Thursday Open Thread

I'm not seeing much in the news, and I'm spending all my free time learning and riding my new Peloton bike. It's so much fun. I'll do a review of it in the next few days, I'm still getting the hang of it but I just love it.

One other thing I'm loving: You Tube Red -- you tube with no commercials, ad messages and you can save the videos to view later offline. I screen them to my big TV. You Tube is offering 3 months free and you can cancel before the month fee starts if you want. It's such a more pleasant viewing experience.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Happy 4th of July: Ain't That America and Open Thread | Saturday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    this is very disappointing (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 06, 2017 at 05:49:55 PM EST
    McAulliffe always seemed like an opportunistic empty suit to me.  no doubt this is about political positioning.  probably for 2020

    Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe Won't Stop William Morva Execution

    Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe said Thursday he won't stop the execution of William Morva despite claims that Morva suffers from a delusional disorder and requests for clemency from mental-health advocates, the European Union and a victim's relative

    i think there was real hope he would stop this.

    Agreed. Of course, Tim Kaine did the same thing, (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by cpinva on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 08:59:44 AM EST
    when he was Gov. (11 executions), even though he was morally opposed to it. his explanation was that, as Gov., he was both legally and morally bound to follow the law, much as he might personally dislike it. Granted, this was a different situation, with mental health being an issue. Unfortunately, absent a clear, bright line diagnoses of (legal) insanity, he was kind of stuck. I'd like to think that no Gov. wants to murder someone, regardless of the law, but until we, as a society, reach a high enough level of civilization, that capital punishment is no longer part of our legal code, we're stuck with it.

    my son had a meeting with the Gov. a couple of weeks ago. he came away really being impressed with him. of course, my son's only 26, so he hasn't achieved critical mass cynicism yet.


    Disappointing (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 06, 2017 at 06:16:41 PM EST
    for sure.

    beyond disappointing (none / 0) (#4)
    by leap on Thu Jul 06, 2017 at 06:42:51 PM EST
    Craven. And yes, deplorable. Taking a human life to advance one's political aims. So shameful. Bill Clinton did a similar stunt when he was running for president in 1992. He executed Ricky Ray Rector. He didn't want to be soft on crime. Right-o. That was one reason I could never respect Clinton.

    From the linked article is this charming statement:
    "It's used a lot of times as a litmus test for executive leadership in Southern states," said Merle Black, a professor of politics and government at Emory University in Atlanta, "and I can't think of an example of a politician elected to a governorship in the South in recent years who has not been in favor of the death penalty."


    The thing is (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 06, 2017 at 06:48:17 PM EST
    He says he is against the death penalty.  Having you cake and killing it too I guess.

    Craven is a good word.


    Rick Perry on Supply and Demand (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by RickyJim on Thu Jul 06, 2017 at 06:09:31 PM EST
    Speaking at a coal-fired power plant in Maidsville, W.Va., on Thursday, Energy Secretary Rick Perry made a strange argument about supply and demand, seeming to confuse the relationship between two of the essential forces in the economy.

    "Here's a little economics lesson: supply and demand," Perry said, according to Taylor Kuykendall of Standard & Poor's. "You put the supply out there, and demand will follow."

    Yikes!  Link

    In fairness, no one ever claimed that (none / 0) (#66)
    by cpinva on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 09:04:14 AM EST
    Sect'y Perry has ever been the brightest bulb, in anyone's box. This is a guy, much like his bro, Bush the junior, who has made a career out of failing upward. i'm not sure whether to be envious or appalled.

    So Hobby Lobby got busted (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Jul 06, 2017 at 06:57:57 PM EST
    ...for receiving stolen property, through a series of circumstances and subterfuges that show absolutely that they knew the artifacts were not legally imported.

    I would think that this moral failure could open the door to a challenge to the "deeply held beliefs" that prevent them from providing birth control to employees.  After all, they claim biblical authority for their stance, even though birth control is never mentioned in the Bible.  If "thou shalt not steal" isn't one of their deeply held beliefs, what is the "moral authority" that they are hiding behind re: birth control?

