I'm sorry, there's a lot of blondes in this operation, I can't keep you all straight. Megyn Kelly's coming up,' starts throwing all these blondes' names. And at the end of the segment, says, `Thank you for your blondeness,' to both of us."

    "So I went to his executive producer," she continued, "and I said `He needs to apologize and he needs to never do that again. Or I'm not doing his show anymore.'

    No way. A grumpy response? Yea. In the real world bosses are sometimes grumpy.

    Or it may have been a ham handed attempt at humor.

    Show me some beef.


    Parent

    Two things here: (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 03:00:17 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ: "But did they rise to having oral sex with a very young employee? You know Clinton did that. Did you condemn Clinton? I doubt it."

    • Monica Lewinsky was 21 years old at the time, which means that while she was young, she was also an adult who was well past the age of consent.

    • Whatever occurred between Bill Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky was between mutually consenting adults. In fact, she admitted under oath that she had pursued him, and not vice versa.

    Contrast that with Bill O'Reilly, who was sued on multiple occasions for sexual harassment. In the case of producer Andrea Mackris, she recorded his lustful pursuit of her on multiple occasions, which is why Fox News ultimately settled with her for $9 million.

    While both men obviously behaved inappropriately given their respective positions, O'Reilly's boorish behavior was really much, much worse because his sexual advances were entirely unwanted, and it's been alleged that he subsequently retaliated against these women professionally when they rebuffed him.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    Of course they were (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 07:46:38 PM EST
    mutually consenting adults.

    One just happened to be a very young female employee and the other just happened to be the President of the United States.

    No influence there. Nope. Nothing to see here folks. Move along now. And then there are the sexual assaults and dropping his drawers while requesting a BJ from a young female employee.

    Anybody see a pattern there?

    Donald, I lived through those years and I well remember all the HR presentations about employee-boss relationships...which were always a NO NO. In some cases a dismissal offense with cause. i.e. No severance. No recommendation.

    And no where do I forgive O'Reilly of anything. I would just like to see all the evil things he did. I trust they rise above Christian Powers' complaint that he forget a name and then referred to them as blondes. As I said, he was po'ed or trying to make a joke. Bad judgement? But not anything to make her run to the producer. Snow Flake.

    The reported grunting like a bull? If true that's bad. Very bad. So far I haven't read any details. I'd like to read them. And any others, with details.

    You don't destroy a man's career based on rumors or the fact that he demanded results. Maybe that's why his show was number 1 for years.


    Parent

    Stop lecturing us so condescendingly, Jim. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 08:33:46 PM EST
    Honestly, who the fck cares if you "lived through those years"? It's hardly as though you somehow experienced something during that period that endowed you with some sort of unique wisdom which proved revelatory only to you. I can assure you that the rest of us were not living in some cave out in the Mojave Desert during that same time.

    Give it a friggin' rest already.

    Parent

    This is not to excuse O'Reilly.. (none / 0) (#110)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 02:37:59 PM EST
    Oh no, not all..

    Just to drastically minimize what he did by comparing it to something much more egregious.

    After all, "Hot Chocolate" O'Reilly's actions were innocent and mild compared to what men who violently assault or a brutally rape women do. Those women who had to put up with O'Reilly should be downright grateful for their good fortune..

    Show you some beef, Jim?

    How about your bosses being compelled to kick you to the curb from a highly rated show, because even They can't defend you any longer?

    Parent

    If Hannity had half a teaspoon (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 12:45:40 PM EST
    of guts and intellectual integrity, he'd jump at the opportunity to publicly debate his critics, rather than using his financial clout to attempt to silence them.

    Hannity's already "rolled over" by admitting that he can't defend his positions without cowering behind a team of lawyers.

    Parent

    Uh saying that if you slander libel or lie (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 01:50:02 PM EST
    about me I will sue you is not gutless.

    Indeed it will open him up to being deposed.

     

    Parent

    Well, it does open you up... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 07:38:17 PM EST
    ... to depositions IF you follow through and file suit rather than just making empty threats.  Precisely why your orange CHEETOH never followed through on his empty promises to sue all those women that said he assaulted or harassed them.

    Parent
    Hannity is a coward (none / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 02:09:52 PM EST
    with all the backbone and substance of a day-old chocolate eclair.

    He's trying to use his clout to silence his opponents in true totalitarian fashion.

    Bets on if he ever wins any money in any of these suits he's threatening to bring?

    Put your money where your mouth is, big guy.

    Parent

    "Garbage in - Garbage out" (none / 0) (#96)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 12:40:25 PM EST
    is the mantra of my previous profession.  

    It's a good description of what "watching shows" yields.

    Parent

    The shows do provide a lot of (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 01:45:36 PM EST
    garbage.

    How do you get your information?

    Parent

    I'm Glad You Asked! (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 02:41:35 PM EST
    How do you get your information?

    Back in 2003, when GW Bush was lying about Iraq, I discovered DailyKos, which was busy exposing the lies.

    Since that time I have observed that DK is a more accurate source of information than the media, because what you see there is examined for honesty by millions of informed members, and while falsehoods do appear, they are quickly identified and addressed.

    Example: When Colin Powell addressed the UN in 2003, what he had described as the "latest intel" was identified correctly on DK before he had finished speaking as a 10-year old Masters thesis from a U of California grad student.

    Example: in a post on DK in 2007, Paul Krugman not only predicted that the economy would collapse, he predicted the day it would happen.  He used information available to all the bankers and anyone else interested, who did not bother to alert us to the impending disaster.

    As you know, he was right, and the entire GOP, which had in 2003 removed the regulations that had protected the economy for 80 years, was wrong.  I believed him, acted accordingly, and actually came out ahead.

    Parent

    Actually by 2007 a whole lot of people (none / 0) (#184)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 09:14:42 AM EST
    knew the economy was in trouble.

    But I am intrigued by your claim that he predicted the day. Can you share that with us?

    Actually, the trouble started with Carter and his attack on banks not lending in areas with credit and other problems. But the stake that went into the economy's heart was:

    By STEVEN A. HOLMES (New York Times)

    Published: September 30, 1999

    In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

    The action, .... will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans.

    Fannie Mae,...., has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people....

    I provide more info here.

    And I guess Krugman missed Bush's attempt to rescue the economy as reported on 9/11/2003

    The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

    snip

    The new agency would have the authority,... to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements .... It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

    The plan is an acknowledgment (F&F)-- is broken. A report by outside investigators ...concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

    And before you say, "About time Bush did something," that was 9/11/2003.

    Well, the Demos shot it down.

    ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. .....'

    More here

    We all know the bubble burst and that sent the housing market into a spin. But the Fed had been trying to get a grasp on it by lowering interest rates....

    And it was working. By April of 2008 the housing market, while shaky, was much better and looked to be stabilized. But there was a snake in the bushes just waiting to strike. Oil prices. And they went from around $90 a barrel in April/May to $145 by mid July and the economy started its collapse.

    More here

    And etc., etc. Bush popped the oil bubble with his July EO but Obama brought them back up and millions have continued to suffer.

    Parent

    Site violator (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 10:22:51 AM EST
    doubly ridiculous (3.00 / 2) (#190)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 11:30:42 AM EST
    cuz no one reads it.

    Parent
    That's it, Jim. Double down on stupid. (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 02:35:42 PM EST
    Look, not only did you clearly misrepresent what Bill Nye said, you also unfairly and willfully impugned the man's integrity.

    Yes, Nye is an entertainer and "the Science Guy" is his longtime TV persona. But he's also a mechanical engineer by profession. He holds a B.S. degree in the subject from Cornell, and is a former engineer at Boeing, so he obviously has an extensive professional background in the physical sciences.

    Therefore, Bill Nye is certainly more than qualified to speak to the politics of science in the public arena, to promote the importance and validity of good science to the general public, and to defend both the work and personal integrity of scientists and other related practitioners, such as science teachers in our public schools.

    Science enthusiasts like Bill Nye have become vitally necessary at a time when members of the scientific community find themselves under a sustained and purposeful assault by short-term corporate and political interests, because such advocates counter the deluge of ignorance and misinformation such as yours.

