Tuesday TV and Open Thread

Even the New York Times is writing about the Bachelor in Paradise fiasco and The Bachelorette series (with its racial tensions and imminently expected racial blow-up between two male contestants.) If you haven't been following, WB canceled the filming of Bachelor in Paradise (the most raunchy of the series' productions) amid allegations of a possible sexual assault,and sent all the contestants home. Today WB announced the investigation was complete and nothing untoward happened, so it will resume filming. (TMZ has the sleazy details and they are sleazy.)

The Times also covers the current Bachelorette season and its latest episode here. In the previews for next week, contestant Kenny and contestant Lee, go at it and apparently Kenny gets cut with a knife near his eye. It's pretty predictable that the show would exploit any racial tensions this season, but it's curious that so far Rachel has been giving Lee the benefit of the doubt. I suspect that's due to prodding by the producers.

On Viceland, Hailey Gates is back for Season 2 of States of Undress. [More...]

There have been 2 episodes so far, one in Las Vegas at a show for women's gun carrying apparel, and one on clothing and corruption in Liberia. The show has a great way of summarizing 20 years of conflict in a country in a five minute narrative by Haley that makes you feel like you read a history book on it. Liberia is a very sad place still, struggling to recover from its civil war, rampant corruption and from the Ebola nightmare that killed more than 40,000 Liberians. Many American born Liberians are now returning to jumpstart the economy, and the show focuses on the two from Florida who are running this year's Fashion Week show. Haley Gates is terrific. Next week she will tackle France and the Burkini.

Next week, another season of Big Brother begins.

I'm primarily interested in Season 5 of Senor de los Cielos which begins tonight. If you haven't seen it before, you may want to watch the 2 hour prelude which recaps the first four seasons (Telemundo, 7 pm MT, probably different in other time zones.) Subtitles should be available (in some places they are on "CC3", on Comcast it is either "secondary language" or "Service 3." At 9 pm (MT), Season 5 will start. This show has some of the best sets -- every piece of furniture, every "objet", the rooms in the gorgeous homes, and the clothes and makeup are meticulously presented. The same goes when they are not in homes but fighting, either in the jungles of Venezuela and Colombia, or filming MS-13 fighting in the streets. Yes, it's violent, but it's much more stylized than in American shows.

These shows do not glamorize drug traffickers. Who would want to emulate someone who is doomed to die a violent death, lose their families and other loved ones to revenge kidnappings and killings, be separated from their kids, etc. Not one big Narco in these series rides off safely to the sunset (except in the original La Reina del Sur, which does have a happy ending.)Everyone else ends up dead or with a tortured soul. In real life, many end up in prison for decades.

Senor de los Cielos is very loosely based on the life of real life trafficker Amado Carrillo Fuentes, who is supposedly dead. (Many believe he is still alive being protected by the CIA. See the 2010 sentencing comments a a TX lawyer in a federal case where he was defending a corrupt police official.

MR. HILL: Amado Carillo is not dead. Everybody thinks he's the Lord of the Skies, that guy? He's not dead. He has CIA protection. Everybody knows that. I mean, you know, third-graders know that.
THE COURT: Is he still in Mexico?
MR. HILL: No, ma'am. He's here.
THE COURT: In the United States?
MR. HILL: Yes, ma'am, with $13 billion.

Update: I have the chips and guacamole ready, with a bottle of Patron. Xfinity subtitles are under "secondary language" not "Service 3." The 2 hr recap is of Season 4, but that's probably all you'll need to catch up for the main event (premiere of Season 5) -- 10 pm ET, 9 pm CT and MT.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome, TV related or not.

< Otto Warmbier Dies Days After Return from N. Korea | James Corden Schools Trump on HIV/AIDS >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    it always sort amused me (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 03:28:16 PM EST
    that some people thought Breaking Bad "glorified" drug use.  

    i think for some simply telling those stories qualifies.

    but if they ever watched a single episode its pretty clear glorifying it was the last thing it did.

    on that subject

    the season finale of Better Call Saul was great.  many loose ends tied.  next season the two series will probably really start to merge.  appearances of Walter Jessie and others would not surprise me at all

    there are some good things (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 03:49:03 PM EST
    coming soon.

    The Mist Thursday - SPIKE -series based on the King story

    Preacher Sunday - AMC - season 2

    Broadchurch 28th - BBC - final season (I think)

    Snowfall July 5th - FX - this looks real good.  John Singleton, the rise of crack in LA

    Game of Thrones and The Strain July 16th - HBO and FX

    Ray Donavon Aug 6th SHO


    Oooh...Ray Donovan! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 05:08:53 PM EST
    I've missed that!  Expect they will start re-running last season, which I think I will watch just to get in the groove for the new season.

    Such a dark show, but so good.


    It definitely glorified drug making/traffcking (none / 0) (#3)
    by McBain on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 03:58:12 PM EST
    Maybe not actual using. I'm trying to remember who the addicts were in that show besides Jesse?  

    Not sure which show I liked better.... Bad or Saul. Both were mostly excellent.  


    really (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 04:00:21 PM EST
    exactly what glorious ending/happily ever after did any of the makers/trafficers have?

    Doesn't really matter what happens in the end (none / 0) (#12)
    by McBain on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 06:18:42 PM EST
    "It's impossible to make an anti-war film." Is a quote often attributed to Francois Truffaut.  I believe his exact words were more like....  I can't make an anti-war film because showing it, enables it.

    I tend to agree.... Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, Saving Private Ryan all made soldiers look cool. Same with gang or drug movies/shows. If you show the money, the lifestyle and the adventure, you glorify it.  People tend to focus on the reward more than the risk.  