    I have always thought that the government (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Peter G on Thu Jul 06, 2017 at 09:54:44 PM EST
    made a serious tactical blunder in the Hobby Lobby case by not challenging the sincerity or depth of the Green family's claimed religious objection to providing insurance coverage for birth control for their company's employees.

    how exactly ?? (none / 0) (#53)
    by linea on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 08:02:13 PM EST
    religion is sacrosanct is america both culturally and by law and constitution. in america, courts cannot be placed in the role of determining whether a random set of beliefs is "properly christian" for example.

    i would think, or perhaps i imagine, the only way to challange sincerity in the hobby lobby case would be to call the wives and daughters of the key executives^ and ask them whether they use birth control and whether their husband/father has ever objected to it on a religious basis. it feels very intrusive and i cant imagine that ever happening.

    prior to posting, i researched and read:

    Stanford Law Review: Questioning Sincerity

    ^ key executives:
    David Green    Founder and Chief Executive Officer
    Steve Green    President
    Mart Green    Chief Strategy Officer


    If you cannot imagine that happening (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 08:39:32 PM EST
    then you have never tried to assist or represent conscientious objectors under the draft or seeking discharge from the military, as I have. It happens to them all the time. The sincerity of inmates who seek to exercise their religion in a prison setting is also routinely questioned and their rights denied on that basis. It is a standard aspect of how the government manages what may or may not be valid claims for religious objection from generally-applicable legal obligations. Except in the ACA birth control context ... or in the case of bakery owners who claim their religion prevents them from serving all their customers.

    And when I typed (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 08:51:19 PM EST
    "claims for religious objection," what I meant to say was "claims for religious exemption" ....

    I also think that if someone is going to (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 09:32:01 PM EST
    register a religious exception to something, it might be fair to examine whether that person adheres to all of the tenets of the religion to which he or she purports to belong, or if, perhaps, there's some rather convenient cherry-picking going on.

    It seems to me the sincerity of someone's beliefs cannot be examined in part without being examined in the whole.

    Because, for example, the Greens don't seem to adhere with such moral vigor and religious fervor to that whole thou-shalt-not-steal thing.


    The Supreme Court has consistently ruled (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Peter G on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 01:25:46 PM EST
    that a person's religious claims cannot be refuted by showing that most members of the same sect disagree, or that the official views of the sect are different. The sincerity and religious nature of the individual's professed beliefs are what counts. Having worked with a lot of conscientious objectors, I happen to think this is a good rule. Most Catholics are not pacifists, but Catholic pacifists are nonetheless real religious pacifists, and are real Catholics, too (for example).

    re: "If you cannot imagine... " (none / 0) (#60)
    by linea on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 09:39:57 PM EST
    you're right. i suppose i meant, "i cant imagine the wealthy green family actually being subjected to an interrogation in court." then again, there seems to be no intrusiveness too far when questioned married couples on immigration issues.

    i have no idea whether the church the greens attend actually proscribe birthcontrol.


    Found your mistake (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 08:44:57 PM EST
    religion is sacrosanct is america both culturally

    Incorrect.  Only certain brands of Christianity are "sacrosanct."  Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Rastafarians, Wicca, Native American religious practices and some versions of Christianity do not get the same "cultural" respect that Protestant Christianity gets.

    and by law and constitution.

    Incorrect.  The only reference to religion in the Constitution is the First Amendment statement that the government has no business making religious decisions.

    in america, courts cannot be placed in the role of determining whether a random set of beliefs is "properly christian" for example.

    And this is the crux of the problem, because in the Hobby Lobby case the court decided that CORPORATIONS were entitled to act on the religious beliefs of their boards of directors.  This led to a "sincerely held belief" that employees are trash unworthy of attention.

    I agree with you that the court had no business making this decision, but they did anyway, to the detriment of America.