    As for you, Jim, you stand corrected. Stop being such a goddamned jackwagon about it by still insisting that down is up. Because at this point, you've become a troll whose primary purpose is to provoke, irritate, exasperate and anger others, rather than engage in any thoughtful discussion.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    I enjoyed Bill Nye when he was a cast member (none / 0) (#4)
    by McBain on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 10:37:00 AM EST
    of the sketch comedy show "Almost Live!".  He's hit or miss when he talks about science related topics on cable news.

    Parent
    Devil is in the details (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 11:07:40 AM EST
    He's hit or miss when he talks about science related topics on cable news.

    Same challenge I issued to Jim.  What specifically does he "miss" in science-related discussions, and how do you know more than he does on that subject?

    Parent

    I don't like it when he assumes (none / 0) (#9)
    by McBain on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 12:29:57 PM EST
     a short term or singular event like a hurricane can be directly linked to a longer term change in climate.   He knows better than that.  Also, his personality doesn't always come across well in debates.

    Parent
    When has Nye ever made any such assumption? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 02:54:12 PM EST
    Rather, you're making a rather broad assumption yourself that he's doing so during his appearances on cable news shows during such singular meteorological events, because you're likely not bothering to really listen to what he's actually saying.

    The science of climate change and global warming is both well-established and very real. While it's true that no singular catastrophic event can be ascribed specifically to climate change per se, the increasing frequency and intensity of such events are certainly reflective of it. We do our children and grandchildren a very grave and profound disservice by denying that for reasons of politics.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Here's one of his mistakes (none / 0) (#61)
    by McBain on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 08:32:31 PM EST
    From Twitter while showing a pic of a tornado...
    More severe weather. More suffering. More expense. Let's all take climate change seriously.

    He's something similar things on TV interviews.  If he's going to call himself "The Science Guy" he shouldn't be that sloppy.

    Parent
    And that's a mistake -- how, exactly? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 02:41:18 AM EST
    Bill Nye: "More severe weather. More suffering. More expense. Let's all take climate change seriously."

    FYI, McBain, science shows a clear and unambiguous correlation between the widespread changes in weather patterns, the duration and intensity of weather events / phenomena, and rising global temperatures.

    Just because you and Jim don't accept those findings for whatever your reasons, that doesn't therefore render the science wrong by default.

    More to the point, academia and scholarship aren't in the business of pandering to the least common denominators amongst us.

    So, unless you can cite sufficient and credible facts and research to challenge these findings -- or even Nye's tweet -- with something other than your own baseless personal opinion, that opinion and $1.00 will buy you a cup of coffee at McDonald's.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    You are deliberating misstating (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 08:33:00 AM EST
    my position when you write:

    Just because you and Jim don't accept those findings for whatever your reasons, that doesn't therefore render the science wrong by default.

    As I have stated time and time again, the issue is not "climate change." It is what the "cause" is.

    Please try to be accurate when you make claims.

    Parent

    You have no standing on this subject, Jim. (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 03:11:14 PM EST
    You are not a scientist, and yours is purely a right-wing political position rather that a factually-based one.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    Neither are you, Donald (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 09:07:09 PM EST
    But after my Naval Aviation days I was an engineer and made my living in engineering, complex system design and planning. I morphed into marketing, product management, contract administration and finally, sales and sales management.

    I loved sales because you were rewarded based on your performance. There is no safety net.

    I dare say I have a much better technical education, understanding and experience than you or, for that matter, Bill Nye. Although I admit that Nye has done a superb job of selling himself.

    So quit the dismissal game. You haven't the vaguest idea of what you are speaking, just an obligatory belief in what you see as the power structure.

    But enough about us. Here's an article published in Dr. Judith Curry's blog.

    It also sheds some light on Bill Nye.

    BTW - Dr Curry was a tenured professor at Georgia Tech, I trust you have heard of the university, and an acknowledged climatologist. She has retired and is expected to receive emeritus status.

    Have a super day.

    Parent

    Therefore, my credentials are not in question. Have a nice evening.

    Parent
    That's quite a little sales ruse.. (3.00 / 2) (#164)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 10:25:16 PM EST
    use Dr Curry's name and credentials to polish the turd from some anonymous writer.

    Parent
    The fact that Dr Curry published the article (1.00 / 2) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 11:08:00 PM EST
    is significant.

    That "turd" you refer to is undoubtedly a planning engineer for one of the utilities and is likely better educated with more experience and status in his chosen field than you in yours.

    But perhaps you would like to refute some point he makes in this Jan 2916 article or this Nov 2014 article.

    jondee, like Yman you are nothing but a stalker. I've put you on my ignore list. I realize this means you will just become nastier and nastier but you aren't worth the salt.

    Parent

    There's always been a high percentage (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 11:24:56 PM EST
    of engineers in the upper reaches of the Al Queda hierarchy.

    Another thing you undoubtedly didn't know.

    But by all means Google it.

    So much for your thesis that there's some automatic correlation between engineering know-how and rationality.

    You're a troll. And a strikingly obvious and inept one at that. Though it was nice to see you finally out yourself as a reactionary Bible-thumper.

    At least now we have a clearer idea of where you're coming from.

    Parent

    That post isn't from "Dr. Curry" (none / 0) (#163)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 10:02:56 PM EST
    If you actually read it, you'd see it was just a post on her blog written by some anonymous guy names "Planning Engineer".  Clearly, you didn't, since you're citing her credentials to try to bolster the claims of some anonymous yahoo who posted something on a blog.

    Parent
    Yman, why do you feel that you must (1.00 / 1) (#166)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 10:33:35 PM EST
    demonstrate your ineptness?

    Here's an article published in Dr. Judith Curry's blog.

    Observe that I did not write that Dr. Curry wrote it. I wrote that it was published on her blog.

    So that makes your comment just foolish and inaccurate.

    Why do you insist on such? Can  you actually debate some scientific claim re the cause of climate change?

    Can you show how the claim that man's use of oil causes  global warming meets the requirements of a   Scientific Theory?

    You know, unless you want to actually debate something I'm gonna just turn you off and ignore you.

    Parent

    I wonder if that writer (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 11:11:14 PM EST
    was yet Another superstitious-fundamentalist nitwit who doesn't believe 97% of the climate scientists but believes in the six days of creation and the efficacy of human sacrifice?

    What are the odds?

    A definate discernable pattern seems to be emerging lately.

    Parent

    I know what you wrote (none / 0) (#179)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 06:48:38 AM EST
    ... which is why I specifically addressed your attempt to deceive readers by pointing to her qualifications.  What you said:

    Dr Curry was a tenured professor at Georgia Tech, I trust you have heard of the university, and an acknowledged climatologist. She has retired and is expected to receive emeritus status
    .

    All of which is entirely irrelevant, unless you either: 1) didn't read it and didn't realize Curry didn't write it, or 2)  you did read it and were trying to suggest the post was credible by deceptively suggesting she did write it.

    You choose.

    Parent

    It's sloppy science to suggest one particular (none / 0) (#90)
    by McBain on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 10:34:04 AM EST
    weather event was the result of climate change. You even said that.
     

    Parent
    you mean like a US Senator (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by mm on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 11:54:40 AM EST
    carrying a snowball onto the floor of the Senate to prove once and for all to all those eggheads that climate change is a hoax?

    Parent
    Rather, he used the occasion as a means to enhance public awareness about the reality of climate change and its impact on weather patterns and intensity. And as I said, the scientific data and research overwhelmingly supports his contentions on that subject, and not your own.

    Parent
    Ask and you shall receive (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 12:49:37 PM EST
    "If you suppress science, if you pretend climate change isn't a real problem, you will fall behind other countries that do invest in science, that do invest in basic research," Nye told CNN Saturday as the "March for Science" took place.

    "And it is interesting to note, I think, that Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution refers to the progress of science and the useful arts," Nye said.

    "Useful arts in 18th Century usage would be what we call engineering or city planning or architecture," Nye said.

