Monday Open Thread

Here's a new open thread, all topics welcome.

< Florida Hurricane Irma Updates | Tuesday Open Thread: Keys Update >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    the 9th planet (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 04:35:48 PM EST
    The Revenge of Edward D. Wood

    I just watched a SCI channel show about this.  the USA today thing was the most recent writing i found in my quick search.  it seems they are slosing in.

    (NEWSER) - New research may have solved a "deep-rooted mystery" about our solar system and lent credence to the theory that there's a ninth planet chilling beyond Pluto. (Sorry, buddy.) Researchers at Caltech, including Konstantin Batygin and Mike "Pluto Killer" Brown (who first floated the "Planet Nine" theory), say evidence of the massive body has been right under our noses--or actually above our heads--all this time: The planet may cause the sun to appear tilted. How? Well, the orbits of all other planets in our solar system are mostly flat, yet the zone in which they orbit the sun is tilted about six degrees off the sun's equator, per a press release. A massive hidden planet with an orbit set 30 degrees off the other planets' orbits would explain why that is.



    Better not be Melancholia (none / 0) (#8)
    by McBain on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 07:55:24 PM EST
    Or (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 08:33:55 PM EST

    Equifax Hack Attack (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by CST on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 02:57:39 PM EST
    I finally took this opportunity to freeze all my credit.

    Frankly, reading about credit freezes I feel like I should have done it anyway.  I don't want it to be easy for anyone to get my info, and I don't mind paying $5 for the few times in my life I plan on needing it.  That being said, man, do they do everything they can to make it hard for you to freeze your credit (looking at you TransUnion).  I'm assuming because they can't sell it as much?

    So thanks hackers, I guess, for finally forcing me to do something I should've probably done years ago.

    Kevin Drum posits that the (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 03:54:29 PM EST
    credit reporting agencies need the same kind of financial incentive/consequence the credit card companies got:

    Still, as much as I think all accounts should be frozen by default, my solution to the problem of identity theft isn't to force the credit reporting agencies to freeze or unfreeze accounts--or to force them to do anything else. It's to make them responsible for all damages related to identity theft and then let them figure out the best solution.

    He wrote years ago:

       There is a successful precedent for this type of approach. In 1968, Congress passed the Truth in Lending Act, which imposed a variety of regulations on the lending industry. One notably simple provision was that consumers could be held liable for no more than $50 if their credit cards were stolen and used without their authorization. For anything above that, it was the credit-card issuer who had to pay. The result was predictable: Credit-card companies have since taken it upon themselves to develop a wide range ofeffective anti-fraud programs. Congress didn't tell them to do it, or even how. It just made them responsible for the losses, and the card issuers did the rest themselves.

        The same method should be used for identity theft. There's no need to create mountains of regulations, which are uniformly despised by the credit industry. Instead, simply make the industry itself--and any institution that handles personal data--liable for the losses in both time and money currently borne by consumers. The responsible parties will do the rest themselves.

    It makes a lot of sense, but as "concerned" as Equifax is, they aren't going to do it on their own.


    Frozen credit (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jmacWA on Wed Sep 13, 2017 at 06:12:03 AM EST
    I've had my credit frozen for over a dozen years now, and have been surprised several times at who actually wants to look at my credit.  The worst one was an insurance company that I had a relationship with for over 15 years, when I moved refused to issue me an Auto policy without looking at my credit... needless to say that was the end of the relationship.  

    The other surprising thing is that since I froze my credit, I can no longer see my own credit report with the "annual" free viewing at 2 of the 3 agencies, I don't recall which one is the one that still worked.

    Unlocking is easy, but DO NOT LOOSE the pins they will send you.  I have a small binder with the 6 different pins I got (1 for each agency for SO and myself).  As an added bonus being 65 now, there is no longer a fee to unlock.


    Thanks for this information. I had no idea that (none / 0) (#62)
    by vml68 on Wed Sep 13, 2017 at 10:50:07 AM EST
    'freezing your credit' was a thing. I will definitely be doing this.