    Bingo! We have a winner ladies & gents. (none / 0) (#67)
    by cpinva on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 09:19:04 AM EST
    "And this is the crux of the problem, because in the Hobby Lobby case the court decided that CORPORATIONS were entitled to act on the religious beliefs of their boards of directors."

    perzactly! a corporation is a legal fiction, created by and allowed by the government, for specific business/legal purposes. at no time, in the history of corporations, up until Hobby Lobby, have they been construed to have human characteristics, part of which are the ability to have "beliefs" of any kind, much less religious.

    there was absolutely zero constitutional/judicial precedent basis to support the decision, certainly not in the establishment clause of 1A. it will be overturned in the future, when we get a court with only a minority willing to make up laws as they go along, rather than abiding by the ones we have, that have already withstood the rigors of judicial scrutiny.


    The Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Peter G on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 01:19:14 PM EST
    was based entirely on he statutory language of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, not on precedent (except precedent construing RFRA) and certainly not on the First Amendment's religion clauses. The Supreme Court holds strongly to the view that the Free Exercise Clause does not require any religious-belief-based exemptions from general legal obligations. That's why Congress passed RFRA.

    Linea Linea (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 12:23:53 PM EST
    Seriously grrl are you going to have a legal argument with Peter G.?

    When the people on this blog tell you the legalities of something, you really should not debate them unless your knowledge of the law equals theirs.

    You don't like what he said? That does not change the facts though.


    does it read that way? (none / 0) (#82)
    by linea on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 04:05:36 PM EST
    i didn't know i was in an argument with peter.

    Linea questioned what I initially posted (none / 0) (#83)
    by Peter G on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 04:54:38 PM EST
    after doing some research of her own (the Stanford article, which completely agreed with what I said, actually). I then explained myself more fully, and she appeared to accept if not agree with my response. I wouldn't call that arguing.

    accept and agree (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by linea on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 05:00:42 PM EST
    she appeared to accept if not agree with my response.



    i assume (none / 0) (#7)
    by linea on Thu Jul 06, 2017 at 07:43:52 PM EST
    you intend this querulously and don't actually believe a serious legal challenge can be made.

    I would think that this moral failure could open the door to a challenge to the "deeply held beliefs" that prevent them from providing birth control to employees.

    Actually it wasn't Hobby Lobby (none / 0) (#21)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 05:46:13 AM EST
    that purloined those artifacts, it was the Green family that happens to own Hobby Lobby.

    It's nice for them that they can duck individual responsibility by hiding behind an abstract entity called "Hobby Lobby."

    No one around here did anything wrong, Hobby Lobby did it. I love it.


    I think the linkage (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 07:05:06 AM EST
    Is probably good.  In the sense that it was not the Green family seen as refusing to provide birth control because they were so freakin righteous.  Even if it really is was.  It was seen as Hobby Lobby who did that.  Which I'm sure they thought was a good business decision.  Identifying the company with their rigid wholesome beliefs.

    We got yer rigid wholesome "beliefs" right here "Hobby Lobby"


    actually, they can't. (none / 0) (#68)
    by cpinva on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 09:22:19 AM EST
    "It's nice for them that they can duck individual responsibility by hiding behind an abstract entity called "Hobby Lobby."

    the "corporate veil", which is what you're referring to, doesn't protect you from the consequences of illegal acts. that's one of the few ways to pierce it.


    How is knowingly purchasing (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 11:45:41 AM EST
    irreplaceable artifacts from a war-ravaged country not a felony?

    Have any known individuals in this case been charged with a felony?


    Mueller can go home now. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 02:07:49 PM EST
    Vlad says he didn't do it. I'm sure that's good enough for Captain Cheeto.

    I'm sure the Trumpers (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 03:38:20 PM EST
    will say well, Putin says he didn't do it and that's good enough for me. most of them idolize Putin anyway.

    We will have to wait (none / 0) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 04:17:56 PM EST
    for RT (Russian TV) to tell us what happened in the meeting.  It was RT that let Americans in on what happened in the Oval Office with Trump and the Russian foreign minister and ambassador, including the blabbing about Israeli-sourced classified information.  It is a sorry day when the President of the US is the biggest threat to national security.

    Probably true (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 04:43:05 PM EST
    And does anyone think that was not fine with Putin.  Worth remembering he kills journalists who do things that are not fine with him.

    The mismatch here would be funny if it was not so terrifying.  Like PeeWee Herman meeting with The Night King.  

