Saturday Open Thread

Trump is considering the death penalty for drug dealers. Newt Gingrich once tried that.

Our last open thread is full, here is a new one.
All topics welcome.

< Sam Nunberg's Late Night Rant to NY Magazine | Rex Tillerson Fired >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Death penalty for drug dealers? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by fishcamp on Sat Mar 10, 2018 at 02:20:22 PM EST
    Our executioners  can't get it together with their own drugs to execute people lately.  They better start building housing for the drug dealers they could catch.  Our White House person loves to blurt out stuff like this and then start backing off.  

    Now that he's revising the steel and aluminum tariffs, countries are begging to be put on his special list.  He just has to feel adored.  I'd like to get  him on a slow boat to China, all by himself alone.

    If he could sit in an old tire tied to the (none / 0) (#2)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 10, 2018 at 02:27:31 PM EST
    back of the boat, with no sunscreen, I could go for that.

    No sunscreen (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 10, 2018 at 06:34:25 PM EST
    Nice touch!

    Footnote Credit To: (none / 0) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Sat Mar 10, 2018 at 10:00:33 PM EST
    Bing Crosby or Jimmy Buffett?

    I'm thinking the mtg. with North Korean (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 09:03:30 AM EST
    leader should take place in NK.

    We should hope (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 11:10:27 AM EST
    It never happens

    That said, YEAH. NK.  

    Maybe they will keep him for ransom.

    Good luck with that


    I would be shocked if Trump, for (none / 0) (#29)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 11:39:07 AM EST
    whom the appearance of superiority rules his life, would be willing to go to Kim - it will look too much like being summoned.  

    It may be possible to meet on some kind of neutral ground, but where would that be?

    In the end, if this happens, it will either be tightly scripted and Trump highly managed, or it will be a cowboy operation that could be a sh!tshow like nothing we've ever seen.


    I bet DJT would go if promised a fab parade and a. (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 09:08:26 PM EST
    magic globe plus a couple great opportunities to install a Trump properties.

    Yes, He's going to want to see Kim's (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 07:00:50 AM EST
    Parades. He'll risk a face full of VX for that.

    The Trump/Kim Summit (none / 0) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 01:21:17 PM EST
    may or may not happen.  We have already seen walk-backs and walk-backs of the walk=back. But, should the talks happen they need to be grounded in an understanding that Trump will not prepare and will, as is the custom, be swayed by the flattery,  and the grandiosity of the welcome.

      And, advice on the American side will depend on the last person to whom Trump talks.  Fortunately, North Korea is a decision-making area in which Putin is less likely to call the shots, leaving Trump some latitude, unlike Syria, for example.

    If I were that last person, I would set up a two-part summit, a year apart: the first in North Korea, the second in Washington, DC.  This would offer some protection against the dangerous embarrassment of unsatisfactory progress or even, failure on the first try, leaving no diplomatic options and increasing the chance of a war.

    And, for that first meeting, diplomatic experts, if Trump can find any remaining at State, should set forth some longer term goals and several immediate objectives.  Something that looks promising by the conclusion of the first meeting with a continuing agenda to work on for the second.  The theatricality of the summit's high wire act needs a safety net.

    The fundamental goals of the US are de-nuclearization, with dismantlement, including long-range missiles, a verification system, and rectification of human rights violations.

      Bold negotiating points include: conclusion of a peace treaty of the Korean war; diplomatic normalization of relations, economic assistance, and lifting of sanctions.

    Of course, Kim may want much more, such as removal of US troops from the peninsula. Kim will not give up anything if he determines that he will come home empty-handed.  Trump will have to negotiate and compromise.  Please, no one mention the Iran deal to him for awhile.


    What is this administration's (none / 0) (#83)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 08:05:09 AM EST
    definition of a drug dealer? The El Chapo's and other cartel types? Or the kid down the street in my middle class neighborhood selling eighths and quarters of pot to the mom's in on the block?