    Equifax free (at the moment) (none / 0) (#63)
    by jmacWA on Wed Sep 13, 2017 at 11:45:00 AM EST
    You can get the required forms from their websites.  You will need to fill out 1 form for each agency per person (unless it has changed since I did it).

    The fee I think was $10/form, so it cost me 60 bucks at the time.  Currently Equifax is doing it for free, so you will only have 4 fees.

    As I said store the pins they send you someplace where a) you wont loose them... b) where you remember :).  Each time you want to unlock you need to supply the PIN for the appropriate agency.  The few times I have applied for credit since I froze, I waited to get notice that my credit was rejected because they could not access my credit report, then I unlocked the appropriate report.

    Good Luck


    SOUL (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 06:50:36 PM EST
    car commercials have replaced beer commercials as the most annoying and unbearable things on commercial tv.  plus i generally hate commercials.

    but i love this

    i can just watch it over and over

    I may have already posted this (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Sep 13, 2017 at 02:47:54 PM EST
    ...but this is the greatest commercial ever made.  It is a mini-video with an emotional wallop, and the product that it is about is only made clear at the end.

    Okay, it made me cry. (none / 0) (#67)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 13, 2017 at 09:33:30 PM EST
    It does, indeed, pack a wallop.

    and yes (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 06:51:20 PM EST
    you have to skip a commercial to see the commercial.

    such is our world.


    Bannon's pretzel logic. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 01:36:41 PM EST
    I managed to listen to part of the 60 Minutes segment with Bannon. He claims that "America was built on her citizens ..." after Charlie Rose reminded him that immigrants built this country. Sorry Steve, you're a moron. The White House was built by slaves (not citizens). The railroads were built by Chinese (not citizens), etc., etc., etc. White nationalists can try to rewrite history all they want, but it does not change facts.

    As nutty as Bannon is, I have to (none / 0) (#2)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 02:33:16 PM EST
    reserve a helping of disgust for the ratings-mongering 60 minutes, which Charlie Pierce phrases particularly well:

    ...Charlie Rose got a chance to sit down with Steve Bannon, the last heir to House Harkonnen and, despite Rose's letting Bannon off several hooks, we learned that Steve Bannon is one of those guys who's read three books and thinks that's all the books there are, that he's more than a little batty, and that, as my pal John Fugelsang tweeted this morning, that he continues to look like "a guy who stayed up watching porn until 6:45 and his alarm went off at 7."

    How in the world could Rose have this guy on and not even mention the Mercers, the wingnut billionaire power couple without whose bankroll Bannon would be just another Alex Jones hawking brain pills and chemtrail remover? How could he let Bannon, who made his pile at Goldman Sachs and then made another pile in Hollywood, use the phrase "limousine liberals" without picking up a banana from the fruit bowl and throwing it at him? And how in the name of god could he hear Bannon say this without then picking up the phone and calling his bosses at 60 Minutes and telling them they by god better not send him out to interview anymore of these basket cases without a HazMat suit.

    Bannon's about 16 kinds of horrid, but giving this guy a platform to spew his nonsense is pretty horrid, too - especially because Rose - from what I could tell, half-listening from the other room where my husband was watching - didn't seem like he was pushing back much.

    Maybe the "good" news is that so many people were glued to Irma coverage and football that not as many people were treated to Bannon's warped grasp of reality.


    That is the unfortunate (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 02:44:59 PM EST
    state of our press these days. I have watched Chuck Todd do the same thing along with many others.

    i agree about 60 minutes (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 04:27:07 PM EST
    Most people don't know ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 04:47:11 PM EST
    ... who the Mercers are, Anne. Suffice to say that crackpot couple are worthy of their very own "60 Minutes" exposé. We were driving back from Kona last night and missed the show altogether.

    the point, Donald, was that America (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 06:03:37 AM EST
    deserved to know about the uber-wealthy crackpot family (father and daughter, actually, so perhaps not a "couple" in the sense that word normally conveys - but what do I know, maybe they are a couple) that is funding nationalist bullies like Bannon and his ilk.

    There is context for Bannon, and Rose never provided it so the audience could get a better idea of just how dangerous Bannon is.