    I repeat my opinion that you (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 10:15:59 PM EST
    Hold very white bread middle class views and reactions to what you see on Tv and movies. As someone who in their lifetime has been "in the game" (ref Omar on the The Wire), served in the US Navy, ridden Harley Davidsons around the country long before it was middle class cool, been shown hospitality by Indiana Outlaws, Colorado Sons of Silence, Iowa Grim Reapers, Texas Bandidos, MD/PA Pagans, LA Banshees, and San Diego Hells Angels as well as others retired from clubs like the Mongols and Galloping Goose. These are some serious people who know how life on the street works. I learned from all of them. Had my "mud" checked more than once. There is no glory in war. There is no glory in the game. It means to an economic end. The game paid my rent and put food on the table. It was hard work and took skill to keep your head down. I moved on to legitimate work in my trade as it came available. But none of that ever warranted a death sentence by a lone cop. Yanez was a stone coward, visibly afraid because the driver purposely informed him he was armed. No licensed and permitted gun owner with any modicum of street sense is going to announce his gun and draw same said gun on cop. It is ludicrous. Cowards are drawn to law enforcement. They get tin and gunpowder courage. My father was one. After retiring from the Navy as mustang LT, he could have made large dollrs in the private sector but chose local law enforcement instead. Gave him courage & he got to carry a gun everywhere. He woudn't go to mailboxes in a gated community without strapping up. He was another coward in a blue suit and abadge.

    Re: "Full Metal Jacket." (none / 0) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 06:53:47 PM EST
    What exactly was so cool about Gunnery Sgt. Hartman? And what was the reward he offered?

    Are you kidding me? (none / 0) (#22)
    by McBain on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 07:30:49 PM EST
    Sgt. Hartman steals the show with some of the funniest, most memorable lines in movie history.  His job was to take new recruits and turn them into killers. He's very cool.

    Private Joker (Mathew Modine) was the main character with plenty of memorable lines himself.... same with tough guy, Animal (Adam Baldwin).  They say cool things... do cool stuff.  Add a quality soundtrack and you have one of greatest films of all time.  Kubrick's last masterpiece.



    Lee Ermey's (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 11:07:51 AM EST
    character took a nice, sweet but not too bright recruit (beautifully acted by Vincent D'Onofrio) and turned him into a psychotic murderer.

    You think that is cool?  Ermey's character gets a bullet (with a full metal jacket) in the chest.

    I often think of Kubrick's first half of Full Metal Jacket when wondering if cruelty is what makes a psychopathic killer.  And, I look to how dogs are treated for further enlightenment.  We had a golden that loved everyone and everything. Everybody was someone to play with.  We never yelled at, or used a rolled up newspaper on, or neglected that golden.  All he got was love, and love is what he gave out.  But there are dogs that are treated mean and turn out mean.  Reap what you sow.  I don't think suffering makes people kind.  Just the opposite typically. Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket brought that concept home for me.  

    The scenes of bootcamp in that movie were exquisite.  Perfection. The camera panning over the interior of the barracks where all the beds are in perfect order.  But making it "cool" to go to war?  No.

    And, the second half of the movie?  The lines that I remember:  "love you long time"....and the same person repeating the haunting line "shoot me" over and over until the "hero" of the movie shoots her.   Is that cool to you?

    Maybe you are just trying to provoke like a troll when you say Kubrick makes war look cool.  No, he does not.  The soldiers  lose their humanity.  Even "joker" becomes an amoral killer.  Not cool.

    Your comment shows how people can rationalize or ignore cruelty, even when it is placed right in front of them.  Your view is what makes bad things happen.


    And, another scene (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 11:22:59 AM EST
    from the first half of Full Metal Jacket:  the recruits turn on Leonard (D'Onofrio) and beat him.  That is cool?  Seems pretty ugly to me.

    And, your humorous lines?  Perhaps you missed Kubrick's point...especially as the Marines sweep the ruins of the City of Hue singing "Mickey Mouse."     "M.I.C.K.E.Y.  M.O.U.S.E.  Mickey Mouse."  That point seemed understandable, but cool it was not.    


    And really, how ironic was it that ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 01:38:44 PM EST
    ... the only thing for which Sgt. Hartman ever truly complimented Leonard - his "outstanding" marksmanship at the rifle range during target practice - proved to be a precursor to his own doom?

    (Sigh!) Sgt. Hartman simply radiates cool. I want to be just like him when I grow up.



    and this (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 02:59:43 PM EST
    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: [referring to Lee Harvey Oswald and mass murderer Charles Whitman] Do any of you people know where these individuals learned how to shoot?
    [Private Joker raises his hand.]
    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Private Joker?
    Private Joker: Sir, in the Marines, sir!
    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: In the Marines! Outstanding! Those individuals showed what one motivated Marine and his rifle can do! And before you ladies leave my island, you will all be able to do the same thing!

    very very cool


    Yeah, I always thought there was a large (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 10:07:54 PM EST
    element of horse sh*t in that "what doesn't kill me makes me stronger" aphorism that gets rather facilely bandied about these days.

    That saying originally came from Nietzsche, who waxed philosophical about "the superman" while rarely ever leaving his house.

    What doesn't kill you can just as easily turn you into a callous, unthinking, self-centered brute.


    He would spin (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 07:33:12 PM EST
    In his grave if he heard you say it "glorified" war.

    To suggest it did is amazing.


    I doubt it (none / 0) (#25)
    by McBain on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 07:52:53 PM EST
    Too much humor. Too many cool scenes. I believe FMJ inspired many to join the military.

    There have been several articles, essays, blog posts about this very topic.  
    Here's one of them...

    In a review, critic Jonathan Rosenbaum recalls how he  accompanied the late US director Samuel Fuller to a Full Metal Jacket screening only to hear him proclaim that "it was another goddamn recruiting film." Fuller believed that teenage boys going to Kubrick's picture would come out impressed and seduced by the idea of wartime combat.

    ... the 1981 war film "The Big Red One," which is actually quite good. If he really equated Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" with a military recruiting film, then he was truly an a$$. While Fuller saw war as one long hard and weary slog, Kubrick presented the culture of war as vulgar to the point of p*rn*graphic.

    There's nothing at all amusing or funny about R. Lee Ermey's monstrous Sgt. Hartman, the obsessively abusive Marine D.I. who's arguably the most memorable character in "Jacket." And while he inexplicably failed to garner an Oscar nomination, Ermey did win a well-deserved 1988 Golden Globe as best supporting actor for the role.



    Is there any data showing that these films (none / 0) (#59)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 01:35:54 PM EST
    lead to increases in recruiting, or the TV shows about drug dealers lead to increases in drug use?