    Or is it confined to kids downtown who are selling dimebags to passing cars (mostly people of color)?

    This is not my America. This is, however, the road I knew this administration would want to follow.

    If only the movie Olympus Has Fallen could become a true life story. It is unfortunate that at nearly 60 years old, I would now root for the "bad guys" if there really was an assault on the White House. They would doing a service to the future of this country.


    It's worth remembering (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 08:16:38 AM EST
    This is the guy who spent substantial sums of his own money advocating the death penalty for five innocent boys.  The guy who still denies the evidence that freed them.

    I think one thing we could be sure about as to "who is a drug dealer" is that most are people of color


    So he's going to go after (none / 0) (#95)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 01:08:46 PM EST
    all those pill-pushers in Trumpville, West Virginia? Somehow I doubt it.

    His worst nightmare might be if a substantial number of folks emerge out of that opioid haze and take a good look at what they voted for.


    School attack in the Netherlands (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 10, 2018 at 09:01:36 PM EST
    A mentally unstable, 44 year old man decides to attack a school in the Netherlands.  The Netherlands have very strict gun control laws, so the man had to arm himself with knives for the attack.

    The students chased him away with backpacks.

    Trump also launches 2020 (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 08:16:27 AM EST

    So MAGA becomes KAG!  Which is suitably gagish.

    Also Warren is on multiple morning shows.  If Trump is still in office and it's Warren that runs against him, there will very likely be term 2.

    Sorry to krap on Sunday morning but that's what I think.

    Warren is someone, who, like Biden, (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 11:17:53 AM EST
    I think there's a place for in the Democratic Party, but it isn't at the top of the ticket, and probably not even as VP.

    She is a great spokesperson/advocate for a wide range of consumer issues, perhaps would do well as Secretary of HHS, or running the CFPB, but I haven't seen anything - well, anything much - that leads me to believe she should be the presumptive nominee.

    Not that she shouldn't even try, but depending on who comprises the rest of the primary field, I'd guess she'd be done after the Iowa caucuses.

    No Warren, no Biden, no Bernie.  I don't know who that leaves, but a lot will depend on what happens with Trump and his minions, as well as what happens in November.


    Agreed, (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 01:35:25 PM EST
    no Warren, Biden or Bernie.  A fresh, younger face, such as Senator Chris Murphy (D.CN)..but there are several others that qualify.  And, the whole ticket, president/vice president should be announced prior to the convention so that both new faces can become known.  The ticket can be leavened with Biden as a potential Secretary of State, to add experienced statesmanship to the mix.

    I wish Joe Biden would take up (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by caseyOR on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 02:24:56 PM EST
    woodland walking or knitting. He is a political disaster waiting to happen.

    He gets handsy  with women. Anita Hill. The bankruptcy bill. He has run for president twice, and he has never come close to going the distance in the primaries. The first time plagerism took him down. The second time nobody was interested in Joe. Also, he is prone to saying ridiculous and/or offensive things that, for some reason that escapes me, get soft-pedaled by the press as him being lovable Uncle Joe.

    He is not a lovable harmless uncle.


    I agree. I have never understood the appeal (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by vml68 on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 04:04:24 PM EST
    of 'Uncle Joe'. It made me very uncomfortable every time I saw him get a bit too handsy with women. I am honestly surprised that no one has spoken up about it (at least, that I am aware off).

    The media wants him (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 04:11:42 PM EST
    They really really want him.  

    Apparently so. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 06:00:46 PM EST
    Ugh. I don't understand it.

    plagiarism not a bar to sainthood (none / 0) (#131)
    by thomas rogan on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 08:16:57 PM EST
    From Wikipedia about Rev.Martin Luther King Jr.