    It's easy to believe Putin would sanction leaking of stuff that would make Trump look foolish.  His goal seems to be to cause chaos.  He certainly has no interest in protecting Trump.  Trumps usefulness to him are long gone thanks to Trumps idiotic behaviour and sinking pole numbers.  

    The constitutional crisis that will be upon us when the noose finally tightens on Donald is probably just what Vlad wants.


    And speaking of leaks (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 05:07:03 PM EST
    Sanctioned by Putin,

    Rachel did along segment last night on a fake NSA document that was sent to them

    It's a pretty fascinating story.  The point being, she said, these things are being sent around with the intent being to discredit news organizations

    Worth a watch.

    That link is HuffPo.  I didn't watch so I don't know if it's the whole thing which would be on the MSNBC site but it's hard to link to.


    I watched it (none / 0) (#74)
    by Lora on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 11:49:23 AM EST
    This is the real Fake News.  I have been commenting in the recent past that the left had better watch out for just such a scam.  I guess it is a no-brainer to be very careful, but with more juicy tidbits coming out all the time about Russia and Trump and his campaign, I have been holding my breath that a news group might jump all over some bait.  I guess CNN already did.

    Question is, who had access to Winner's scanned document, before it was published by the Intercept??

    According to Maddow, if I remember correctly, she received the fake doc before the real one came out in public.

    Was someone playing Winner to get access to something like this so they could use it to make a cut-and-paste? Maddow suggested that what she received was a cut-and-paste from Winner's scanned doc.

    Gotta wonder.


    excellent (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 12:28:53 PM EST
    questions all

    According o Glenn Greenwald of (none / 0) (#96)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 07:45:10 AM EST
    The Intercept, the timestamps in the metadata of the document Rachel was sent are identical to the ones on the server that the intercept gave public access to at the time of publication. He claims they were not sent to her pre-publication.

    It's complicated (none / 0) (#97)
    by Lora on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 09:38:40 PM EST
    Rachel Maddow's exclusive

    Glenn Greenwald's rebuttal

    Listening to Rachel's show again, I heard her state the doc was not received prior to the Intercept's publication.  Rather, she speculates that it was created after Reality Winner was arrested and before the Intercept published her leaked doc.

    Glenn Greenwald states that the time stamps on both docs indicate the fake doc was created from the Intercept-published doc. He seems rather annoyed about this as he thinks Rachel's speculation, which he believes to be false based on his time stamp evidence, caused others to speculate that the forger may have gotten past Intercept security, which makes the Intercept look bad.  But most likely they didn't get the doc from the Intercept.

    I did not hear Rachel speculate or imply that anyone broke Intercept security to get the doc.

    She may or may not have been wrong in her speculation.  Greenwald may be right, I don't know as I am not a computer expert.

    I think I have it straight now... it's complicated.


    So Rachel's lying? Nah (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 10:42:42 AM EST
    Someone involved in the investigation or who had access to the invwstigation evidence created that fake document. Someone inside the government did this and did it quickly too.

    Seems more likely (none / 0) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 01:56:29 PM EST
    I guess we can go back to not watching much Rachel :)

    Trump started (none / 0) (#45)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 05:31:50 PM EST
    their confab by telling Putin that "he was honored to meet him."  Putin responded that it was different meeting in person, rather than their previous phone conversations.

      No matter what was said or not said, the meeting provided a feather in Putin's cossack hat. It put Putin on equal footing with the US, something strived for since the fall of the Soviet Union. And, Putin probably did not even have to place the Christopher Steele dossier on the coffee table between their two chairs. We can only hope that the great negotiator did not bargain away Alaska for favors rendered.


    If a state was on offer (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 05:35:22 PM EST
    More likely california

    The off hand bit from Lavrov (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 05:43:38 PM EST
    About how Trump "accepted the denial" you have to think was not what Trump would have wanted.

    They are scrambling to push back on that.

    But you know he did.  Of course he did.  He's been saying it for months


    I thought Tr*mp said a while back (none / 0) (#57)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 08:46:20 PM EST
    that he and P*tin had met and become fast friends in a "green room" somewhere.