    Anecdotes and speculation are just that.


    every meth user (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 03:08:57 PM EST
    in BB was a lost sole.  a shell. a physically and mentally and spiritually corrupted  person.  i cant imagine how they could have shown them moreso.  

    remember the heartbreaking episode when Jessie finds a nearly naked entirely neglected child in the house of two addicts and buys him a burger?
    before dropping a cash machine on the head of one.


    They're not "just that." (none / 0) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 22, 2017 at 10:57:24 AM EST
    Anecdotes and speculation, along with a healthy dose of wishful thinking, also tend to be the primary rationales driving GOP public policy development nowadays.

    Kubrick's Paths of Glory (none / 0) (#39)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 09:23:50 PM EST
    didn't make war look enobling or attractive in any way, shape, or form.

    And neither did Terrence Mallick's ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 10:27:05 PM EST
    ... 1998 masterwork "The Thin Red Line," which is based on James Jones' novel of the same name, which is set in the South Pacific during the Second World War. Mallick's opus is almost operatic in its scope, as the audience witnesses the gradual unfolding of the horror show that was Guadalcanal.

    I would offer that is a very shallow read ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 10:32:34 PM EST
    ... of a film you call "Kubrick's last masterpiece." R. Lee Ermey, who played the brutalizing Sgt. Hartman, deserved at least an Academy Award nomination for that hair-raising performance. He made Louis Gossett, Jr.'s Oscar-winning turn as Sgt. Foley in "An Officer and a Gentleman" look positively cartoonish in comparison.

    Oh yeah (none / 0) (#9)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 05:17:30 PM EST
    Being shackled and forced to cook meth in an underground lab is SOOOOO glamorous and glorifying.

    And thats (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 05:20:55 PM EST
    The one guy who lived.

    I saw this a while back

    In an interview with The New York Times, creator Vince Gilligan said the larger lesson of the series is that "actions have consequences."[14] He elaborated on the show's philosophy:

    If religion is a reaction of man, and nothing more, it seems to me that it represents a human desire for wrongdoers to be punished. I hate the idea of Idi Amin living in Saudi Arabia for the last 25 years of his life. That galls me to no end. I feel some sort of need for Biblical atonement, or justice, or something. I like to believe there is some comeuppance, that karma kicks in at some point, even if it takes years or decades to happen. My girlfriend says this great thing that's become my philosophy as well. 'I want to believe there's a heaven. But I can't not believe there's a hell.'

    They made millions (none / 0) (#13)
    by McBain on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 06:21:56 PM EST
    They had adventures.  They spoke cool lines of dialogue. They were more interesting than normal people.

    I think he's thinking of all (none / 0) (#40)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 09:25:01 PM EST
    the stacks of cash.

    Loved the BCS finale (none / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 03:23:26 PM EST
    Poor Chuck...and that brother relationship is so real, I can relate to both sides.

    Wonder what will happen to Kim...she's my BCS version of Jesse. I can't stand for bad things to happen to her, even though she makes her own bad decisions.

    Will be interested to see how they work into the parallel BB universe. Jimmy is going to 'make a new wall' - we know what that looks like in his BB office!


    when he tells the movers (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 03:30:11 PM EST
    at the end "see ya there in an hour"  i was wondering if "there" was his saul goodman strip mall office.

    yeah, Kim.  whatever happens it doesnt seem like it can be good.


    Me too, I was wondering (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 03:43:16 PM EST
    Not sure though yet since he is a ways away form having his license back.

    I wonder if Kim is in his life all the time he is dealing with Walt and Jesse?

    We'll find out...next spring <sob>.

    Luckily WINTER IS HERE!!!!!  Have you seen the trailers?


    I have. Oh boy. (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 04:07:21 PM EST
    SNOWFALL starting on FX looks really good too.  John Singleton telling the story of the rise of crack in LA.

    I'm still holding out hope that before the series ends we get to see Jimmy escape Cinabon.


    Yes, that looks interesting too (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 04:14:06 PM EST
    They might need to pick up the pace a little if Jimmy is ever getting out of Cinnabon! I don't know how many seasons they had planned!

    I was really expecting more of a 'case of the week' type format out of this show. I still think that could be good.


    Oh (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 04:21:50 PM EST
    I don't this no so
    "Those of you who ived through this, understand how this affected a lot of our family members," said Singleton. "This really came from me thinking about getting into television and having a medium to explore it from different levels. The greatest television shows always have these interesting environments and they explore all the various characters."

    And let's not forget



    I did forget the Fargo finale! (none / 0) (#91)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 22, 2017 at 12:53:35 PM EST
    Will watch it TiVo tonight. Just as well, I was too sleepy last night.

    Hey, question about BCS:  What was the deal with Mike and the buried body in the desert? I still don't get that.


    the finale was great (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 22, 2017 at 02:03:09 PM EST
    i will say no more.  on the body in the desert,  i thought i remembered the deal but i consulted the interwebs.  i was correct but cuttint and pasting is the lazy way
    Here's the series of events regarding this scene:

    Mike is angry at Hector for threatening his daughter and decides to steal money from that ice cream truck.

    Mike leaves the truck driver tied up on the road, perhaps as to avoid being identified by the driver. This was a mistake on Mike behalf because...

    A good samaritan (random person who we never see) comes by and helps the driver.

    Edit: The Good Samaritan finds the driver first, he unties him which allows the driver to call Hector/Nacho to pick him up. When they get there Hector shoots the Samaritan in the face.
    (Thanks /u/GumShoos)
    The GS is then buried in the desert nearby.

    Mike meets with Nacho later on in that chicken house or whatever, asks Nacho why it wasn't in the newspaper, asks why the cops didn't find the driver, etc. Nacho informs Mike they 'cleaned it up' and killed and buried the good samaritan. Mike doesn't think much of it, perhaps only to think that his actions led to the death of an innocent.

    The truck driver is eventually killed (the scene where Mike attempts to kill Hector in the last ep of S2 - it's the person that is shot by one of the assassin brothers while Mike is looking in his scope)

    Later, Mike's daughterIL asks him to help with the church playground. While laying the cement, he meets that lady, who then later tells the story about her husband (Navy) and how he went missing. This story of the missing has nothing to do with the BCS story, but rather it reminds Mike about the good samaritan, and causes Mike think about their family. The family is probably wondering where the GS is, since no one ever informed them after the GS was killed in the desert by Nacho and co.