    Regarding his PhD dissertation, written at Boston University, an academic inquiry concluded in October 1991 that portions of his dissertation had been plagiarized and that he had acted improperly. However, "[d]espite its finding, the committee said that 'no thought should be given to the revocation of Dr. King's doctoral degree,' an action that the panel said would serve no purpose."[1][2][3] The committee also concluded that the dissertation still "makes an intelligent contribution to scholarship." However, a letter is now attached to King's dissertation in the university library, noting that numerous passages were included without the appropriate quotations and citations of sources.[4][non-primary source needed][clarification needed]


    Still mad as hell (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 08:35:42 PM EST
    'bout that buck gettin' folks all stirred up and askin' for their rights, eh James Earl?

    Even after all this time.

    Surprised you didn't mention anything about his philandering.


    Not to mention Melania Trump ... (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 09:11:57 PM EST
    ... or Ben Carson, John Walsh, Rand Paul, Monica Crowley.

    Must have a point hidden in there somewhere.


    It Would Help (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by RickyJim on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 04:42:11 PM EST
    the Democrats if they had some winning issues to promote. I'm not Trump and we are "stronger together" didn't work out that well last time, did they?

    They did run on those issues (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 05:47:30 PM EST
    It didn't matter.

    Hillary's website had lengthy policy analysis and plans.

    Trump didn't have a plan past campaigning.


    If that's what you think ... (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 08:47:05 PM EST
    ... the 2016 campaign consisted of, you weren't paying attention.

    For Example (none / 0) (#91)
    by RickyJim on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 10:17:37 AM EST
    Trump's winning issues were, "Mexicans are coming in and taking over" and "I am a great deal maker as you saw on The Apprentice".  The kind of things that would have won for HRC would be things like, "The 1% at the top keep grabbing a growing portion of the total pie" and "By an x% extra tax on billionaires and/or closing y number of foreign military bases we can have universal health care and higher education".

    You mean like when she ... (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 01:25:07 PM EST
    ... outlined her growth and fairness economic agenda?

    In the most comprehensive policy speech of her presidential campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday presented her vision of a "growth and fairness economy," an economic agenda intended to lift middle-class wages, expand social services, and increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans to combat a widening gap between rich and poor.

    Or when she outlined her debt-free college plan?

    Or her proposal to expand the ACA to include a Medicare expansion and public option?



    She Was a Farago of Wishy-Washy Pablum (2.00 / 1) (#134)
    by RickyJim on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 08:44:17 PM EST
    An angry message that the system, including what the Clinton administration had wrought, had  people at the top taking too much at the expense of the rest of the country would have worked much better.  She had to be loud and clear that the only way to get to universal health care was to change the tax structure.  She was a lousy communicator.  The fact the Bernie Sanders is now much more popular than she is shows that a radical message can be made to work.

    Hahahahaha ... (none / 0) (#139)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 09:15:41 PM EST
    ... a Bitter Berner is still ... well, ... bitter.

    Still funny as he//.

    Hey - how many votes did he get again?

    Heh, heh, heh ...


    BTW - Re: his "popularity" (none / 0) (#143)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 09:39:05 PM EST
    Not really much of an accomplishment, considering:

    1.  She's been a national Republican/rightwing target for several decades now, while Bernie's been hanging out in Vermont.

    2.  The Bitter Berners are still a little angry, as you've so aptly demonstrated.

    3.  Despite all this, his number are only slightly higher than hers among Democratic and Democratic leaning voters (71-24 versus 73-18).  But you're right about him being more popular among Republicans ...

    ... and Russians.

    The "radical message" thing might actually sound a little more convincing if he could win a primary campaign outside Vermont.


    No. That would mean Americans (none / 0) (#93)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 12:14:20 PM EST
    would have to do math. Seems that is no longer American's strong suit.

    Better would have been to remind people daily that gas around $2.50 a gallon (or less) and "we got bin Laden." Those kinds of slogans resonate with the low IQ Americans.