    Link

    8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    That's patent's the founders were talking about.

    Worse, as usual, he misstates the debate over climate change, which as we all know and no one disputes, has existed since day 1 and will continue to the end.

    The debate is over the cause.

    And since the claim that it is man made does not meet the requirements to be a Scientific Theory it is not "settled science" but merely an unproven theory that must be, as all religions must, accepted on faith.

    Parent

    The fact that greenhouse gases (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 01:13:29 PM EST
    trap heat in the atmosphere isn't a "theory".

    You've grasped that simple reality, I hope.

    Now. Very simple question.

    How are man-made greenhouse gases somehow miraculously exempt from being a factor in the trapping of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

    Btw, your theory of what constitutes a scientific teory doesn't meet the requirements of scientific theory.

    Parent

    in the trapping of heat in the atmosphere (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 01:58:24 PM EST
    crickets..grasshoppers..katydids.. (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 03:25:10 PM EST
    Not (none / 0) (#42)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 03:42:38 PM EST
    to worry, tRump will soon sign an executive order, repealing the first law of thermodynamics.

    Parent
    Yeah, well.. (none / 0) (#47)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 04:32:24 PM EST
    there nothing in Acts or Revelations about it, and for half his base that's good enough.

    Allahu Akbar!

    Parent

    It has been proven that (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 08:42:39 AM EST
    CO2 in the atmosphere LAGS temperature increases.

    Parent
    How do you know this Jim? (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by mm on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 07:15:16 PM EST
    CO2 in the atmosphere LAGS temperature increases.

    You know this because of the hard work, blood sweat and tears of the scientists.  The very same scientists you slander with your outrageous accusation that they are all participating is some massive hoax.

    Yes, it's true.  Scientists did the research of the warming of the recent ice age and found that CO2 was a lagging indicator.  And what did they do.  They published their finding because that's what most scientists do.  They go with the facts and let the facts take them where they will.

    However, in no way do they agree with you that CO2 is not a contributing greenhouse gas.

    It really annoys me when I see conservatives continually take a small bit of someone else's work, twist it and misrepresent what the issue is just to support their own ideological bias.  Same thing is done by conservative all the time with the research and published scientific findings in the field of evolutionary biology.

    Parent

    so what? (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 01:23:32 PM EST
    Your quotes do not support your original statement.

    Parent
    I wrote (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 02:10:55 PM EST
    "In a story  about Bill Nye who is anything but a Science Guy, we find Bill claiming that the Constitution calls for government funding research."

    This from the article

    Bill Nye the "Science Guy" tried claim the U.S. Constitution supported the concerns of thousands of scientists and environmental activists who took to the streets on Earth Day to protest the Trump administration's proposed budget cuts to federal agencies.

    "And it is interesting to note, I think, that Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution refers to the progress of science and the useful arts," Nye said.

    "Useful arts in 18th Century usage would be what we call engineering or city planning or architecture," Nye said.

    Link

    So I was correct. He wasn't talking about patents.

    But nice try.


    Parent

    Good lord (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 02:20:57 PM EST
    The first quote is not a quote from Nye, for Pete's sake.  It is the conclusion of a right wing cite.  

     

    Parent

    Exact quotation or not, the statement (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Peter G on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 11:54:19 PM EST
    attributed to Nye is entirely true and correct. The Copyright and Patents Clause shows that the Framers believed in the value to a free and productive society of "the progress of science." (This also proves they believed in the value of respect for "science.") They did so by providing that there should be a national, not merely a state-by-state, system of patents and patent protection. It does not, in my opinion, in any way imply that science is unimportant except insofar as it leads to a patentable invention. To cite and rely on the phrase "progress of science" as showing that scientific information is valued, protected and supported in our Constitution without mentioning patents is not even misleading, in my opinion, much less wrong.

    Parent
    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 01:13:32 AM EST
    To the writer of that sentence, the implied importance accorded the "progress of science" is unambiguous.

    Parent
    Peter the context (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 10:35:49 AM EST
    of Nye's comment about the Constitution is clearly shown in this  CNN video.

    Nye was not talking about patents. He was speaking about Trump's budget and the proposed reduction of federal monies to various research groups.

    Thus implying that a failure to send federal money to various research groups somehow violates the Constitution, which he clearly does, is specious at best.   Debating over the amount of government funding is a tradition among political groups but research into climate change causes and associated so called "clean" energy has not been shorted.

    "Global warming spending is estimated to cost $22.2 billion this year, and $21.4 billion next year.
    "

    Link

    And yes, the Founders believed in science. But I don't think an argument can be made that they favored tax payer money being used to fund basic scientific research. And before jondee, Yman, MKS, et al, jump in, I do favor government funding of basic scientific research.

    Nye is a person with a degree in mechanical engineering.  That is not demonstrative of knowledge that applies to the subject of what is the causes of climate change. He is an entertainer who has latched on to a popular subject and has morphed into a supposed expert on science, and climate change causes. In that respect he is the flip side of Limbaugh. Same type, opposite positions.

    If you watch the CNN video to the end you will hear the real scientist note that if all the changes in our society that the UN wanted done to "protect" us were implemented the result would negligible Yet the costs and changes to life styles would be tremendous.

    Before we let ourselves be led into these huge costs and changes I think it only logical that we require clear proof that man is the cause and that results would actually save us.


    Parent

    Jim, "Implying" (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 01:29:20 PM EST
    is not a quote.

    Parent
    Ya gotta love it.. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 01:55:44 PM EST
    "implied" is good enough for the same clown who always pisses and moans when people here use "qualifiers".

    Parent
    Wrong again (none / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 03:01:34 PM EST
    Implied and qualify are two distinct words.

    Imply - strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).
    "the salesmen who uses jargon to imply his superior knowledge"
    synonyms:    insinuate, suggest, hint (at), intimate, say indirectly, indicate, give someone to understand

    Qualify - a :  to reduce from a general to a particular or restricted form :  modify
    b :  to make less harsh or strict :  moderate
    c :  to alter the strength or flavor of
    d :  to limit or modify the meaning of qualify a noun

    Parent

    If anything, "implied" information (none / 0) (#149)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 08:24:16 PM EST
    with it's reliance on subjective interpretation, is as indefinite as statements with qualifiers attached, if not moreso.

    Parent
    You can argue with the dictionary (none / 0) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 09:09:49 PM EST
    Imply - strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).


    Parent
    Sigh....... (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 08:04:26 PM EST
    Nye told CNN Saturday as the "March for Science" took place.


    Parent
    Still not a Nye quote (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 09:05:07 PM EST
    You know what a quote is?  

    You know, the actual words said by Nye--instead of right wing summary?  

    Parent

    Do you understand (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 08:21:37 AM EST
    what these mean? " " ?

    Nye said what he said.

    He was totally incorrect in his claim.

    Parent

    Jim, you are lost here (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 01:31:32 PM EST
    You say you are quoting Nye.

    Then you say Nye "implied" certain things.

    Now you are talking about quotation marks without any quote.

    Try quoting the language where Nye states the Constitution requires government funding of research.  

    But, again, you are opposed to governmental funding of research. Bad idea.  

    Parent

    Actually he just said he favors it (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 01:49:46 PM EST
    which means he blog-clogged the thread because, well, he just doesn't like that Bill Nye guy's ideas about the causes of climate change.

    And because Nye's statements initiated an anti-Nye Jihad at all his favorite reactionary blogs and he was just compelled against his will to follow suit here.

    Parent

    Lordy (none / 0) (#108)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 01:57:21 PM EST
    talk about talking in circles.

    Parent
    And Evoluation is just (none / 0) (#18)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 01:25:03 PM EST
    a theory based on faith?

    Do you accept the Theory of Evolution, or is that a hoax too?

    Parent

    Read my #22 (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 02:32:51 PM EST
    What I do not believe is that species adapting to local conditions prove evolution.

    Perhaps someday someone will show a clear change of ape to man. But it hasn't been done yet.