    In order to ensure the good samaritan's family gets closure, Mike takes the job offered by Daniel (baseball guy), knowing that Nacho will be there.

    When they meet up, Mike accomplishes two things. One, he obtains information from Nacho about the whereabouts of the body of the good samaritan. Additionally, Mike ensures Nacho does the pill swap cleanly - Mike knows Nacho is attempting to make a move on Hector's life, knows he can't stop Nacho, but also knows Nacho isn't an expert at these kind of things, so he offers Nacho some sound advice (swap the pills back afterwards)

    With the location of the body known, Mike grabs a metal detector to go "looking for arrowheads" (yes, I know arrowheads aren't metal, but hobbyists often look for both at the same time, so it's a good alibi), finds the body, and reports it to the police.

    From there, the police are assumed to find the body, identify it, and inform the family, giving the family closure - all without giving away who did it nor who found it (Mike used a payphone, didn't identify who he was)

    wow. Mike needs to have some voiceovers (none / 0) (#97)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 22, 2017 at 03:01:01 PM EST
    or something. I did not make the connection to the good Samaritan at all. Thought maybe Nacho was responsible for the disappearance of the lady's husband, and that was what Mike went out to find. But I never saw them have a conversatoin about THAT!

    I guess you are not alone (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 22, 2017 at 03:02:55 PM EST
    Good deal of chatter about it. I do remember the conversation but it was helpful to have someone diagram it

    Carrie Coon (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 22, 2017 at 02:45:21 PM EST
    Will probably get 2 EMMY noms this year for lead.

    Deserves them! Hope they don't cancel eachother (none / 0) (#98)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 22, 2017 at 03:02:00 PM EST
    out and Claire freakin' Danes gets awards.

    The competition (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 22, 2017 at 03:04:14 PM EST
    Is going to be fierce

    But they have (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 04:24:17 PM EST
    A depressing vignette of Cinnabon every year.  

    It could be a jump.


    The Supreme Court (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 05:46:55 PM EST

    I mentioned this was a case the other day in a discussion about insulting/politically incorrect names.

    They won

    Today, the court ruled that the government violated Tam's first amendment rights.

    Dashcam video of Castile Video released (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by McBain on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 06:37:18 PM EST
    We've seen the Diamond Reynolds video that starts right after the shooting but here we can see what happens before.

    Officer Yanez appears to be calm when he explains why he pulled the car over...

    Yanez approaches the car and says, "Hello, sir," to Castile, who responds, "How are you?"

    "Good," Yanez replies and says he pulled him over because a brake light on the car is out. Yanez then asks for Castile's license and insurance while another officer stands by the passenger side of the car.

    Castile hands a piece of paper to Yanez and says, "Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me."

    "OK. Don't reach for it, then," Yanez says as he appears to reach for his own weapon. "Don't pull it out."

    As Yanez repeats, "Don't pull it out," he grabs his gun, points it inside the car and fires multiple rounds. Reynolds can be heard screaming inside the car during the shooting.

    Yanez orders her not to move, then says, "F---," multiple times.

    Based on this video and other evidence I've seen, I believe the not guilty verdict was correct.  

    A guy tells a cop he has a gun (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 07:18:49 PM EST
    And you believe he then goes for it? You have one twisted white bread view of the world.

    Not twisted at all Chuck (none / 0) (#24)
    by McBain on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 07:37:12 PM EST
    I don't know if Castile went for the gun or not.  I believe the jury had reason to suspect he was under the influence of drugs and made a very bad decision not to comply with officer Yanez. Given the the high burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and you have a not guilty verdict.



    ... what, exactly? I'd offer that judging by that dashcam video, it's pretty evident that Officer Yanez never gave the deceased any time to comply with any directive before he opened fire on him.

    There's a very good reason why Yanez has since been terminated by the police department. At a key moment, he was confronted by his own race-based demons and he panicked. And as a result of that panic, an innocent man is now dead.

    Fear is an unstable and dangerous emotion. Left unbridled, it can cause significant damage and harm. And unbridled fear has no business wearing a uniform and badge.



    And have we perhaps forgotten that (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 10:53:28 AM EST
    the officer at some point said he thought Castile fit the description of a robbery suspect? That the officer can be heard on the radio saying that he was going to pull the car over because the driver looked like someone suspected of armed robbery?

    Seems to me that approaching the vehicle when the officer already has it in his head that the driver might be a suspect in a robbery may have predisposed the officer to already feeling under some kind of threat - a feeling he might not have if he was approaching someone who "only" had a non-functioning brake light.  

    It just seems to me there was a better way to have handled the whole thing; the officer is supposed to be trained not to escalate, and to communicate in a way that does not lead to people being shot - and that may be especially important on observing the presence of both another passenger and a child.

    Before Castile can get his wallet out, he tells the officer he wants him to know that he does have a gun in the car, and that he has a permit for it.  Maybe, if Castile tells him this with his hands in view, on the steering wheel or raised in plain sight, instead of while he is in the process of getting his wallet out, the officer can ask him where the gun is, and enlist the other officer to assist in securing it.  

    And if, instead of saying, "Don't get the gun out, don't reach for the gun," the officer says, "Okay, just stop what you're doing and put your hands on the steering wheel for me, so we can handle this safely," the whole experience ends differently.

    Whatever the officer suspected about Castile, the officer could not ignore his responsibility to ensure the safety of the two other passengers in the car, one of whom was a child.  Shooting into a vehicle with someone in the passenger seat and a child in the back seat only 40 seconds after he first approached the car was an indication that this officer did not have the requisite skills to be a member of law enforcement; too bad someone had to die for that to become apparent.


    The video of that beautiful, (none / 0) (#89)
    by desertswine on Thu Jun 22, 2017 at 12:30:11 AM EST
    brave little girl in the backseat of the police car with her mother made me cry.  It was so wrong.

    Yanez fired before giving Casile a chance to (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 01:43:47 PM EST
    'comply'. Plus, if he was not reaching for the gun, he WAS complying with that panicky, wrongheaded instruction.