    I make the statements about math with this anecdote. Just this past Friday, I stopped at Chaps Pit Beef in Aberdeen for some food to take home for me and my wife. The total bill was $28.09. I handed the kid at the register $40.10. He gave me back a penny. I told him I gave him 40 bucks. He realized that right away. But here's the kicker. He had to completely ring up the order again, just to figure he owed me $12. Now I told him he owed me $12 (pretty simple arithmetic). But he couldn't figure out on his own. He had to use the register to figure out I was still owed $12.

    It's a common occurrence at convenience stores, grocery stores, and fast food joints. No one can figure change in their head. Simple arithmetic. Americans are becoming pathetic.


    The poor kid was probably confused.. (none / 0) (#102)
    by desertswine on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 02:35:37 PM EST
    by your use of actual cash, a disappearing commodity.

    It leaves (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 03:53:41 PM EST
    Kamala Harris, Amy, Tammy Duckworth, Cory and plenty of others.

    Running in 2020 (none / 0) (#45)
    by linea on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 04:26:53 PM EST
    Kamala Harris positions herself for White House run

    She voted against the recent DACA compromise offered by the Republicans.

    "While this bill would put Dreamers on a pathway toward citizenship, the appropriation of $25 billion for a border wall is a waste of taxpayer money," she said.


    Not running (none / 0) (#32)
    by linea on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 02:10:15 PM EST
    Elizabeth Warren has repeatedly stated that she isn't running
    Warren repeated her 2020 denial on NBC's Meet the Press and on Fox News Sunday,

    That doesn't leave much (none / 0) (#34)
    by linea on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 02:38:01 PM EST
    Re: `I don't know who that leaves`

    Most certainly the DNC and party insiders will select a centrist to run in the primaries. Maybe one of these guys:

    The rich and the right want to dynamite Dodd-Frank - and Democrats are helping them do it

    My guess, the primary choice will be between:

    • A practical centrist who helped eliminate banking regulations
    • An open borders extreemist who wants to defund ICE and repeatedly calls President Trump a racist (but who thinks Medicare for All is too kooky to endorse)

    I'm tired of "centrists" (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 05:49:53 PM EST
    Why not try a LIBERAL?

    Only once in our history did we have a liberal president.  He was re-elected three times, and his policies turned out to be so popular that the GOP made sure no president could get a term that long again.


    The DNC and "party insiders" ... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 08:50:47 PM EST
    ... don't choose a candidate.  Democratic voters do, with (arguably) the exception of caucus states and open primary states if the results are close.

    READING COMPREHENSION (none / 0) (#67)
    by linea on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 09:28:29 PM EST
    I wrote:

    Most certainly the DNC and party insiders will select a centrist to run in the primaries. Maybe one of these guys:

    The rich and the right want to dynamite Dodd-Frank - and Democrats are helping them do it

    Note the difference between `select... to run in the primaries' and `choose a candidate.' [more]


    Writing capability (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 09:44:51 PM EST
    But sure - let's play this game.  I'll be more specific if that helps you.  The DNC and party insiders don't "select" a Democratic candidate.  The candidates themselves decide whether they want to run.  The "party insiders" (who are actual Democrats) decide who's candidacy they want to support, just as Democratic voters do.  Then Democratic voters choose the GE candidate.

    But your selfie was nice.


    I agree (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 09:48:16 PM EST
    No Biden or Warren or Biden. How about Julian Castro, he's interested?

    I thought Hillary should have picked him as her running mate instead of Kaine.


    I was hoping she (none / 0) (#97)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 01:50:18 PM EST
    would pick Castro myself. Instead of white bread Kaine.

    Ditto (none / 0) (#136)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 08:57:05 PM EST
    Question: can campaign funds be used (none / 0) (#27)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 11:20:30 AM EST
    to defend impeachment or criminal charges?

    Aside from the fact that Trump's favorite part of being president is campaigning before adoring crowds, it may also have been suggested this is a good way to raise money for some flavor of legal defense fund.

    You know, just in case...


    I think that already have been (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 03:40:19 PM EST

    The more money he spends (none / 0) (#50)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 05:51:39 PM EST
    ...on attorneys, the longer the show runs.