    Saw a piece (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 10:44:23 PM EST
    on MSNBC tonight (Chris Matthews) on that matter, with past clips of Trump saying he knew, no he did not know, maybe he knew Putin.  And, when cornered, it was he did not meet him, but wanted to be nice because Putin was nice to him.  The only take away was that Trump was, as is his custom, lying.

    Mansplaining 101, Chancellor Merkel Edition: (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 07:10:17 PM EST
    LINK. Nuf ced.

    awesome (none / 0) (#54)
    by linea on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 08:12:48 PM EST
    ok, that was pretty damn funny. (none / 0) (#69)
    by cpinva on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 09:27:57 AM EST
    Right now, Chancellor Merkel must feel like she's dealing with two idiot school boys, on the playground during recess.

    Well, except that (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Zorba on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 02:38:32 PM EST
    these two idiot school boys have their fingers on their respective nuclear buttons, can order troops into war, can (and have) ordered arial bombardments which have killed civilians, and so on.
    Oh, and one of them has apparently had journalists and opponents quite literally poisoned and killed.
    This takes schoolyard playground bullying to the absolute extreme.

    Ricky Ray Rector (none / 0) (#8)
    by RCBadger on Thu Jul 06, 2017 at 08:11:27 PM EST
    He murdered two people and was only incapacitated because he shot himself in the head.  He wasn't a sweet gentle childlike soul who didn't know what he was doing.  There are many Death Row inmates who deserve sympathy.  He wasn't one of them.

    January 24, 1992 ?? (none / 0) (#9)
    by linea on Thu Jul 06, 2017 at 08:26:56 PM EST
    i believe the death penalty discussion on this thread is focusing on william morva in virginia. sorry.

    You would be wrong (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 06, 2017 at 08:41:31 PM EST
    Sorry.  Na, I'm really not.

    sorry (none / 0) (#14)
    by linea on Thu Jul 06, 2017 at 09:09:23 PM EST
    i didnt realize leap had linked to this person. it just seemed wildly disconnected from the conversation above.

    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 06, 2017 at 09:16:49 PM EST
    The execution of two mentally ill men by two southern governors for political purposes.

    Wildly disconnected


    it's an open thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 06, 2017 at 11:46:08 PM EST
    please don't tell people what the thread is or is not about when the post says "all topics welcome."

    Yeah (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 06, 2017 at 08:44:36 PM EST
    There is that.  Plus, at the time at least, Clinton was not trying to have it both ways by saying he was against the death penalty while having executions left and right.

    The other thing is (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 06, 2017 at 08:51:35 PM EST
    It doesn't seem like really a very smart move politically on McAulliffes part.  The death penalty is not the wedge issue it once was.  This guy is clearly mentally ill.  And even tho he say Morva got a "fair trial" critics say the jury never really heard about this.  Or certainly not all about it.

    This is so sad for death penalty opponents because there was such a broad outcry from so many, even relatives of the victim, and the Governor with his alleged opposition, it just seemed really possible they might win this one.

    He will die in about 10 minutes.


    Sorry that was Easter time (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 06, 2017 at 09:01:40 PM EST
    William Morva was pronounced dead at 9:15 eastern time.

    May he find the peace on death he never found in life.


    I hate every execution. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 06, 2017 at 09:49:14 PM EST
    It is one of my few consistent positions. RIP to him and some measure of peace to all he has hurt forever. If this truly helps them.

    Re the politics, I thought Dems were moving left in 2020? How does TM think this will help him? Oh yeah, right, the WWC probably still like the death penalty. Chasing that vote?