    A MN police training officer in the 74seconds podcast episode released this morning explained it well. Yanez did not do as he was trained, which would have been to stay calm, step back from the car, tell his partner, and issue new instructions for Castile to keep his hands in sight until he and his partner could assess the situation. The jury appears to have made their decision based on what they thought a reasonable person would have done, not what a reasonable policeman would have done. There is a reason why Yanez will never be a cop again. His panicky behavior may well land him in more trouble if he continues to carry a firearm.


    the video is disturbing (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by linea on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 08:07:15 PM EST
    but in a country where everyone carries a gun like the Wild West and every encounter by police is a potental Shootout; the police must be given Wyatt Earp authority and the legal system must reflect that. this seems to be the case here.

    united states supreme court - graham v. connor:

    The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

    on a related issue of which i am pleased (i only learned this today): A jury acquitted Tulsa police Officer Betty Shelby in the shooting death of Terence Crutcher.

    over and over, again and again, the majority of posters on this site are consistently wrong on the legality of police shootings and seem to lack any understanding of the american courts, american juries, the american legal system, and american law and jurisprudence.


    I'm afraid you are drawing the wrong inference (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 08:21:14 PM EST
    from those verdicts, Linea. It is not so that "over and over, again and again, the majority of posters on this site are consistently wrong on the legality of police shootings" or that they (we) "seem to lack any understanding of the american courts, american juries, the american legal system, and american law and jurisprudence." To the contrary, what we see is that American juries consistently favor police over civilians, especially non-white ones, and find "reasonable doubt" on court records that would regularly generate valid convictions on almost any other kind of criminal charges.

    You really are my hero (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 08:22:41 PM EST
    I want to be like you when I grow up.

    Have to disagree Peter (1.00 / 6) (#32)
    by McBain on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 08:39:28 PM EST
    Most of the posters on this site rush to judgement and base decisions on emotion rather than logic and common sense.

    As you know, police sometimes have different rites than civilians and several of the defendants in these high profile cases have been non white. It's not really about police vs. civilians or white vs. black, it's about holding prosecutions to a high burden of proof.  


    The only poster whom I have observed (5.00 / 9) (#37)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 09:06:32 PM EST
    rushing to judgment (note spelling) is you, McBain, over and over again, although you attempt to disguise it as "keeping an open mind." Jeralyn and I, at least, have genuinely open minds about these cases, since we strongly support the rights (note spelling) of all defendants, regardless of what they are charged with, including police charged with criminal violations of civil rights. At the same time, we strongly oppose abuse of force by police, particularly when aggravated by racial bias. (I said nothing about the race of the accused police officers, by the way; I specifically referred to the race of the civilian victims. Please try to read more carefully if you want to try to contradict me.) And no, police do not have any rights (note spelling) that others do not have. It is fundamental to our Constitutional system that all persons have equal rights. Police acting within carefully defined legal bounds have power and authority that others lack, but not rights.

    Thank you for the corrections (none / 0) (#41)
    by McBain on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 09:36:47 PM EST
    Perhaps I misunderstood one of your points...  

    I took your reply to Linea to mean you believe juries in these high profile cases have been biased, partially because of race. I mostly see verdicts that make sense based on evidence and the law. Can you point out any verdicts you disagree with or felt were influenced by racial bias?

    Can you point out any cases where I rushed to judgement? I'm not perfect but I make a point not to reach conclusions based on limited information.  

    Peter, I respect your legal mind but I hope  you're not going to do what you've done before.... go silent when I ask you to back up a statement against me. We don't have to agree on everything but you should be able to provide something when making a strong claim.  


    I read all your posts on legal subjects (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 09:48:27 PM EST
    (not interested in the TV stuff) and I gave you my honest and admittedly subjective reaction to the totality of your posts on police-citizen interaction. It's not any one post. As for what you "take my reply to mean," I strongly suggest you limit yourself to what I actually say. That is what I mean. I daresay my writing is pretty clear and is not meant to imply anything I don't say right out.

    So you have nothing (none / 0) (#43)
    by McBain on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 10:05:42 PM EST
    not one instance of a rush to judgement.   You didn't just accuse me of doing it once, you said "over and over again". You couldn't list one instance. That's incredibly weak. How would that go over in the legal world?

    I, on the other hand, will make a point to read your comments more carefully. I can't make promises about spelling.


    Total waste of my time to go back (4.60 / 10) (#48)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 10:41:12 PM EST
    and re-read and compile your individual posts. I am not debating you. I am sharing my views and, to some extent, my expertise, with the readership of TalkLeft in general, including the "silent majority" who do not regularly post comments.

    If you can't do the time (2.00 / 1) (#68)
    by McBain on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 02:57:50 PM EST
    don't do the crime.

    OMG! Look out, Peter! (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 04:21:19 PM EST
    McBain's armed with a right-wing cliché!

    I wasn't thinking of reading your comments (none / 0) (#87)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 11:00:33 PM EST
    as criminal activity, McB, but I guess I could reconsider.

    Please reconsider (none / 0) (#88)
    by McBain on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 11:30:14 PM EST
    I suspected that the police had some secret rites. (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Jack E Lope on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 12:55:06 PM EST
    As you know, police sometimes have different rites than civilians and several of the defendants in these high profile cases have been non white. It's not really about police vs. civilians or white vs. black, it's about holding prosecutions to a high burden of proof.

    I suspected that the police had some secret rites.

    You appear to be assuming that non-whites are inherently unable to discriminate based on race.  You are correct that it's not really about police vs. civilians or white vs. black.  But many cases appear to be police vs. black.  

    In their defense, black usually fits the description....   (If suspicion of armed robbery really was the reason for pulling him over, doesn't that department train in felony-stop procedures?)

    I think that police training has (over the past 30-or-so years) increased emphasis on protecting the officer - at times, overriding the importance of avoiding other harms.  Aside from formal training, the stories they tell each other build fear.   Officers are expected to quickly establish control over the scene/situation - which turns into speedy escalation-of-force.  