    BTW - If you want to read an interesting book just full of interesting things read "Sapiens: A Brief History" by Yuval Noah Harari

    Parent

    That isn't the theory (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by mm on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 02:35:44 PM EST
    Perhaps someday someone will show a clear change of ape to man.

    If you're going to criticize the science, perhaps you should understand it first.

    Parent

    I haven't criticized the science (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 08:08:11 PM EST
    I just said I believe God created everything...we just don't know how he did it....

    and that I din't believe species adapting to their environment proves evolution.

    It proves that species can and do adapt...but they don't become new species.

    Parent

    You haven't criticized it (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 08:18:42 PM EST
    you're just appalled at the idea of the government funding it.

    Why can't species change and adapt to the point of becoming new species? because the story of Noah's ark doesn't mention the possibility?

    Parent

    I've seen better understanding of biology (none / 0) (#77)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 01:28:32 AM EST
    and evolution demonstrated in the sleazy Chick pamphlets I used to find stuck under the wiper blades of my parked car.

    Parent
    Show us the new species (1.00 / 1) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 08:34:56 AM EST
    jimakaPPJ: "Show us the new species."

    ... escaped their enclosure at a private zoo in Alewa Heights in Honolulu and subsequently established a colony in Oahu's Kalihi Valley, which is in the Koolau mountains. Per a 1984 article in the magazine Biological Conservation (Volume 30, Issue 2, pp. 99-108), the colony then numbered 247 healthy and robust individuals, and they differed markedly from their Australian counterparts:

    "A population of peculiar rock wallabies (Macropodidae: Petrogale) became established in the Ko'olau Range, Oahu, in 1916. The few available specimens differ from known Australian forms in skull characters, size, and electrophoretic profile." (Emphasis is mine.)

    This is evidence that over the course of 100 years, this particular colony in Kalihi Valley is likely evolving into its own unique subspecies of rock wallaby. They are shy and elusive creatures, and their colony is still thriving, numbering in the hundreds. Local residents are very protective of them.

    Have a nice evening.

    Parent

    Call me up when there is no (none / 0) (#181)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 07:58:46 AM EST
    qualifier in the statement.

    is likely evolving into its own unique subspecies of rock wallaby.

    And a great day to you!

    Parent

    Wait! (none / 0) (#182)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 08:04:38 AM EST
    My bad. Didn't see the subspecies

    sub·spe·cies
    ˈsəbˌspēSHēz,ˈsəbˌspēsēz/Submit
    nounBIOLOGY
    a taxonomic category that ranks below species, usually a fairly permanent geographically isolated race. Subspecies are designated by a Latin trinomial, e.g., (in zoology) Ursus arctos horribilis or (in botany) Beta vulgaris subsp. crassa.

    So if the do...see IF....what you have is not a new species but a subspecies created by adaptation not evolution.

    Parent

    I know it isn't covered in Deuteronomy (none / 0) (#186)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 10:27:08 AM EST
    but, did you know that whales, or as you call them, "Levithans", were once land animals?

    Ah the wonders of Creation, in all it's mutability.

    Allahu Akbar!

    Parent

    You're right up there (none / 0) (#94)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 11:48:43 AM EST
    with Michelle Bachman, who famously wondered why we can't see species evolving before our eyes.

    Parent
    Oh my, Jimbo (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 08:57:50 PM EST
    You really do not believe in Evolution.

    Wow.  

    Explains much.

    Parent

    I see that you still can't read. (1.00 / 5) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 08:36:22 AM EST
    Jim, more insults (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 01:32:49 PM EST
    You abuse this site more than anyone else with your insults.  

    This makes you a troll.

    Parent

    how about the endless string (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 06:40:29 PM EST
    of replys.  i will say it again.  he is a troll because you and everyone who responds to his nonsense troll bait, such as maligning a great man, enable it.

    if the first stupid comment was ignored, as it and everything else he says should be.....

    poof

    instant easy solution to blog clogging.

    Parent

    But if we didn't respond, Cap'n, ... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 09:05:49 PM EST
    ... how else would you have ever learned about the wild brush-tailed rock wallabies of Oahu's Koolau Mountains?

    ;-D

    Parent

    but i didnt (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 06:42:21 AM EST
    i never read troll threads.  which have become way to much of what happenes here.

    in my opinion.

    Parent

    no offense (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 06:42:11 PM EST
    Can you help me here? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 11:05:38 AM EST
    Of course he is as wrong about that as he is many other things.

    Can you identify the "many other things" he is wrong about?

    You are suggesting that you know more about some science stuff than he does.  Talk is cheap, do you have anything specific?

    Parent

    Got to see a couple movies over the weekend (none / 0) (#12)
    by McBain on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 01:03:29 PM EST
    Lion:  Very well made

    The Founder:  Good but kind of sad. It wasn't what I was expecting.

    While I enjoyed both of these films they both did something trendy that I don't really like.... at the end of a film based on true events, they show old footage of the real people involved.  I would rather that was used for a documentary.  I don't want to be reminded that Michael Keaton isn't Ray Krok.

    Founder showed (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 01:29:11 PM EST
    Ray Croc to be a not nice guy who stole the whole idea kit and caboodle from the McDonald brothers of San Bernardino.  

    Perhaps you were expecting some type of hagiography of Croc as an All American entrepreneur and job creator?  

    Parent

    I enjoyed "The Founder"... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 02:02:10 PM EST
    As portrayed in the file, The McDonalds Brothers exemplified the good of the businness world, and Ray Croc exemplified everything bad about the business world.  And the ugly too.

    Parent
    Nice guys finish last (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 02:18:58 PM EST
    I like what Gary Shandling said (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 05:00:10 PM EST
    people who say nice guys finish last don't know where the finish line is.

    Parent
    That's a little too simple, kdog. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 04:39:29 PM EST
    The McDonald brothers were stubbornly resistant to change in an ever-evolving marketplace. And their wide-eyed naiveté in the business world -- or in the greater world generally, for that matter -- was most certainly not a virtue. They paid dearly for it.

    And on that, I speak from personal experience as someone who's been burned on more than one occasion by the disingenuous representations and accompanying phony handshakes of some people whom I once respected and trusted.

    When it comes to all matters of business, you should never expect that others will always seek to do right by you. It's quite the opposite, actually. Therefore, you should always act to protect your own interests accordingly and to the extent possible.

    Sad to say, but human nature being what it is, most people are generally not all that altruistic. Rather, they will almost always act to maximize their advantages in what they perceive to be their own best interests, even if it's at your ultimate expense. And in that respect, you and I are really no different from anyone else, even if we talk a good game.

    That's why we have contracts and contract law, so that we can then each be held to our word and thus, accountable for the specifics of our respective agreements with one another. In other words, trust but verify.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    It's naive... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 09:03:20 AM EST
    to firmly believe a milk shake should have actual ice cream in it?  

    Parent
    Given that you weren't yet born when ... (none / 0) (#203)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 03:40:20 PM EST
    ... McDonald's made the change in its milk shakes from ice cream to powdered milk product in the 1960s, you likely never really knew or noticed the difference until you perhaps had one in a sit-down restaurant like Farrell's, which sold far fewer milk shakes than McDonald's and could afford to make them from scratch. (Are there any Farrell's restaurants still left?)

    Fact is, and speaking as someone who worked in the food and beverage industry for many years, relatively few fast food establishments use real ice cream in milk shakes because it's cost-prohibitive. In a high-volume operation like McDonald's, the amount of ice cream needed to meet demand required a lot of freezer space, which simply took up too much room in an average floor plan with limited space. That's why the change was made.

    Since I personally have always preferred to eat real ice cream, rather than consume milk shakes, it makes no difference to me. I would only offer that McDonald's got away with the change because for all practical purposes, most people couldn't tell the difference between a milk shake made with real ice cream and one made with powdered milk product. If they could, that switch-over would've likely flopped big-time.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    We're all naive about some things (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 04:51:45 PM EST
    the McDonald brothers expectation that others be fair and honorable doesn't make them less virtuous; through stark contrast it just underscored the corruption of the others.