    Clinton going back to Arkansas (none / 0) (#20)
    by RCBadger on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 02:57:46 AM EST
    That was the other thing he got criticized for, that he only returned to Arkansas so he could look tough on crime.  Actually, that was Clinton's modus operandi when it came to executions.  He always canceled all public events and returned to the Governor's Mansion the day of a scheduled execution.

    oddly enough, i have no recollection of anyone (none / 0) (#70)
    by cpinva on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 09:31:10 AM EST
    "He wasn't a sweet gentle childlike soul who didn't know what he was doing."

    making this claim, or anything close to it at the time. you really need to come up with sturdier strawmen, if you're going to play with the adults.


    was that a strawman? (none / 0) (#94)
    by linea on Sun Jul 09, 2017 at 10:58:47 AM EST
    re: "He wasn't a sweet gentle childlike soul who didn't know what he was doing."

    i read that as an allusion to lennie in of mice and men.

    p.s. i didnt mean for my intial post to be snarky. i was confused because it was such and old case and it was disconnected on the page from the main death penalty discussion (which i didnt read). sorry mr. badger.


    new real crime series on SPIKE (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 06, 2017 at 10:57:41 PM EST

    Spike TV has partnered with Oscar-nominated and Emmy-winning documentarian Joe Berlinger (Paradise Lost trilogy) on Gone: The Forgotten Women of Ohio, an eight-hour event series about the deaths and disappearances of six young women in southern Ohio. It's set for premiere Saturday, July 22 at 9 PM on Spike

    the paradise lost films were amazing

    i saw the promo watching THE MIST.  which is getting interesting.

    I saw the first episode of The Mist (none / 0) (#27)
    by McBain on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 11:23:41 AM EST
    Nowhere near the quality of the movie but I'll probably keep watching.  

    I'll look for Gone.


    The first episodes of THE MIST (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 04:45:56 PM EST
    we're not great.  I did not think I was going to like it.  It's picking up.

    Also it's very little like the movie (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 04:52:23 PM EST
    Which I agree was excellent.  It's one if the few King stories I never read so I don't know which, if either, is following the story.

    The giant weird monsters from the other dimension, or what ever it was, have been replaces by much stranger and harder to define things.  Not all of them physical.  

    It has the potential to be a much better story than the movie that seemed limited to the creatures


    I recently watched the black and white (none / 0) (#51)
    by McBain on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 07:26:18 PM EST
    blu ray version of The Mist.  Director Frank Durabont says this is his favorite version.  

    I don't remember if Steven King liked Durabont's ending.  I prefer King's ending but they're both good.


    I can see that (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 07:54:30 PM EST
    It has a real 50s sci-fi feel.
    The ending was my least favorite part of the film. Tho it was ok.  

    So I take it you read the story.  Was the movie close?

    Curious because the series is going in a very different direction, as I said, that I really like.

    I loved the moth man.  And the dead mother the junkie thought she was hallucinating.

    I think the old lady in the church is going to be great.  I really like that actor.


    The film is very similar to the short story (none / 0) (#61)
    by McBain on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 09:42:37 PM EST
    except for the ending.  I can tell you what happens if you want but it's definitely a good read.

    Your moth man comment reminded me of the Richard Gere movie The Mothman Prophecies, which everyone hated except me.  One of the few films that really creeped me out.


    i liked it too (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 09:48:56 PM EST
    dont tell me (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 09:49:24 PM EST
    This am Trump tweets... (none / 0) (#23)
    by desertswine on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 10:34:32 AM EST
    Everyone here is talking about why John Podesta refused to give the DNC server to the FBI and the CIA. Disgraceful!

    "I would dare say no one there is talking about that except whomever Donald Trump is speaking to inside his brain," Scarborough said.

    Yes I think that's why they held a G20 meeting this year; so that all the world leaders could talk about John Podesta.  

    I would dare say... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 10:45:02 AM EST
    everybody at G20 is talking about the orange clown the Yanks sent over.

    He is completely loopy. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 11:09:48 AM EST
    Why on this earth, would any leader of the G20 give 2 sh**s about John Podesta, the DNC or HRC's email server(s). But I guess, the trumpettes will eat this up and nod in unison. "yep, yep, that's what Angela Merkel is talking bout today."

    "everyone" (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 11:20:35 AM EST
    is him and Putin.  everyone that matters.

    John Podesta replies: (none / 0) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 12:33:59 PM EST
    "On a x-country road trip with my wife; Pulled in for a pit stop in E. Fairmont W. Va. to see that our whack job POTUS @realDonaldTrump is tweeting about me at the G20. Get a grip man, the Russians committed a crime when they stole my emails to help get you elected President. [...] God only knows what you'll be raving about on twitter by the time we get to Utah. Dude, get your head in the game. You're representing the US at the G20."