    Attorneys will give you all the hours you will pay for, even if they know it's a loser.


    I think it depends on whether (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 09:50:17 PM EST
    the funds are used to defend against an investigation of something that happened during the campaign or afterwards. If its for things that happened during the campaign, I think campaign funds can be used.

    meaning I don't think they can (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 09:53:02 PM EST
    be used for impeachment. But he could start a legal defense fund for that purpose.

    On the subject of yapping dogs (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 04:16:44 PM EST
    I am following RRs example and sending MSNBC a letter.

    If the do not stop carrying every Trump campaign rant from beginning to end I will stop watching.

    We should start going after advertisers.

    MSNBC launched Trump.  Perhaps they knew he would be gold for them.

    Time to call it out.

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 09:16:03 PM EST
    To a great extent, our media deserve a good deal of blame for encouraging Trump's uncouth behavior, since they repeatedly highlight it in their reporting. Why are his childish insults and schoolyard taunts always a lead story in their newscasts and front pages? It's no longer news when it's a frequent and regular occurrence, like the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

    Rec List at DailyKos (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 12:19:54 AM EST
    Things you learn from HBO (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 07:35:41 PM EST
    When Oregon was granted statehood in 1859, it was the only state in the Union admitted with a constitution that forbade black people from living, working, or owning property there. It was illegal for black people even to move to the state until 1926. Oregon's founding is part of the forgotten history of racism in the American west.

    Waddles Coffee Shop in Portland, Oregon was a popular restaurant in the 1950s for both locals and travelers alike. The drive-in catered to America's postwar obsession with car culture, allowing people to get coffee and a slice of pie without even leaving their vehicle. But if you happened to be black, the owners of Waddles implored you to keep on driving. The restaurant had a sign outside with a very clear message: "White Trade Only -- Please."

    It's the kind of scene from the 1950s that's so hard for many Americans to imagine happening outside of the Jim Crow South. How could a progressive, northern city like Portland have allowed a restaurant to exclude non-white patrons? This had to be an anomaly, right? In reality it was far too common in Oregon, a state that was explicitly founded as a kind of white utopia.


    Howdy, I went to Waddles (none / 0) (#155)
    by fishcamp on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 05:48:09 AM EST
    hundreds of times in high school and college and never saw a sign "White Trade Only".  I find that part of the story difficult to believe.

    Beats me (none / 0) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 08:07:12 AM EST
    I heard the part about a racist utopia on HERE AND NOW, which is set in Portland.  Never heard it so I googled and that was one of many things I found.

    No idea about the sign.  But the rest is widely reported and does not seem disputed.


    Theresa long story (none / 0) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 08:26:46 AM EST
    Howdy, I'm not disputing (none / 0) (#185)
    by fishcamp on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 10:24:06 AM EST
    the fact that Portland was racist, but those two photos don't prove anything.  The first photo doesn't show Waddles nor the racist sign, and the racist sign shown could be anywhere.

    By accident I got along with the black kids in my high school.  I may have told this story before, but anyway I was expelled from school the first day.  Unbeknownst to me I had been assigned a locker with an older black girl who had brought four quarts of homemade Loganberry wine and put it in "our" locker.  The next day I was reinstated and since I didn't roll or snitch (didn't even know those words then) on Maddy Odom the message got out that I was ok.  The bad black kids did wait to beat up skinny white kids, like me, after school.  They let me pass by.  Later I was asked if I wanted to learn to shoot pool at the Fancy Q pool hall in the Albina District.  I was the only white kid in there.  Jefferson High School in Portland had 4,000 students in 1956, when I graduated, and 43% were black.  


    Here ya go (none / 0) (#200)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 03:28:29 PM EST
    H/t Towanda



    I found a photo of the sign (none / 0) (#199)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 03:05:40 PM EST
    at Waddles's in the Washington State University archives, another archive in California, etc., from a fast Google search.