    Parent
    They opened themselves to eventual ruin. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 05:39:44 PM EST
    As "Founder" tells it, the McDonald brothers valued their own moral superiority above any practical necessity on their part to protect their own interests against a rapacious and predatory opportunist like Ray Kroc.

    And in my own estimation, that's less an issue of virtue than one of personal vanity. I mean, seriously, what's the point of being personally virtuous when you allow others to exploit it as an inherent weakness on your part, to their own profitable ends and at your own ultimate expense?

    If you truly believe that you're right, then you ought to stand firm and resolutely defend your interests. But what you DON'T do is think that you're somehow above the fray and better than all that -- especially when your antagonist and would-be opponent quite obviously isn't, and is perfectly willing to do whatever it takes to cut your legs out from under you.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Is that how the McDonalds (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 06:09:39 PM EST
    really thought of themselves? as being "morally superior" to other people, or did they just naively assume that others valued the same principles they did?

    People trusting in the good in others used to be an admired quality in some circles, not an indictment of one's character.

    Parent

    The operative phrase here is 'used to be.' (none / 0) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 03:25:35 AM EST
    All I'm saying is that there were several points where the McDonald brothers, having already surmised that Ray Kroc was an untrustworthy soul and a bad actor, could have exercised their rights and authority under their contract with him to protect themselves. They did not, refusing to stoop to his level.

    That failure on their part to climb down into the mud pit with him and drown his sorry, conniving a$$ face-first in his own muck cost them dearly in the end. By the time they finally took legal action, it was too late. Kroc had taken advantage of the McDonald brothers' generous nature and initial good will, had played them for rubes and had cheated them of their rightful due. And there was nothing they could do about it.

    I really do wish that we could trust people to keep their word and honor their agreements on nothing more than a handshake. Unfortunately, I also learned otherwise the hard way, in which the proceeds of my work was literally stolen from me by an unscrupulous consultant in Connecticut with whom I used to subcontract, on the grounds that we never had a written agreement between us for me to conduct that five-month-long marketing and feasibility study in western Virginia.

    That constituted a $75,000 mistake at minimum on my part, which I can assure you will never, ever happen again. There's nothing at all noble about being played for a wide-eyed chump, which is exactly what I was.

    Honestly, when it comes to your own business and if you have people who depend upon you, then you have a moral obligation to protect yourself and your own, first and foremost. That requires you to not assume the role of Pollyanna. And that's why when you decide to trust, you also need to verify and ensure.

    P.S.: The consultant who cheated me all those years ago recently had his law license revoked by the Connecticut, New York and New Jersey bar associations. Seems that I wasn't the only one victimized by him, and Karma finally exacted its just toll.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Croc (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 09:00:37 PM EST
    promised the McDonald Brothers royalties on a handshake deal and then breached....That is the story told in the film Founder.

    Sleazy by Croc.   Naïve by the McDonald Brothers.....It is pretty clear to me who was the bad guy here.

    Parent

    Absolutely and without question. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 03:32:12 AM EST
    The McDonald brothers were good-hearted and hardworking guys, and Kroc cheated them. Worse still, he didn't care. "Founder" was not a flattering portrait of that sleazoid. Michael Keaton nailed his characterization of a true-to-life Beetlejuice.

    Parent
    My memory of the Kroc/McDonald bros (none / 0) (#40)
    by McBain on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 03:20:44 PM EST
    parting of ways was a little better for the brothers.  I knew they missed out on billions didn't realize the deal was that bad.

    I also thought the film was going to be more inspiring, less depressing.

    Parent

    And in this instance, the producers and director of "The Founder" cast aside the rosy storyline and happy ending, to instead offer us a gritty biopic which held up a full-length mirror to its subject and compelled us as its audience to take a really long and unvarnished look at the man.

    Enlightenment in this instance doesn't necessarily equate with feeling inspired or even good. When I first saw "The Founder" in the theatre, I felt like taking a long hot and cleansing shower afterward.

    Director John Lee Hancock, screenwriter Robert Siegel and lead actor Michael Keaton each lent their respective talents to a cinematic effort that sought to burst the balloons of all that corporate hagiography surrounding the late Ray and Joan Kroc. Their collective effort shined a light on the primary victims in this story:

    • Dick and Mac McDonald, whom Ray had clearly cheated out of their own company, as well as over $100 million in projected annual royalties as the true founders of McDonald's;
    • Ray's long-suffering first wife Ethel Fleming Kroc, who stood loyally by him during the rough times, only to get tossed out like yesterday's garbage when his fortunes finally turned for the better; and
    • Rollie Smith, who was one of Ray's early business partners -- and unfortunately for him, also the husband of Joan Smith, who subsequently ditched him to take up with Ray.

    While acknowledging Ray Kroc's brilliant vision for McDonald's as a 20th century corporate superpower, "The Founder" doesn't shy away from showing us the true extent of the personal baggage and emotional wreckage that trailed in his immediate wake, over the course of his otherwise phenomenal success.

    Like the late Steve Jobs of Apple, Ray Kroc was a brilliant marketer of his product, but he was also a self-absorbed, Grade A a$$hole who didn't care who was hurt or stepped on during his journey.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    ... took the business concept of efficiency and convenience and applied it on a mass scale, which was something that the McDonald's brothers proved themselves unwilling and / or unable to do.

    That said, Kroc also proved himself to be both a ruthless and ultimately unethical opportunist, and as you so noted, "Founder" certainly didn't at all minimize that particularly unsavory aspect of the man's character. In fact, Michael Keaton's manic performance as Ray Kroc exposed it as a serious personal flaw.

    The ultimate fate of the McDonald brothers, driven into bankruptcy and obscurity by a man they once trusted (a story which "Founder" accurately conveyed), only further underscores that point.

    Ray Kroc was a self-absorbed and world-class a$$hole who didn't shy away from screwing people over if it got him what he wanted, whether that be seeking fortune and fame in the business world at the financial expense of the McDonald brothers, or gaining the love and affection of a business partner's wife at the emotional expense of his own spouse.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Lion was the best film (none / 0) (#20)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 01:29:43 PM EST
    last year imo.

    Parent
    Opinions vary on shape of the earth (none / 0) (#49)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 04:48:59 PM EST
    The point is that belief in God does not negate the theory of evolution.

    Clearly the Pope agrees.  But he is Catholic and a scientist himself, while anti-evolutionists tend to be fundamentalist and Protestant.

    You must be aware that some ignorant people have suggested that "creationism" should also be taught in schools alongside actual science.  How do you explain the opposition among right-wing Christian groups to the most documented theory in scientific history?

    BTW, I have read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" several times, because it is the greatest science book ever written (I will defend that statement if required).  

    Anti-science people like to cherry pick specific passages from that work and claim that Darwin did not believe what he clearly did. They will point out, for example, that a cat has never evolved into a dog, which of course Darwin would agree with, but somehow that "refutes" evolution.

    Have you read this work, and if so, do you agree or disagree?  

    Jim take a break (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 09:17:56 PM EST
    you are about to go into timeout for you insults, blogclogging and promoting links to your own site. Thread cleaned.

    Officers involved in the United Dr. Dao incident (none / 0) (#116)
    by McBain on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 03:44:23 PM EST
    Tell their side of the story
    When officers physically lifted Dao from his seat, Rodriguez's report said, Dao's flailing caused Long to lose his grip on Dao, and the passenger fell forward and hit his mouth on the opposite seat's armrest.
    Long's statement described Dao as "flailing and fighting" as officers tried to remove him from his seat.



    I'm (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 03:50:53 PM EST
    surprised they didn't claim to be in fear for their lives. Man I'm telling you it was like that 69 year old asian doctor turned into the incredible hulk.

    Parent
    Well, to be fair, I think that ... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 06:43:41 PM EST
    ... many of us would surprise even our own selves with our respective individual physical capacities to resist an assault, were we to feel imminently and seriously threatened with bodily harm.