    F*ckin' Podesta... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 01:46:42 PM EST
    feeding the twitter troll on twitter, which only makes him twitter-stronger.

    Please drive cross-country logged off, you've done enough damage Johnny!


    That's both obtuse & offensive. (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 03:14:22 PM EST
    John Podesta has every right to defend himself in public against Trump's slander. Your pejorative-riddled personal opinion of the man is entirely irrelevant to the immediate topic at hand.

    And further, given your own admitted affinity for avoiding personal responsibility for your own vote, I'd argue that whatever the damage done in this particular instance by John Podesta, it likely pales in comparison to that which is regularly wrought by those so-called "progressives" who are far more enamored by the projected image of their own self-righteous indignation, than they are apparently concerned with the actual fate of our country which they otherwise purport to love and cherish.

    Time and again, through their own arrogant conceit and self-absorption, they prove to everyone else that despite their plaintive pleadings to the contrary, there really is no "us" in them.



    Now you're just being acute... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 04:55:57 PM EST
    I thought the topic at hand was not perpetuating the fools errand of a twitter flame war with a nincompoop.

    All disagreements about how to best see to the good fate of a loved and cherished nation aside.


    ... to make a difference, whereas you just sit on your keester and criticize everyone else who puts him- or herself out there in the public arena, because they somehow don't measure up to your self-perceived lofty standards. By your own admission, you couldn't even be depended upon to vote in last year's Democratic primary, because you found it too cumbersome / bothersome to find out how to obtain and fill out a single-page form and register a party preference.

    If you can't get off your a$$ and rally to your country's side when its fate may well be on the line, then why act surprised when your political opinions and false equivalencies are dismissed in these volatile times as just so much hot air?

    You can fix that, of course, but it's up to you to make at least a minimal effort to do so. I made a good faith offer to you earlier last year to put you in touch with party activists in your own neighborhood with whom you can make common cause, and that offer still stands. But the initiative whereby you contact me rests entirely with you.



    We've been down this road with you (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 10:51:21 PM EST
    before, Donald, and I see you haven't managed to find a less condescending way to register your disappointment that others are not engaged as you would like them to be.

    Your way is not the only way, Donald.  Sometimes the biggest changes don't come from big things, but from small ones.  Things like just talking to your friends and neighbors, to the cashier at the grocery store, the guy behind the counter at the gas station, the older woman in line with you at Target.  

    Yes, it's important to vote, and not just for the highest offices, but for school boards, and county councils and the zoning commission.  All politics is local, right?  And if what's happening in the WH isn't someone's cup of tea, perhaps what's happening in the local community is.

    And speaking of little conversations, you might consider that the tone of yours sometimes go farther to put people off than they do to inspire them to action.

    Just sayin'.


    you know what? (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 08:48:09 PM EST
    i pertty much agree with most of what you say.  the terrible and ironic thing is, the worse things gets the harder it gets to argue with apathy as an appropriate response.

    this is exactly, i believe, the intent.  they want people to be so disgusted they just throw up their hands and try to get comfortable.

    its working.


    Yes, being demoralized (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 09, 2017 at 04:23:32 PM EST
    with false equivalency is definitely the goal. People seem to think that once bad things happen the world is going to stop. It is not. Things are going to seem "normal" for quite a while before the power grab gets so deep and ingrained that it will be even harder to undo.

    Not that facts matter, (none / 0) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 12:55:36 PM EST
    but John Podesta's private email server was hacked; the DNC's was also hacked--the one that gave the world his great risotto recipe.   Maybe, by the same 400 lb guy on a bed, but different thefts.

    two issues (none / 0) (#75)
    by Lora on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 12:18:37 PM EST
    The fact they were hacked, and...

    What the hack revealed.

    No matter how wrong the hack was, it doesn't excuse what was wrong in the emails.


    The comment was intended to address (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 02:55:36 PM EST
     the factual accuracy of Trump's odd tweet from Hamburg: "everyone is talking about John Podesta..he refused to give the DNC server to the FBI and CIA. Disgraceful."