    Cadet Bone Spurs is obviously a coward. (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 10:25:18 AM EST
    Notice how he never seems to fire anyone face to face (except on TV). Comey was in California, Tillerson in Africa. This guy is the lowest kind of slime. Every flag should be flown upside down until he's gone. By any means necessary.

    Interesting find Towanda/Captain. (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 04:15:26 PM EST
    Since fish often doesn't hang out here enough to respond, I looked into it a little.

    The early 1950's photo you found of the overhang with the "White Trade Only Please" sign does not show the name "Waddles" anywhere.

    However, this photo, from the mid/late 1950's judging by the cars, shows that exact same overhang and and the "Waddles" sign, but no discernible "WTOP" sign.

    This later photo, from the 1960's judging by the cars, shows a remodeled overhang and definitely no "WTOP" sign.

    Anyway, Waddles was opened in 1945. Not sure when the sign was put up, but it looks like it was taken down sometime in the early/mid 1950's.

    The first photo (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 04:21:23 PM EST
    Was dated 1852

    Conor Lamb is going to win (4.75 / 4) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 08:23:47 AM EST
    And we should be happy about that.

    I am all for running "real" democrats.  When they can win.  That would not be in PA 18. It is a deeply red district.  If Lamb wins it will be an earthquake.  Trump will be humiliated.  There will be another round of retirements.  

    IMO if we want to be a majority we are going to need to stop with the increasing purity tests.  

    Lamb is a democrat.  He would vote for a democrat for speaker.  He might vote your way every time but he will more than a republican

    Personally I plan to celebrate his victory

    The GOP (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 10:04:37 AM EST
    sure is acting like the numbers for Saccone are worse than the public polls. They are already talking about what a bad candidate Saccone is.

    I hope you are right and Lamb does win. And I'm with you on blue dogs. Right now in my district a blue dog that votes D even 40% of the time would be a dream versus the tea party idiot I have representing me.


    Peter g: 4. Agrees 80% that Lamb wins? (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 02:25:27 PM EST
    Monmouth (none / 0) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 07:25:44 PM EST
    Lamb holds a 51% to 45% lead over Saccone if turnout yields a Democratic surge similar to voting patterns seen in other special elections over the past year. Another 1% opt for a third party candidate and 3% are undecided. Lamb also has the edge using a historical midterm lower turnout model, albeit by a much smaller 49% to 47% margin. A model with higher turnout overall, similar to a presidential electorate, gives Lamb a 51% to 44% advantage. This marks a turnaround from last month's Monmouth poll of the race, when Saccone held a small lead in all the models - 49% to 46% in the surge model, 48% to 44% in the high turnout model, and 50% to 45% in the low turnout model.



    Nope. It means (none / 0) (#135)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 08:44:19 PM EST
    that I found the great majority of what Howdy wrote there to be commendable, insightful and well-put, but that, at the same time, I strongly disagree with one or two of his main points.

    With the PA congressional (none / 0) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 03:08:35 PM EST
    districts redrawn as of Nov 2018, neither candidate will live in the same district at this time,--a special election.

     A Special Election because of the resignation of Republican Tim Murphy's resignation after the anti-abortion Congressman was caught on texts urging his mistress to have an abortion.

     Lamb will go into the 17th district and Saccone into a newly formed 18th district.   So, even more interesting as a harbinger.


    Exactly so (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 03:39:35 PM EST
    That republicans are dumping so much cash into this race means it matters.



    Executive pardon (none / 0) (#3)
    by linea on Sat Mar 10, 2018 at 03:12:05 PM EST
    Trump pardons, congratulates Navy sailor who took illegal submarine photos

    First, submarines aren't illegal, they're just shy. Second, I never heard of this incident during the campaign but I like that he got pardoned as the charge seems rather excessive for showing your family some photos.

    He could've received 10 years ... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 10, 2018 at 03:47:43 PM EST
    ... and a $250,000 fine on the photos alone, let alone the charges they didn't bring as part of his plea deal (he falsely denied taking the photos, destroyed evidence and told a witness not to talk).  6-12 months, 100 hours of community service and a $100 fine seems very light.