    When watching a video of one of these incidents for the first time, put yourself in the place of the suspect.  Do you understand the officer's commands quickly enough that you could react and comply before the officer issues another command...or escalates?   Picture what you would do to comply; might the officer interpret your movements incorrectly?   (Show me your ID.  If you complied quickly enough to complete a task before the next command, might the quick movements startle the officer?  Don't reach for the gun.  If you continue to follow the first command while also obeying the second, will you be shot?   If you tense up, might you be preparing to fight?  If you try to submit and relax, did your hands just get closer to your waistband?  If you freeze in-place, is that non-compliance that requires some escalation?)


    linea, that's pretty funny (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 08:38:15 PM EST
    To say that people at this site "seem to lack any understanding of the american courts, american juries, the american legal system, and american law and jurisprudence" when this site is written by a criminal defense attorney with more than 40 years of experience, and at least one long-standing commenter (Peter G) is also a criminal defense lawyer and one of the best criminal appeals lawyers in the country, is pretty outrageous. You are a selective consumer of news, that makes you an authority on absolutely nothing.

    Feel free to state your opinion here, but do not -- ever -- claim that most commenters here have any particular view. They don't. The readers here are quite diverse in their views and no one speaks for anyone else. And I am the only one who speaks for TalkLeft.


    "Wyatt Earp authority"? (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 05:20:35 AM EST
    linea: "but in a country where everyone carries a gun like the Wild West and every encounter by police is a potental Shootout; the police must be given Wyatt Earp authority and the legal system must reflect that."

    Wyatt Earp was a drifter and gambler who throughout his lifetime enjoyed a rather notorious reputation for engaging in vendettas, gunplay and brutality. That dubious reputation was mitigated to a great extent by an overly romanticized biography of the man that was published posthumously, as well as several popular films such as "Tombstone." You're enamored with a noble caricature, which otherwise never actually existed.



    Wyatt Earp? (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 09:22:51 AM EST
    My grandmother's second husband grew up in Tombstone, where his father was the federal prosecutor.

    Earp was a thug and a murderer, despised by the locals.  He only spent a year there, left Arizona because he had been indicted for murder.  Had the good fortune to outlive his adversaries and dictate his own hagiography.

    The Clanton boys, the losers at the OK Corral, were no angels, but they were local, cowboys who worked on a ranch owned by friends of my ancestors' family.  They had surrendered their weapons when they entered town, partied for the weekend, and presumably hung over, they were headed back to work when ambushed by the Earp brothers, Morgan, Virgil and Wyatt.


    And don't forget that other paragon of ... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 12:05:00 PM EST
    ... Old West virtue, John Henry "Doc" Holliday, who accompanied the Earp bothers to their rendezvous with destiny / infamy at the OK Corral, and assisted them in the botched attempt to arrest the Clantons and McLaureys.

    Entertaining as they may have been (and still are), popular western films like "Tombstone" and John Ford's "My Darling Clementine" do a real disservice to history by romanticizing Wyatt, Morgan and Virgil Earp as some sort of frontier nobility, the proverbial "knights in shining armor."

    Brutal truth be told, the Earp brothers actually exemplified some of the worst characters that the Wild West had to offer. At the OK Corral, they just happened to be wearing the badges of lawmen.

    And much like their contemporary Pat Garrett, the sheriff of Lincoln County in neighboring New Mexico Territory who sent William "Billy the Kid" Bonney to his reward, the Earps showed that the line between lawman and outlaw in the Old West was often blurred beyond recognition.

    In my honest opinion, the closest Hollywood ever got to accurately portraying the harsh conditions and often callous brutality endured by those who lived during America's Wild West era can be seen in four films -- Sergio Leone's "Once Upon the Time in the West," Sam Peckinpah's "Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid," Robert Altman's "McCabe and Mrs. Miller," and Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven."



    If I remember correctly (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 10:22:46 PM EST
    Earp died, weirdly appropriately, in Los Angeles, almost within shouting distance of Hollywood.

    Uhmmmmm, ... No (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 10:30:52 AM EST
    over and over, again and again, the majority of posters on this site are consistently wrong on the legality of police shootings and seem to lack any understanding of the american courts, american juries, the american legal system, and american law and jurisprudence.

    That's not only false, ... it's laughable.  Don't pretend to lecture those of us that are actually educated about American law and the US legal system.


    A reasonable officer on the scene would have (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 02:16:49 PM EST
    adhered to his training and handled the situation a lot differently. I think the juries are doing the opposite of what you are saying - they are looking at it from their own, untrained mindset where it is reasonable to completely panic and not follow training to handle these situations.

    What exactly was his "training"? (none / 0) (#63)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 02:35:09 PM EST
    It appears his training was varied:
    Officer who shot Castile attended 'Bulletproof Warrior' training

    Critics say "survival" seminar fosters paranoid mind-set, but firm defends approach as balanced.
    The Bulletproof Warrior is one of 15 sessions offered by Calibre and its parent company, LifeLine Training. The courses are well-known and popular in law enforcement circles. Facebook photos show conference rooms and auditoriums filled with officers to hear the Bulletproof Warrior message.

    Fans say it provides a valuable "wake-up call" in police safety tactics for the street: how to read the body language of someone preparing to attack, for instance. Training professionals note that Calibre was a pioneer decades ago in teaching basic police safety.

    Yanez took the 20-hour seminar on May 21-22, 2014, according to a summary of Yanez's training that the city of St. Anthony provided after a public records request. A year earlier he attended "Street Survival," another of the company's seminars, records show.

    Yanez also took 20 hours of training in 2012 in "Officer Survival" from a different organization. In May of this year, he took two hours of training titled "de-escalation," the only instruction in his four years with the department that appears to focus on that approach, the records show.

    there was a former high ranking officer (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 02:54:55 PM EST
    who used to run the regular training (not these special seminars) for MN police speaking on the 74Seconds podcast done by Minnesota Public Radio.  He explained about the training they get in situational awareness and risk level, and the steps they are to take at every stage of assessing a risk.  I can't say if Yanez received this particular training, but it seemed pretty basic to me.

    having rural police (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 03:14:44 PM EST
    in my family i can tell you the training is sometimes shockingly little.  and sometimes months after a they are given a gun and a badge.

    i know almost nothing about the case in question.  just sayin.


    Ya, I can't find any futher info about (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 03:16:32 PM EST
    what training he had.

    I can't either, But here is testimony (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 03:53:36 PM EST
    from his partner and one of the other responding offices about how they handle similar situations.