    And there's no question whatsoever regarding whether or not Dr. Dao was unduly and physically assaulted by those three Chicago Aviation Dept. officers. He was. Even United Airlines and the department itself have since acknowledged that much, and have further expressed their profound remorse for the incident.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    There is a video of one of the officers with (none / 0) (#134)
    by McBain on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 07:11:23 PM EST
    a bloodied face.
    Not sure if it's his blood or Dao's.  One report had Dao violently swinging his fists and spitting blood.

    Dao's lawyer said "consider the source".  I think that statement should apply to everyone involved.  

       

    Parent

    Wait (none / 0) (#136)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 07:21:52 PM EST
    One report had Dao violently swinging his fists and spitting blood.

    After a post indicating you agreed with those of us who found the officers' actions indefensible, you now seem to be defending them.

    Make up your mind.

    Dao's lawyer said "consider the source".

    Duh.  The "source" is the police.  The video shows that the police lied.  

    I am aware from personal experience that a police officer has no problem lying under oath (CHP Officer Muhich sat three feet away from me and spun whoppers, which the judge admonished him for after finding me not guilty). As you know, in a trial once a witness is shown to be a liar, his or her testimony is compromised.

    So you make a strong case for not believing the police...and then you believe the police. "Preview" is your friend. Do you even read what you have written before posting it, to see if it makes sense?

    Parent

    This was my breakdown of fault (none / 0) (#137)
    by McBain on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 07:30:16 PM EST
    two weeks ago and I'm sticking with it until proven otherwise...

    Airline industry:  25% at fault for the practice of bumping passengers

    United Airlines:  25% for bumping Dao and others after they were seated

    Chicago police/security: 25% for allowing Dao to be injured

    David Dao:  25% for acting like a drama queen and refusing to obey police security. I feel bad for any children who had to watch his performance.

    Where did I say the officers actions were indefensible?  My problem with them was pulling him out of his seat with other people near by.  They should have cleared that area.

    Parent

    You are confused (none / 0) (#146)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 08:08:50 PM EST
    They should have cleared that area.

    Apparently you have never been on an airliner!  A sold-out flight is CROWDED.

    "Clear[ing] the area?"  Only way to do that and avoid those pesky video recorders is to empty the aircraft of passengers who are not named Dao.  You seem to be more worried about the possibility of a video recording of the event than the brutality that the videos documented.

    You are suggesting that they get EVERYONE ELSE TO LEAVE so they could remove the one remaining passenger.  What makes you think all the other passengers would have been any more eager than Dr. Dao to debark in response to an unreasonable demand?

    Your contortions to avoid looking reality in the eye are amusing. It's hard to believe you even take yourself seriously, but if you do, you represent a minority of one.

    Parent

    When have I ever cared about being (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by McBain on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 09:00:21 PM EST
    in the minority here?   You and others continue to think you can stop me from sticking up for the victims of rushes to judgement with your insults.  Not going to happen Repack.  

    United Airlines and the airport security have been judged without all the facts yet.  I don't know what they're going to do when Dao files his lawsuits.  They might throw some money his way to make this problem go away or they might fight it.  If they fight I think they have a good chance of winning.

    Parent

    Huh?? (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 09:21:43 PM EST
    McBain: "United Airlines and the airport security have been judged without all the facts yet."

    Given that the executive management of both United Airlines and the Chicago Airport Police have publicly admitted that their respective employees were entirely in the wrong regarding their decision making and subsequent treatment of Dr. Dao, and that both United and the City of Chicago have further apologized and expressed remorse, I'd say that the actual matter of culpability for the incident at Chicago-O'Hare aboard UA3411 is likely settled.

    Have a nice evening.

    Parent

    You keep playing dumb (1.00 / 2) (#160)
    by McBain on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 09:53:19 PM EST
    pretending not to know United is battling PR problems and their admission of fault has to do with stock prices and market share.

    I'd say that the actual matter of culpability for the incident at Chicago-O'Hare aboard UA3411 is likely settled.

    Then what should the settlement be? If you're so smart, Donald, what is the dollar value United and the Chicago Police will pay?   I'll give you a hint, no one knows yet.

    It won't surprise me if United points the finger at the Chicago Police and vice versa.  I've given my estimation of percentage of fault.  What's yours?  

    Parent

    WTF? Who's playing dumb here? (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 10:28:39 PM EST
    Look, everybody here saw what happened to Dr. Dao on those videos. And everybody heard what fellow passengers subsequently said about the incident, and what corporate and departmental management had to say about it afterward -- well, everybody, that is, except you apparently.

    I really don't know why you keep obsessing over this incident, or why you further present yourself as some sort of eminent authority on public conduct during police-civilian interactions when you're quite obviously nothing of the sort.

    But to be perfectly frank, I'm well beyond giving a schitt about it at this point. Suffice to say you are as determined to find fault with Dr. Dao, as was Captain Ahab relentless in his feckless pursuit of the great white whale who cost him his leg in Herman Melville's "Moby Dick."

    Regardless, as I see it, this is ultimately about right and wrong, an otherwise rather common moral concept which you clearly seem completely unable to grasp here, given your current speculation over a prospective lawsuit settlement and accompanying lurid fixation with affixing Dr. Dao with some portion of the blame.

    Anyway, go dangle your tedious authority fetish before some other luckless chump. I'm not going to waste any more of my time with you discussing this matter.

    Have a nice evening.

    Parent

    In your dreams (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 09:28:27 PM EST
    They might throw some money his way to make this problem go away or they might fight it.

    They will pay him.  They have already made the list of Top Ten All-Time P.R. Disasters.  (United just bumped the sinking of the Lusitania to 11th place.)

    If they fight I think they have a good chance of winning.

    I pay a lot for my weed, but you are clearly smoking something that is not available in California and should probably be illegal.  The CEO has made a public statement to the effect that the event violated company policy, which in a civil trial where the burden is lower is as good as a signed confession.  A first-year law student could make him eat that statement. They followed this up by doing oppo research on the victim and spreading slanderous information about him.

    The last thing United wants to happen is this case before a jury of ordinary people who have flown on a commercial flight in the last decade.

    That's why they will settle.  Bet on it, I'll bet on the multi-million dollar settlement, what will you take?  What are the stakes?

    Parent

    I believe they will settle (none / 0) (#161)
    by McBain on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 09:56:10 PM EST
    but not for the reasons you state.  They want this problem to go away and have the money to do so.  But, if they fight this in court it might not even make it to a jury.  They might win in summary judgement.  

    Parent
    On what grounds would United and the City of Chicago possibly win on summary judgment, given their public acknowledgments of culpability? Hell, do you even know what that term "summary judgment" actually means?

    Go get a dollar from Mommy, and buy yourself a clue.

    Parent

    I've yet to see evidence United Airlines (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by McBain on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 11:03:24 PM EST
    committed a crime and I believe Dao's injuries are mostly the result of his poor/childlike decisions. Take media driven emotion out of the picture the law is on United's side.  

    Parent
    Back on form! (3.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 11:36:38 PM EST
    I believe Dao's injuries are mostly the result of his poor/childlike decisions.

    Diminutive 69-y.o. physician with no alternative to get home, in legitimate possession of a paid-for seat, v. multiple bigger and younger cops, gets the cr@p beaten out of him in front of dozens of horrified and traumatized passengers, United CEO agrees that it wasn't company policy, it was a violation of the company's own written policy, and the cops did not follow procedure, BUT HE HAD IT COMING.

    Do you know anyone who likes you?

    Parent

    You're not making this personal are you? (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by McBain on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 11:47:23 PM EST
    Nothing personal (none / 0) (#180)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 07:55:35 AM EST
    Pure curiosity.

    One of the reasons I have friends is because I have empathy, i.e. I care for other people.   My military service was in a medical capacity, I am married to a nurse, my mother and sister are retired nurses (sister is now an attorney).  Empathy is a family trait, and we have a vast network of friends for that reason, which is we help other people. I don't know why anyone would be my friend if, like Mr. Trump, I had no sympathy for any problems other than my own.  (Can you imagine anyone being HIS friend?)