    I confess to not knowing much (none / 0) (#25)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 08:54:31 AM EST
    about the Mercers. So I read two articles this morning, one in The Atlantic, the other in The New Yorker. Disturbing to say the least. One interesting quote is that Mercer hates "elites" yet everything about him and his daughter reeks of elitism.

    Yes - if the MSM is not going to (none / 0) (#37)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 01:52:42 PM EST
    inform people about the Mercers, and others, everyday people that watch shows like 60 Minutes will continue to think they are the product of some kinds of left wing conspiracy theory.

    I think (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 04:54:38 PM EST
    That is exactly the point

    "....that crackpot couple....." (none / 0) (#20)
    by NYShooter on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 10:43:08 PM EST
    which "couple" are you referring to?

    The Mercer's? They're a family. None were on the program.

    Something's missing.


    You're absolutely right. Something's missing. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 02:47:06 AM EST
    Charles Pierce: "How in the world could Rose have this guy on and not even mention the Mercers, the wingnut billionaire power couple without whose bankroll Bannon would be just another Alex Jones hawking brain pills and chemtrail remover?" (Emphasis is mine.)

    If you had actually read the entire subthread, rather than attempt to address my remarks out of context, you'd have realized that I was indeed referencing the Mercers when responding to Anne's post, in which she quoted Charles Pierce.

    And of course, the Mercers weren't on last night's segment with Bannon. What do you think I meant, when I said that they deserved their own "60 Minutes" exposé?

    Next time, try reading for comprehension, and don't be in such a rush to fling your petty zingers.



    So was my lede. Those petty remarks were uncalled for and hurtful on my part. It's after 10:00 p.m. out here and I've had a very long day and I'm tired, but that's still no excuse for being rude and inconsiderate. You didn't deserve that, and I sincerely apologize to you for having made you the butt of my ire and impatience.



    My tone was unduly harsh, unnecessarily confrontational, unworthy of a civil discussion and frankly embarrassing.

    No need to flog yourself, Donald (none / 0) (#65)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 13, 2017 at 02:58:19 PM EST
    Somewhere along the line, asking a question on TL became a pejorative. You know, like, Oh, sure, you were just asking a "question." So, while unnecessary, I appreciate your explanation.

    Now, moving on, I've read a lot about Robert Mercer. He's a very interesting, and, obviously brilliant ( and, possibly, dangerous ) guy. He founded, financed, and/or contributed to a slew of leading edge companies. Among them: Breitbart News, Government Accountability Institute, Glittering Steel, Cambridge Analytics, and, Renaissance Technologies.

    What's interesting to me, however, is, why this self-made multi millionaire decided to support, in such a major way, someone like Donald Trump for President? I'm sure everyone here has their own, knee jerk, uninformed answer to that. But, regardless, I just think someone who's come up so far, so fast, and has had such an impact on all of us deserves to be studied a lot more.

    I do remember, btw, a certain inconsequential nobody, a "crackpot" WW1 corporal who was brushed off with silly names and slurs, yet, ended up affecting the entire world in a profound, and, horrid way.  

    Anyway, thanks for your response.


    You want to know (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 13, 2017 at 03:22:15 PM EST
    my personal opinion on why he went with Trump? Just my two cents but he thought Trump could be controlled because he did not know his way around the system and he didn't like the "GOP establishment" therefore he (apparently rightly in this case) thought that he might not do the direct bidding of the GOP. I'm guessing Mercer for whatever reason hates the "GOP establishment" as much as Trump does and certainly Mercer has no problem funding Bannon who thinks the same way. If you've ever read about the Mercers thought it is apparently Rebecca his daughter that is the brains behind the political operation. I'm guessing this is going to be one of the new things that we are going to have to fight because thankfully it looks like the traditional conservative "projects" like talk radio appear to be going down the tubes.

    Interesting, Ga (none / 0) (#68)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 13, 2017 at 10:27:59 PM EST
    Of course I want to know your "personal opinion(s.") Your "two cents" are every bit as valid as anything I've come up with so far.

    Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#9)
    by linea on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 07:56:50 PM EST
    issues stay of 9th Circuit ruling on refugees.