    The prosecution has argued that no other reasonable officer would have fired at Castile, and took the opportunity Tuesday to use Yanez's partner that night, Joseph Kauser, and one of the first responders at the scene, Roseville police officer Juan Toran, to boost their case.

    Yanez fired at Castile after Castile volunteered that he had a gun, and before he could explain that he also had a permit to carry, according to the criminal complaint.

    Kauser and Toran testified that if they stop a driver who volunteers that they have a gun, they instruct the driver to place his or her hands on the steering wheel or through the wheel onto the dashboard.

    What next? asked Assistant Ramsey County Attorney Richard Dusterhoft.

    "Ask them where the gun is and what type of gun," said Toran, who performed CPR on Castile. "Ask them if they have a right to have the gun."

    Toran told the court he has stopped about six armed drivers.

    Dusterhoft asked what he would do if a driver failed to comply with his orders.

    "I have never been in [that] position," Toran answered.

    Kauser did say later that he thought Yanez 'followed protocol' but I don't see how that squares with the above.


    Good News, Bad News. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 03:26:12 PM EST
    Good news: GA06 was close (Karen Handel, margin 3.7% ) as was SC05 (Ralph Norman, margin 3.2%); both very, very red districts.

     Bad news, Democratic candidates lost, and worse, in the case of GA06, the Democratic candidate, Jon Ossoff, was cast as a proxy for the resistance, rather than as a local opportunity to gain a House seat in a District in which Mrs. Clinton did well (Trump won the district by only a little over a point).

    Moreover, it seemed reasonable to suggest that GA06 may be ripe to join saner politics along with other well-educated Districts of the country (GA06 is sixth of the 15 best-educated Districts--a college degree or higher).  But, it appears that loyalty to Republican party and all that means, outdistanced other considerations.  

    Jon Ossoff, in contrast to his opponent, Karen Handel, a repeat and frequent candidate for open political offices, offered freshness. A plus and a minus.

      The freshness of his face, may not have been the drawback to Republicans as much as the freshness of his ideas--at least ideas some were sure he held, or his purported master, Nancy Pelosi believed.  Ossoff, himself, was measured, focusing on turning the District into a "silicon valley of the south," a not unrealistic possibility given the proximity of Emory University, Georgia State and Georgia Tech.

    Somewhat irritating, but somewhat understandable, given his foray into deep red territory, he invoked the oldie of cutting waste that BOTH parties do, and called out Miss Handel for corrupt practices in those offices to which she was actually elected. And, he rekindled her five-year old controversy at Susan G Komen where she cut off funding for breast cancer screening.

    The tactic of the Ossoff campaign was to go easy on the mess that is Trump et al., as well as with the Republican plan to devastate health care for Americans.

     It is difficult to ascertain if such tactics are the best ones--I am not sure that Democrats are able to break through those loyal Republican bonds, just yet. Or, that is it a good idea to shape our policies to compete with Republicans, downplaying in any way  Democratic commitments to core values, such as choice and justice.  Maybe, co-opt, but, certainly, not adopt.

    At this point, my thinking is that Democrats need to engage as many Democrats as possible so as to get out the votes. Also, to curtail purity criteria, such as rejecting those "corporate Democrats from the Hillary wing of the party."

    If Ossoff decides on a re-match with Miss Handel next year, he will find a new tactic to be imperative. No longer an open seat, Handel will be the incumbent. The odious Miss Handel will be harder to attack since she will keep her head down and do what she is told to do.  She seems just smart enough to know that she is not so smart. She smiles a lot, which is understandable..we all would if we had traveled so far on so little talent.

     And, Ossoff will need to move into the District. A couple of miles across the District border is bad enough, but the reason expressed for not moving... so that his girlfriend could walk to her classes at Emory Medical School is a part of the freshness he can bury.  Oh, and he can take, at least a little tip from Miss Handel, and smile a little more.


    Going after Handel certainly worth a try (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 03:34:40 PM EST
    given how close it was. But nevertheless it is a very red district and was only in play at all because it was SO red that it was safe to put Price in the cabinet and have a very low risk of losing a seat. There are plenty of much more vulnerable red seats that could be picked off in 2018, so focusing on that one again is not the best use of resources, IMO. But maybe Ossoff still has a good war chest left.  

    So hard to say what will be the theme of 2018 - certainly health care - that might be enough. My bet is that Trump won't even be in office by 11/18. Quitter, low energy, sad.


    Ossoff (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 08:22:27 PM EST
    did a good job for what he had to run with. I don't know that not living in the district was as big a deal as it was made out to be. I think what hurt him the most was not ever being elected to office before. Handel was on the county commission and some other statewide office.

    As close as this race was this time I'm thinking that there actually might be a D primary or a few D's running next time. We shall see. Also Handel is going to have to defend her 100% pro Trump voting record which I'm also sure she will have.


    Ruffian, you quack me up... (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by fishcamp on Thu Jun 22, 2017 at 01:14:12 PM EST
    Go Ducks...🌴

    The "Pizzagate" guy... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by desertswine on Thu Jun 22, 2017 at 02:14:27 PM EST
    polls close in Ga 6th (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 03:58:29 PM EST
    at 7 eastern.

    i think we are going to do it this time.

    I hope so (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 04:06:26 PM EST
    Everybody around the country is watching it seems. My cousin in MN texted me about it this morning.

    absolutely (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 04:16:36 PM EST
    everyone is watching.

    this could be a big deal.  an Ossoff win could

    • stop the republicans "healthcare" in its tracks

    • begin the congressional turn against Trump

    • drive democratic recruitment for next year through the roof and do exactly the opposite for the rebublicans even leading to a wave of retirements they say

    • and mostly put a big wind behind us for next year

    so, yeah
    people are watching.

    Nate Silverwhy it matters


    Live election results (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 06:56:26 PM EST
    Ossoff (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 07:03:26 PM EST
    Is ahead!

    By a smidge


    WaPo is calling it for Handel (none / 0) (#38)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 09:18:57 PM EST
    The results on that site (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 07:04:51 PM EST
    Are different from MSNBC.  they still have her ahead.

    Wow (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 07:10:24 PM EST
    With almost 124,000 votes she is ahead by 300.