    Jeff Sessions (none / 0) (#5)
    by linea on Sat Mar 10, 2018 at 04:46:57 PM EST
    DOJ has filed a lawsuit against the State of California challenging three recently enacted laws. While I believe local police should not inquire of nationality or immigration status, in my opinion, these laws place people and businesses in a difficult position and seem to overtly interfere with Federal law enforcement.

    AB 450 prohibits private employers from cooperating with federal immigration officials and requires that private employers notify employees in advance of a potential worksite enforcement inspection. DOJ claims that this forces California employers to be caught between state and federal law. Business owners could be fined $2,000 to $10,000 for failing to comply with AB 450.

    SB 54 prevents local law enforcement from providing information to federal authorities about the release date of undocumented immigrants who are in their custody and bans the transfer of these criminal immigrants to federal custody. This breaks federal law that pertains to communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, DOJ officials said.

    AB 103 imposes a state-run inspection and review of the federal detention of immigrants held in facilities pursuant to federal contracts and includes a review of immigration processes and the circumstances in which immigrants were apprehended. This review applies only to facilities with civil immigration detainees. The law seeks to regulate federal immigration detention, according to the complaint, which is not allowed under the Constitution.

    Lawsuit (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Steve13209 on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 07:03:19 AM EST
    Perhaps a lawsuit will bring many of the ICE atrocities to light. A state's laws are to protect their citizens. In this case, they are to protect Californians from an out of control federal police force.

    Actually (none / 0) (#149)
    by linea on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 11:37:27 PM EST
    That is a very good point that I had not considered.

    I am opposed to private prisons. And I most certainly would want State health, safety, and welfare inspections of any facility that held persons whether or not they held persons under a federal contract.  

    I don't know how the courts will rule on this issue.


    Don't forget (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 10, 2018 at 05:09:48 PM EST

    Article on why fat acceptance might not be (none / 0) (#8)
    by McBain on Sat Mar 10, 2018 at 06:42:35 PM EST
    a good thing.

    Public health experts fear that this trend toward "fat acceptance" bodes ill for future well-being and the soaring costs of chronic weight-related ailments like heart disease, hypertension, Type 2 diabetes and more than a dozen kinds of cancer. As Dr. Burke wrote in a recent issue of JAMA devoted to obesity, public health and medical professionals worry that "individuals who do not believe they are overweight, or who view obesity in a positive light, are less likely to seek treatment for weight loss."

    I agree with some of that as well as this...

    "Low cardio-respiratory fitness may pose a greater risk to health than obesity."

    But I don't like the advice it gives about counting calories.  It's 2018, we're long overdue to move past calories as a dietary and exercise measurement.

    Paywall !! (none / 0) (#10)
    by linea on Sat Mar 10, 2018 at 07:37:58 PM EST
    I could only read the first paragraph.

    But I will say that I'm pretty much an expert on dieting and the reality is, there are only three serious ways to lose weight:

    • Count calories. Most people don't know the total maximum daily calories they should limit themselves too.  
    • A diet that restricts portion size, or swaps foods (i.e., food replacement), or some other trick that lowers your total caloric intake.
    • A very low carbohydrate diet.

    In my opinion, exercising to lose weight is pointless and often counterproductive.


    Yup. In my experience (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 05:55:35 PM EST
    people who make a lasting change in their weight, did it by making a lasting change in their eating habits.

    People who lose a significant amount of weight (none / 0) (#12)
    by McBain on Sat Mar 10, 2018 at 08:46:03 PM EST
    "dieting" usually gain it back.  I don't believe counting calories works well in the long run.  It's more important to focus on quality first, not quantity.  

    People often fail to lose weight with exercise for several reasons including too much focus on steady state low intensity aerobic exercise.