    IT IS ORDERED that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, case No. 17-16426, is hereby stayed with respect to refugees covered by a formal assurance, pending receipt of a response, due on or before Tuesday, September 12, 2017, by 12 p.m., and further order of the undersigned or of the Court.

    Dated this 11th
    day of September, 2017.

    As I noted and explained (none / 0) (#12)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 08:17:20 PM EST
    in my comment on this about five and a half hours ago.

    i'm sorry (none / 0) (#14)
    by linea on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 08:26:26 PM EST
    Nothing to be sorry about (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 08:35:55 PM EST
    Just grabbing an opportunity to link back to my comment, which explains my view of the (very limited) significance of this news.

    And Tuesday afternoon the entire Court (none / 0) (#57)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 07:30:55 PM EST
    has extended the temporary stay of the Ninth Circuit decision, as to the exemption for certain refugees. (The expanded definition of "close family" apparently stands.) My guess is that there will be a written memorandum on the meaning of refugees with "formal assurances," with a dissent, sometime in the next few days. No inkling which way it will go.

    Judge Richard Posner is Retiring (none / 0) (#10)
    by RickyJim on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 08:06:06 PM EST
    after 35 years on the bench.
    He called his approach to judging pragmatic. His critics called it lawless. "I pay very little attention to legal rules, statutes, constitutional provisions," Judge Posner said. "A case is just a dispute. The first thing you do is ask yourself -- forget about the law -- what is a sensible resolution of this dispute?"

    In other words, you figure out what you want the outcome to be and then see how you can twist the law to make it come out that way.  I remember an interview where he said that labels like strict constitutionalist are bunk - liberal and conservative are better descriptions of judges.

    I wonder where you got your understanding (none / 0) (#11)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 08:14:54 PM EST
    of Posner's "pragmatic jurisprudence." Your one-sentence caricature does not strike me as either a reasonable summary or a fair criticism of his controversial and idiosyncratic -- yet highly influential -- views, as expressed in thousands of opinions and a couple of dozen books. But of course, you may know better. I, for one, will never forget the experience of arguing a controversial case before him in 1988.

    Agree (none / 0) (#15)
    by ragebot on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 08:33:34 PM EST
    with his decisions and philosophy or not there is no question that Peter is correct about Posner being influential.  

    I, for one, do not agree with his philosophy (none / 0) (#18)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 08:38:31 PM EST
    at all, and probably would agree with about 20% of his opinions. But it irks me to see him so casually and ignorantly criticized.

    THE DEUCE (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 08:22:34 PM EST
    I commented about this in the last open.  It's the next big thing.  It really is

    But I would like to mention one thing that popped up a couple of times.  And I hope it's not a taboo subject.  If it is feel free to delete this comment.  And I will edit the text in the hope of avoiding that but it's a subject that's been popping up recently in premium cable entertainment and it's something new.  Trust me on that.  It's something I would have noticed.  The thing I'm circumlocuting is €rections.  Last night there was two (2) in 90 minutes.

    This is only the second time I have seen this kind of in your face, pardon the expression, display of male pride.

    The first was in the STARZ series AMERICAN GODS.  I was wondering what if any rules there was about this. So I went looking.  I found this on SLATE in a piece about the absence of them in the HBO series LOOKING.  apparently they are now socially permitted but they have to be straight.  So to speak.

    This dick-shyness is not, as you might expect, a legal necessity. A 2012 Supreme Court decision suggested that the Federal Communications Commission's ability to police broadcast television may be legally shaky, but regardless, cable networks were already liberated. That's right: Though it can bluster about it, the FCC has no real say in what HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, et al. put on the air.

    I find this an interesting development.  As you might expect.

    Adding for the record (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 08:40:47 PM EST
    Neither of the two last night were particularly "stimulating" or were they meant to be I expect.

    Now, AMERICAN GODS, those, at least some of those, were.  And they were.


    I'm not sure showing that was actually needed? (none / 0) (#26)
    by McBain on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 10:24:29 AM EST
    Was it for shock value?  Maybe they wanted to avoid the "faking it" look that reminds everyone they're watching fiction, not reality.