    Ok (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 07:23:22 PM EST
    We are (seconds ago) 10% and it has consistently been less than 1%. 50.4 49.6 last time I checked.


    According to Georgia state law, a recount can be requested by any candidate in an election if there's a margin between two candidates of 1 percent or less. The request must be made to an elections superintendent "within a period of two business days following the certification of election results

    I had thought (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 08:02:45 PM EST
    If Ossoff loses there would be no good news tonight.  But there are two races one on which millions were spent one that was ignored and written off by democrats.

    The thing is BOTH are really close.  In two districts republicans won by 19 & 20 points a few months ago.

    Maybe good news in any case after all


    Armando (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 08:38:51 PM EST
    says same partisan shift picks up 70 house seats across the country.

    Daniel Day-Lewis... (none / 0) (#33)
    by desertswine on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 08:44:39 PM EST
    has announced his retirement from acting.

    Daniel Day-Lewis, three-time Oscar winner and perhaps the "greatest actor alive," is retiring from acting. 
    "Daniel Day-Lewis will no longer be working as an actor," a spokesperson for the "Lincoln" star said in a statement to Variety. "He is immensely grateful to all of his collaborators and audiences over the many years. This is a private decision and neither he nor his representatives will make any further comment on this subject." 

    Wow (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 08:51:52 PM EST
    Very sad.  I hope it's not some kind of health thing and he just wants out.  

    So many great characters. Such a range.  Just trying to remember them without googling.  There Will Be Blood, Lincoln, Gangs of New York, Room With a View, Last of the Mohicans, My Left Foot....


    What a resume


    There's a reason (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 09:05:34 PM EST
    There Will Be Blood was first.  It's my favorite
    The 60-year-old star, who has played presidents, writers, and gang leaders in a career that has spanned four decades, has one final film awaiting release, "Phantom Thread," a drama set in the world of high fashion. It is scheduled to hit theaters on December 25, 2017 and reunites him with Paul Thomas Anderson, who directed Day-Lewis to a best actor Oscar in 2007's "There Will Be Blood."

    I liked Paul Dano (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 10:13:13 PM EST
    in that. He's very underrated, imo.

    Love that one too (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 02:49:03 PM EST
    a truly great film, IMO. He and Paul Dano were both unforgettable.

    I had forgoten he was in (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 02:50:38 PM EST
    Room With a View until I caught it on TCM the other night. He was so funny in that.

    Also don't forget Nine. It was panned I think, but I loved it, being a sucker for musicals, and that is one I like anyway.


    One of the all time greats (none / 0) (#35)
    by McBain on Tue Jun 20, 2017 at 08:51:53 PM EST
    Last of the Mohicans is one of my favorites

    He has gone for years at a time (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 02:47:54 PM EST
    without making films in the past, so I hope he will reconsider again after he recharges, and if the right project comes along. Looking forward to his new film directed by PT Anderson coming out at the end of the year.

    Heard a super funny comedy bit (none / 0) (#92)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 22, 2017 at 12:56:02 PM EST
    on the Slate Trumpcast podcast this morning....they had a comedian doing an impression of DDL as Lincoln reading some Trump quotations. "...so I took her fuuurniture shopping....". OMG, I was cracking up on the way to work.

    Under the Senate Toga: (none / 0) (#101)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 22, 2017 at 03:41:16 PM EST
    Not much to see that was not apparent already from the House fig leaf which was to repeal and replace Obamacare with something "terrific."  (aka nothing).

     The interpretation of terrific as being nothing, is continued in the Senate version, is to cut spending/benefits for the poor and middle class to the tune of $1 trillion so as cut taxes and make $1 trillion music for the rich.

    As with the House bill, Medicaid takes the biggest hit and individual markets suffer from reductions in subsidies (tax credits) and insurers must cover just 58% from the current 75%--resulting in shifting of costs to the insured.

    There is no longer a mandate/penalty for not securing insurance; can wait until sick or injured; the resulting insurance pool increases the likelihood of higher premiums for older Americans and lower for younger. But, bank on higher costs overall for all. Of course, any funding for abortion and Planned Parenthood are out the window.

    Employer provided insurance (which affects a large segment) does not escape unscathed.  In addition to the general ripple effects from the changes, the Senate bill restores a lifetime limit and increased out-of-pocket expenses.

     It seems that there is no change in preexisting condition required coverage, probably owing to reconciliation rules and votes needed to pass, but there is a cynical go-around: 1332 waivers allow states to permit insurers to offer junk insurance, leaving large medical/hospital bills outstanding.   The waivers may loosen the Essential Health Benefits required by ACA (10 broad areas of coverage).  And, then, there is that required amount of coverage of 58% from the previous 75%.

    When the House monstrosity was passed and celebrated with a White House beer bust, concerns were salved by predictions by the pundit class that this turkey would never get through the senate.

     Well, it sure looks like Thanksgiving is coming around the 4th of July this year.  A moderate Republican senator is one who opposes a devastating program that goes into effect in 2021 but is on board if it does not kick in until 2024.

      And, Republicans are now emboldened by their barest survivals in the special elections in deep red districts, auguring well for their predictable over-reach.  And, too, Republicans, unlike Democrats, have come to the realization that because many Republicans do not support Trump, it does not mean they will not vote for him. Just as long as he keeps the stock market high and taxes low. The rest is beyond their vision capabilities.

      Their alternative, to vote for hated liberals (aka Democrats) is out of the question.  For now.    

    While (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 22, 2017 at 04:22:08 PM EST
    The  videos of the day was police arresting people in wheelchairs

    MAKING A MURDER (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 22, 2017 at 05:15:57 PM EST
    A federal appeals panel upheld a ruling Thursday that overturned the murder conviction of an inmate featured in the Netflix series Making a Murderer. Brendan Dassey was sentenced to life in prison for the 2005 murder of photographer Teresa Halbach. The panel affirmed that Dassey, who was 16-years-old at the time, was coerced into confessing when investigators made him multiple false promises. State attorneys can still re-try Dassey or appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.


    Hopefully this will set him free (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by McBain on Thu Jun 22, 2017 at 06:18:52 PM EST
    That confession was absurd.  The problem is prosecutors hate to admit they were wrong.

    I'd like to see Dassey released and Avery retried.