    You have made it clear that no matter how compelling the story, no matter how innocent the victim, you side with the people who misuse authority to injure people.  You seem to take particular delight when that person is an unarmed Black or otherwise "ethnic" person.

    I can only interpret that as a complete absence of empathy, which, BTW is one of the hallmarks of conservatives.  Since you do not display here any of the qualities that would make anyone like you in the same way people like me, it seems to be a legitimate question.

    Parent

    If you're the nice guy (2.00 / 1) (#199)
    by McBain on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 03:07:45 PM EST
    then act like it.  Stop with the insults and false accusations. Stop misstating other peoples arguments. How you describe yourself to be is not how you come across.

    You have made it clear that no matter how compelling the story, no matter how innocent the victim, you side with the people who misuse authority to injure people.

    What I have made clear is I'm against the knee jerk rush to judgement that plagues our society.  

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#207)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 04:58:33 PM EST
    What I have made clear is I'm against the knee jerk rush to judgement that plagues our society.

    Your knee jerks so hard you kick yourself in the face.  Uniform = good.  Unarmed, Black = bad.

    How long did it take you to decide that Dr. Dao bore a share of the blame? How long have you ignored the acceptance of the blame by United?

    Please.  Do not insult my intelligence by claiming that you are "opposed" to something you do every time.

    I see that one of the officers involved in the Tamir Rice shooting says that he thought Tamir was an adult, in which case he would have been entitled to carry a real weapon in that state.  The officer violated state law by shooting him, right?

    Sure didn't take you long to blame the kid for being too big for his age.

    Parent

    You keep misstating my arguement (none / 0) (#210)
    by McBain on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 07:28:34 PM EST
    How long have you ignored the acceptance of the blame by United?

    I have been clear from the beginning that United deserves some of the blame for this incident. I just don't blame them for everything.

    Please.  Do not insult my intelligence by claiming that you are "opposed" to something you do every time.

    You rarely use your intelligence when commenting on these high profile legal matters.  You use emotion. I look at the facts, use common sense and don't assume first reporting is correct.

    see that one of the officers involved in the Tamir Rice shooting says that he thought Tamir was an adult, in which case he would have been entitled to carry a real weapon in that state.  The officer violated state law by shooting him, right?

    No.  Neither officer broke any laws.  They made some mistakes but didn't break laws. It doesn't matter if rice was entitled to carry a weapon.

    Parent
    Yeah, you believe. (none / 0) (#178)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 06:45:01 AM EST
    McBain: "I've yet to see evidence United Airlines committed a crime and I believe Dao's injuries are mostly the result of his poor/childlike decisions. Take media driven emotion out of the picture the law is on United's side."

    Well, guess what, Sherlock? Nobody here is claiming that United Airlines "committed a crime." Further, whatever you "believe" in this matter is completely immaterial and irrelevant, because the due process of law isn't subordinate to your wishful thinking and fact-free speculation. And no matter how many times you repeat your unsubstantiated nonsense about Dr. Dao, that still doesn't make any of it true. Rather, it is simply your own baseless opinion.

    Ciao.

    Parent

    Neither United Airlines, nor any other (none / 0) (#187)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 10:58:11 AM EST
    person or corporation, needs to have "committed a crime" to be successfully sued in a civil action.

    Parent
    What is your opinion of their chances to win (none / 0) (#189)
    by McBain on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 11:13:39 AM EST
    in court? Do you think they can be held responsible for anything the security might have done?

    Parent
    I highly doubt that the case will ever (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 02:58:05 PM EST
    go to court. United has made clear that they intend to pay a settlement. Is United responsible for the actions of its agents, including security officers, carrying out its supervisors' directives? Yes.

    Parent
    Probably on PCP... (none / 0) (#148)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 08:18:58 PM EST
    or the fake synthetic chemical weed.

    Parent
    Or maybe angel dust is making a comeback ... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 09:23:20 PM EST
    ... among the AARP crowd.
    ;-D

    Parent
    Thanks for posting this (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 04:31:14 PM EST
    I didn't think it was possible for these officers to look worse than they already did, but as you have observed, they are even worse than we thought.  

    These guys belong in prison, based on their own confessions.  Police officers should know better than to make guilty statements like these, but as you have shown, they are morons.

    I wonder what Dr. Dao is going to do with the airline he will soon own.  The CEO of United probably could have saved money by hiring hitmen to take out the officers before they screwed the pooch by shooting their mouths off.

    Too late now.

    Parent

    seriously (none / 0) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 06:47:05 PM EST
    "i lost my grip and the smashed his face against an arm rest"

    a new high water mark fo dissembling for them and that commenter

    Parent

    I can't imagine any reputable counsel advising his or her client to bare all in public like this in the wake of such a notorious incident, particularly when the department will likely seek to scapegoat these guys. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law," &etc.

    Parent
    Apparently (none / 0) (#129)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 06:47:49 PM EST
    ...they filed their police report before they found out there were multiple videos that showed they were lying.

    Usually you support officers who attack harmless citizens.  What swung you over to our side?  Not complaining, mind you, I'm happy that your low opinion of these clowns matches mine.  Marking my calendar, it doesn't happen often.

    Parent

    Cha-Cha-Cha-Ching... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 03:53:44 PM EST
    for President Obama...400 grand coming for his first Wall St. speaking gig.  

    Please do the sensible thing and do not even think about going back into public service.  Ya can go public to private, or private to public...just don't do the do-si-do Bro!  It's terrible for appearances.  

    Obama (none / 0) (#119)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 04:04:50 PM EST
    has the sweetest gig on Earth right now, gravitas and glitterati and much love from the entire world. History will judge his years in the oval office kindly, if only for being sandwiched between two fools.

    Parent
    I still don't understand why people are hating (none / 0) (#121)
    by vicndabx on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 04:26:03 PM EST
    until the world moves on from capitalism, dinero is what we've got.  Get that money bruh!

    What if he takes that money and donates significant portions of it (like someone else we know)?

    This is a silly litmus test of one's bona fides for public service by those who've had nowhere near the impact on people's lives.

    Parent

    Charity is lovely... (none / 0) (#183)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 09:02:24 AM EST
    ever wonder if Cantor Fitzgerald wasn't glomming money to the point they have drop 400 large on a speech, so many people wouldn't need charity?

    Yeah I know..."till we move on from capitalism". I'll call the U-Haul.

    Parent

    That must be one helluva speech (none / 0) (#188)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 11:07:07 AM EST
    is all I can say.

    One to bring eyesight to the blind, as Sonny Boy Williamson said.

    Parent

    Maybe it's a sex thing... (none / 0) (#192)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 01:11:14 PM EST
    I hear them Wall St. boys pay top dollar to be told what bad bad bad boys they are and get a spanking.

    But I'm sure the Pres will provide a safe word if things get too rough in the dungeon.

    Parent

    Eyes Wide Shut parties (none / 0) (#195)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 02:21:05 PM EST
    in the Hamptons..

    They say an excess amount of coke and Adderall over an extended period leaves you in a state where you need more and more intense and exotic stimulation..

    Kind of like the House of Lords, that they say was only kept together by rum, sodomy, and the lash. Or was that the Royal Navy?

    Parent

    President Obama (none / 0) (#123)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 04:41:51 PM EST
    needs a better agent.  President Reagan received $2 million from the Japanese in 1989 dollars. Although Ronnie did have to stay for a week and give two speeches, so there is that.  But, Trump has them all beat--no need to wait, go public and make it while in, and off of, the office. And, there are family values, too.

    Parent
    and (none / 0) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 06:53:21 PM EST
    who among us would not give two speeches for two million bucks given the opportunity?

    kdog?

    Parent

    In a heartbeat... (none / 0) (#144)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 07:58:05 PM EST
    I'd give a speech while fellating a giraffe for 400 large. But that's me, I'm a total whore;)

    Though I never had, or would seek, a job making and/or enforcing the laws that are supposed to be governing these moneychanger motherf#ckers and keeping the game square. Then it would would feel icky. Nor do I have a kickass pension coming that would make such gigs superfluous.