    "Needed" (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 11:37:43 AM EST
    Is missing the point

    Arguably drama is not needed.  That it accurately show the world is.  Needed.

    The idea of Times Square of the 70s without them is ridiculous and precious and shows the writers have no idea what they are doing.

    This series promises to be neither.  It's as accurate a portrait as I have ever seen.

    And I was there.  In my first trip to NY I got a cab at the airport and had them drop me in Times Square.  It was heaven and hell.  On one street.

    With €rections.


    Really sorry I haven't (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 01:46:31 PM EST
    seen it yet.  First thing after the power comes back!

    In an era where show runners take great care to get set design, costumes, etc exactly right for the story they are telling, it stands to reason they want to have the human depictions accurate as well. It all adds to the impact of the story. Of course we all know hat is going on, but seeing it tells the story more completely.

    Eyss are amazing things - they can be shut if something is too much or disturbing to the viewer.


    Tom Wolfe, "New Journalism." (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 12:00:48 PM EST
    Capt. Howdy, "New Criticism."

    Months ago (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 12:12:54 PM EST
    kdog mentioned this upcoming series and his excitement about it.

    kdog was born to late but I feel sure he has heard enough stories to have a valid opinion.

    I would like to hear it.


    You rang? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 01:21:46 PM EST
    Loved the premiere...and nothing gratuitous about the male full frontals imo, anything less would not be an accurate portrayal of the time and place.  

    You are correct that I was born too late for the heyday of old NYC Times Square edition, but I do remember the trips to pick-up my grandma at the Bus Terminal with my parents in the early-mid 80's.  My mom would try to cover my eyes as we walked the street, but a sly curious buck like me always managed a peak at the peep show marquees and working ladies seeking gentlemen callers, even in broad daylight.  I was forbidden to use the notorious bus terminal restroom no matter how bad I had to piss, for obvious reasons.  

    One vivid memory I had was of a pimp caricature dude standing outside on the corner repeating "you want it, I got it" over and over while doing pop-it dance moves.  I asked my Dad, "what's he have that we want?" and he just laughed.  

    By the time I came of age, the old was well on it's way out and the new Disneyfied boring Times Square was moving in....End of a dark dangerous yet interesting era, start of a safe, dark, uninteresting one.  All things must pass.


    TS was so very sleazu. But so much (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 01:31:39 PM EST
    easer to navigate on foot.  Move along people‼️

    So you'd walk through old sleazy con man TS (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 06:36:23 PM EST
    But you aren't sure about going to gentrified Brooklyn with me?

    It was so boring there we could have hammocked on the sidewalk.


    They only pass on to other dimensions (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 01:37:02 PM EST
    The thing people need to understand is that Times Square became the internet.  A place where your aunt Minnie could walk on the wild side from the safety and comfort of her desktop.

    In the 70s walking on the wild side meant actually walking on the wild side.  Or maybe driving if you were from the outer Burroughs.

    There is a time capsule quality to seeing it again.  Undiluted and unvarnished.  It's like a archeological dig.  And just as important.


    Reading about this series makes me feel (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 01:40:17 PM EST
    sooooo old.  But then I've read stats re % of U.S. Population born after 9/11.

    I had about the same thought... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 02:45:55 PM EST
    while watching the show...just like VHS killed the prono theater, the internet killed the rest of the brick & mortar sex industry.  If current trends hold, even the brick in the mortar (so to speak) might die with sex robots and virtual reality and all the other freaky sh*t I don't even know about.  

    But--Ted Cruz. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 02:50:16 PM EST
    Time may change Cruz, (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 05:59:39 PM EST
    but Cruz can't change time.

    It's hard to even imagine you in old Times Square doing Broadway dodging the pimps, muggers, dopers, and hustlers. But there's no doubt you're a brave, adventurous world traveller!


    My experience (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 06:07:15 PM EST
    Says the Ted Cruzes of the world made TS what it was.  Along with every men's room and truck stop from Portland Maine to Portland Oregon.

    Pray loud and take a wide stance.