    Leaving aside, for the moment, that everyone at the G20 was talking about the matter of Podesta's email server,  Podesta was chair of the Clinton campaign, not the DNC.  Complying with a request for the DNC server from which emails were stolen would not be up to him.

     Podesta's server was also hacked and his emails stolen (Podesta cooperated with the FBI and other law enforcement officials).  Trump erroneously conflates the crimes and misstates the uncooperativeness with law enforcement officials.  

    The theft of emails is not only wrong, it is a crime.  What was in the emails may have been embarrassing or wrongheaded, or depending on your perspective, may have revealed matters considered inappropriate, but there was no demonstrable evidence of criminal intent or action. A suggestion of conflating the two is a wrong.  


    OK (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Lora on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 06:28:25 PM EST
    True, I went off on a tangent.

    Didn't mean to suggest Podesta's emails rose to any criminal intent. Never thought they did.


    This is what happens Brett... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 11:36:51 AM EST
    this is what happens when you let Trump run something...Liquidation Sale!

    There may well be some sweet deals to be had on office furniture and nuclear warheads and in 20-25 years...so we got that going for us;)

    Oh, if only I needed... (none / 0) (#29)
    by desertswine on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 11:53:02 AM EST
    some tasteless schlock.

    I guess it would explain a lot (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 04:02:08 PM EST
    As a limited resource, it has often been thought that the ovulating females held all the cards. But it may be that the females have less choice than was previously thought. "This study adds to growing evidence that males use coercive tactics to constrain female mating decisions in promiscuous primates, thereby questioning the extent of sexual freedom left for females in such societies and suggesting that sexual intimidation has a long evolutionary history in primates," explained Alice Baniel, who conducted the study published in Current Biology.

    Sexual Harassment Of Females May Be Hardwired In Primates

    Hmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Lora on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 06:37:32 PM EST
    It is risky interpreting animal behavior, let alone using a possibly flawed interpretation to further interpret human social behavior.

    Not necessarily buying any of it.


    The article (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 06:43:29 PM EST
    Never really makes any  connection to humans.  Except the inferred one of our being primates

    Followed the "hardwired" link in article (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Lora on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 09:44:37 PM EST
    May be hardwired

    (emphasis added)

    Male baboons that harass and assault females are more likely to mate with them, according to a new study, adding evidence that sexual intimidation may be a common mating strategy among promiscuous mammals. The study's authors even argue that the findings could shed light on the evolutionary origins of our own species' behavior, although others aren't convinced the results imply anything about people.

    Maybe their interpretation of the behavior they're observing is accurate, maybe not, I don't know.  But to presume to apply it to humans is a huge stretch.


    Cue the defenders of sexual harassment. (none / 0) (#44)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 05:09:25 PM EST
    I can already hear the cries of "It's normal!"  "Everybody does it!"

    Kill me now.


    Why should you be the one to die? (none / 0) (#71)
    by cpinva on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 09:38:48 AM EST
    "Kill me now."

    if it's necessary that someone be killed, i should think the idiots defending the indefensible should be at the top of list, not you.


    you know (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 08, 2017 at 11:02:08 AM EST
    the really sad thing about that article is you read it and go 'yeah, that actually makes total sense'

    Justice League (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 04:07:35 PM EST
    Mueller seems (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 06:21:37 PM EST
    to have created a dream team.

    It's not a team (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 06:26:57 PM EST
    You would out together unless you think you are going some very dark and serious places.

    It not a team put together for a whitewash or a report saying nothing to see here


    Let's hope it is allowed to continue (none / 0) (#92)
    by Lora on Sun Jul 09, 2017 at 08:00:40 AM EST
    I have some faith that Mueller is making a ton of back-up and contingency plans in case the investigation somehow gets derailed.

    I don't put anything past the players that are being investigated.


    Let's hope they have amazing security (none / 0) (#93)
    by Lora on Sun Jul 09, 2017 at 09:23:21 AM EST
    Though the team is holed up away from the public eye in their office in the Patrick Henry Building on Washington, D.C.'s D Street,...