    It's unsavory...but then again what ain't that involves money right?

    Parent

    im starting a (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 08:04:53 PM EST
    go fund me site right now

    Parent
    I'll provide kdog with the ladder. (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 10:44:08 PM EST
    ;-D

    Parent
    And the high balls are on me (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 01:53:14 PM EST
    said the giraffe.

    Parent
    Sounds like there is a market... (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 02:52:26 PM EST
    for this type of paid gargled speaking engagement...now I'm counting on you and your go fund me Howdy, I'm putting in my two weeks notice;)

    Parent
    400 large... (none / 0) (#147)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 08:15:00 PM EST
    And I'm negotiable if you come up short;)

    Parent
    They say once you go giraffe (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 01:56:58 PM EST
    you never go back.

    Parent
    Revisiting Moscow's "Golden Showers": (none / 0) (#124)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 06:33:58 PM EST
    While the U.S. media collectively tittered like a bunch of 12-year-old boys at the mere mention of Donald Trump's alleged "golden showers" episode in a Moscow hotel room, and others swooned emotively like horrified 50-yer-old virgin schoolmarms at the very thought of just such an incident even taking place, Martin Longman of the Washington Monthly writes that few journalists bothered to take note at the time that former MI6 operative Christopher Steele's note on that particular subject was not about the incident itself, but what people were saying and believing about it in Mocow:

    "It was probably unfortunate that so much focus was put on the golden showers part of the dossier because it wasn't something that could be confirmed. Yes, it's easy to establish that the rumor went around and that many people at the Ritz Carlton believed that it occurred. It was much harder to confirm that it happened as described or that the Russians had video or audio evidence of it with which to blackmail Trump. The more important part was what Source B was confirming. Regardless of the veracity of the Ritz Carlton story, a high level Russian intelligence source was saying that the FSB had arranged / monitored sexually compromising situations for Trump."

    Further, it should be noted that the incident comprised but a small portion of Steel's 33-page dossier. Longman offers that our media's unhealthy pre-occupation with the sexually deviant aspects of the dossier is precluding many of us from acknowledging that much of what Steele reported last year in the rest of the dossier has since been corroborated by our own intelligence sources:

    "Because the salacious golden showers story led the dossier, reporters and news organizations were reluctant to publish it. The lewdness had the tendency to discredit the entire document since it was outrageous and unconfirmed. But there were plenty of other parts of the dossier that could be falsified or verified. After some efforts to do that, the FBI was satisfied that the dossier was accurate in many respects. They used it to go to the FISA court and obtain a warrant to monitor the activities of Carter Page."

    [...]

    "The right was way too quick to dismiss the quality of Christopher Steele's work. He's a former MI6 officer who worked under diplomatic cover in Moscow and headed the Russia Desk from 2004 to 2009. He has an excellent reputation in the intelligence community. He clearly has sources and he knows how to write intelligence reports. The dossier was never a fake. It wasn't gospel, either, nor did it purport to be accurate in every respect. But it was based on real sources, many of which were well-placed sources."

    In other words, whether or not the "golden showers" incident in the Moscow Ritz-Carlton ever occurred is actually immaterial and likely unprovable. In this case, what's far more important is that Steele was able to establish through his sources that the Russian FSB was actively surveilling Trump during the 2013 Miss Universe pageant and was further setting him up for potential personal blackmail. Indeed, the Steele dossier alleges that Russian security services were likely successful in that regard:

    "I think the more Steele's work is corroborated in general, the more we can be sure that he didn't make things up. So, what's more credible now is not that the golden showers took place. What's more credible is that the rumor was real and that it was being related as true by a person very close to Trump who would be in a position to know. And it was possible to establish that people in Moscow at the hotel had heard the same story and believed it.

    "The thing is, what really matters is the more general question of whether Source B (the former high ranking Russian intelligence office still active in the Kremlin's inner circles) was telling the truth when he said they had enough material on Trump to blackmail him. If that's true, the prurient details don't matter." (Emphasis is mine.)

    Aloha.

    great link (none / 0) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 07:01:52 PM EST
    how did you feel about the finale of FEUD?

    it left me a bit cold.  it reminded me of a Margo Channing line from All About Eve.  she is in a car when then trick her into missing the performance that launches Eve and some syrupy music comes on the radio.  she switches it off and says

    "I detest cheap sentiment"

    Parent

    that said (none / 0) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 07:07:13 PM EST
    the series overall was totally a home run.  and i suppose after all that b!tcheyness they felt the need for a softer ending.  

    i love that they included the Bette quote on Joans death but even that seemed, i dont know, qualified.

    i find it hard to believe that line was delivered in the halting apologetic way Sarandon delivered it.

    but its a pretty small complaint.

    Parent

    I really liked it. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 09:42:33 PM EST
    The writers obviously took some dramatic license in resolving the various story threads that were still outstanding, but that didn't bother me. I found everything about the entire miniseries to be excellent, from the directing and acting to the costumes and choreography.

    I think that both Jessica Lange and Susan Sarandon will be shoe-ins for Emmy nominations as lead actress in a TV movie or limited series next year for their acid-sketched portraits of Joan Crawford and Bette Davis. Ms. Lange in particular seemed to virtually inhabit her characterization of Crawford, and avoided allowing it to devolve into easy caricature. And both actresses captured the hardcore essence of the two stars, while managing to convey their vulnerability as well.

    And Alfred Molina was just phenomenal as their  hapless director Robert Aldrich, who never quite got the credit he deserved for crafting an otherwise B-film like "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" into a modern horror classic, while simultaneously having to stroke and soothe the fragile egos of his two enormously talented but emotionally volatile co-stars.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    this (none / 0) (#176)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 06:39:20 AM EST
    Ms. Lange in particular seemed to virtually inhabit her characterization of .....

    is what she always does.  she works so well with this production group.  its why she has gotten multiple nominations for the AHS series.

    this was like American Horror Story - Bette and Joan

    Parent

    I would think (none / 0) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 07:47:34 PM EST
    regardless of the Steele dossier that the Russians would have enough material to blackmail Trump simply based on what we know about his financial transactions and dependency on the Russian mafia for money.

    Parent
    I would have to agree with you on that. (none / 0) (#162)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 10:00:07 PM EST
    But that said, sex is always a much juicier scandal for the public to quickly sink its teeth into nowadays, than are murky and opaque financial transactions.

    Sex scandals are like a great white shark attack, in that the quick decisiveness of the intial strike leaves the target bleeding profusely as everyone watches in awe, while financial scandals are akin to watching prey being slowly entangled and suffocated by the coils of an anaconda.

    The end result of both encounters is the same, of course, but being as we are living in an era of instant gratification, today's audience is likely to get rather bored with the latter and will probably change the channel.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Trump was (none / 0) (#201)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 03:27:41 PM EST
    communicating with astronauts, asking them "what they were learning up there in space?"  Astronaut Peggy Whiston responded that "water is such a precious resource up here that we ..are cleaning up our urine, making it drinkable.  Not as bad as it sounds."  The president of the USA gave encouraging words for the science, responding: "better you than me."

    As inappropriate as that response was, there was a sense of relief that he didn't report that Ludmilla and Svetlana just purify urine with a shot of vodka.

    Parent

    What I heard (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 03:32:21 PM EST
    was that he said "better you than me" to that Purple Heart guy.

    Parent
    Well, on the campaign (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 04:46:14 PM EST
    trail, Trump did say he always wanted a Purple Heart, and being gifted one from a Veteran "was easier."

    This time, on his first visit to Walter Reed of his "presidency," his words to Sgt First Class Alvaro Barrienta, for his injury (an Afghan soldier fired on him) resulting in the loss of a leg, was a little south of sane--"congratulations..tremendous."

    Parent

    Chaffetz on Flynn (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 07:19:08 PM EST
    i wonder if the new normal is that republicans can only act like public servants after announcing retirment

    With Jason Chaffetz bailing, his committee is suddenly diving into the Trump-Russia scandal