    What I mean by that (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 06:27:04 PM EST
    Is that it was the place of illicit relationships.  It was the very place the of repressed urge and the secret life.  If you wanted a normal adult relationship with an equal you did not go to Times Square.  There was and are many many places for those more typical forms of social interaction.

    TIMES SQUARE and all its nationwide imitations was built on bible thumping.  Repression was the currency of the realm.


    I walked very close to my 6'5" kid brother. (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 08:38:57 PM EST
    THAT made my day (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 06:39:05 PM EST
    Before fishcamp checked in

    If you want to learn about (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 04:01:27 PM EST
    the fascinating start of internet p*rn, there is s podcast, more of a long form journalism piece read aloud, called 'The Butterfly Effect' by Jon Ronson that is available free through Audible (maybe iTunes too?)

    Don't let the title fool you into thinking it is some hippy-dippy thing, like I did. It is about the original teenager who came up with the idea for P*rnhub, and its effect on the p*rn film industry.

    I haven ever watched any of this stuff (really!), and I found it really fascinating. Ronson is the guy that wrote 'The men that talk to' whatever animals...my hurricane brain is not working! the thing about the CIA. Also a good piece about Alex Jones. He has a funny, sardonic style and is also a great interviewer and researcher.


    Sounds somewhat like (none / 0) (#41)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 03:42:54 PM EST
    The Castro District in San Francisco.  We lived right outside The Castro (Harvey Milk was our City Supervisor, we knew him).  My kids were really little when we lived there, but I never tried to cover their eyes when we walked right into the heart of The Castro.  Our bank was there (near Harvey's camera shop) and lots of good places to get a bite to eat.
    And if the saw a p*nis, so what?  It's a body part.

    And Baltimore has "The Block," (none / 0) (#46)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 04:00:07 PM EST
    which isn't what it used to be, but still exists.  I drive past the edge of it each night on the way home.

    Still remember the time I was stopped at a light and a man walked out of the peep show place with signs that he had quite enjoyed the show.

    It was a little weird.


    Every city (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 05:16:24 PM EST
    Had a version of Times Square.  

    And then there was TIMES SQUARE.

    But the setting is really only part of the story.  The TIME was just as important and unique.

    It was post sexual revolution of the late 60s and before all that followed.  When AYDS was a diet candy that promised a lost of 50 pounds.

    There was never a time like it in modern history and never a place that captured it more.

    Lightening in bottle and all that.


    I don't think Scorsese ever needed that (none / 0) (#34)
    by McBain on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 01:44:41 PM EST
    but I understand your point.  

    From the AVClub review (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 01:50:54 PM EST
    The Deuce looks great even when the onscreen action makes me want to turn my head; in one feature-length pilot, MacLaren has managed to capture the street-level look of 1970s Scorsese better than the HBO '70s period piece directed by the actual Scorsese

    Michelle MacClaren is a director for this? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 03:51:05 PM EST
    Say no more.

    As a devoted Blu-ray commentary listener, I have heard Vince Gilligan sing her praises on many many of the best Breaking Bad episodes and Better Call Saul. She went on to other comparably great work. If great TV were granted the prestige it deserves she would be a household name.


    You can (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 05:21:00 PM EST
    Almost smell it.

    Great insight (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 03:50:49 PM EST

    I think you meant "Wallace." (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 03:55:46 PM EST
    And thanks for making me almost choke on a pretzel...lol.

    That would Wally, as in Wally Cleaver (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Sep 12, 2017 at 09:05:20 PM EST
    I've come to the conclusion that Mr McBains entire world view is derived from 1950s/early 60s black and white TV. The police are your friend. There is no racism or poverty. Politicians are shining knights of public service. Women are weak and all need a man to take care of them and protect them. Criminals all deserve what's coming to them. Only dope fiends partake of marijuana. And oh, get my salts deary, there might be a peeniis on tv next Sunday night.

    Yes, I know, but Eddie always called (none / 0) (#60)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 13, 2017 at 06:07:40 AM EST
    him "Wallace" when Ward and June were around; McBain sometimes reminds me of Eddie, in that he thinks his civility hides the ugliness of his opinions and arguments.