    I also don't like people using a scale to tell them if they're healthy or look good.  Often people who lose weight look worse and are no more healthy than before.  The problem is the important measurements (hormones, body composition, VO2 max)aren't easy to get.



    Well, you only lose weight if you're (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 10, 2018 at 09:19:15 PM EST
    burning more calories than you're taking in, so you have to have some kind of idea of those calories.

    Portion control is important: deck of cards (protein) hockey puck (carbs), baseball (veg).  Most people who eyeball it eat more than they should.  And how it's cooked/prepared matters, too.  You can be eating the right portions, but if you're using a lot of fat, or sugar, that's not going to matter much, and you're not going to be losing weight.

    Exercise is important for some things, like cardiac health, but it isn't what drives most weight loss.

    All things in moderation isn't the worst way to live.


    No, the human body is more complicated than that (none / 0) (#38)
    by McBain on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 03:59:13 PM EST
    The calories in vs. calories out model is one of many diet/exercise misconceptions.  Most people don't really know what a calorie is because it's complicated. Here's a decent article on this topic..
    1 calorie is the amount of energy required to increase the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree Celsius...

    ...What we usually refer to as "calories" is actually kilocalories (kcal). One kilocalorie, or one dietary Calorie (with a capital "C") is the energy required to heat 1 kilogram of water by 1 degree celsius.

    More from the author of the artice,Kris Gunnars,

    I think the notion of "calories in vs. calories out" is ridiculous.

    Foods affect our bodies in different ways and go through different metabolic pathways.

    Not only that, but the foods we eat can directly affect the hormones that regulate when and how much we eat.

    Therefore, the types of foods we base our diet around are just as important as the amount of calories we are eating.

    The hormonal effect to both diet and exercise is huge. It's why some lucky skinny people can eat just about as much as they want and stay skinny. Hormones such as insulin and cortisol effect the metabolism.


    Not sure about that (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 07:33:29 AM EST
    There are all kinds of trendy theories, but running a caloric deficit seems to have wide agreement as necessary to loose weight.

    Your "complications" and assertion that you are among the cognoscenti who really understand human metabolism is of little help to those just wishing to manage their weight.

    Just eating healthy food without regard to caloric intake can be a trap.  Take orange juice for example.  Pure, no sugar added, fresh squeezed orange juice.  Why not drink a couple of glasses when thirsty?  Because it is very high in sugar and a glass can easily exceed 100 calories.


    What? (none / 0) (#55)
    by linea on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 07:52:37 PM EST
    That article is jibberish.

    No, foods have little impact on hormones, if any. No, there isn't a magic `metabolic pathway' and obese people can't blame it on a pseudo-medical `metabolic problem' when they are eating too much chocolate cake. And no, it has absolutely nothing to do with `an unbreakable law of physics.' Seriously, he read three Wiki articles, mixed them together, and wrote that?

    Low calories or Low carbohydrates.
    That's it.


    Do you have any evidence to support (none / 0) (#57)
    by McBain on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 08:18:30 PM EST
    No, foods have little impact on hormones, if any.

    One of the common benefits of a low carb diet is it's effect on the hormone insulin.  Insulin comes to the rescue when we eat sweets or starchy food that spikes our blood sugar (glucose). It helps return glucose to a healthy level when possible.  When people completely abuse this process, insulin isn't able to do the job and people get metabolic syndrome or type 2 diabetes.  

    Another problem with eating sweets is it can negatively effect the body's release of HGH at night when we sleep.  Unfortunately, I enjoy eating sweets at night.

    The problem with a "low carb" approach is it isn't enough information. People need to know what the healthy fats are proteins are.

    obese people can't blame it on a pseudo-medical `metabolic problem' when they are eating too much chocolate cake.

    I mostly agree.  Obese people usually have horrible eating habits but different people have different metabolisms. Some can eat all the chocolate cake they want without gaining weight.  But that doesn't mean they are healthy. There are plenty of unhealthy skinny people walking around.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#64)
    by linea on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 09:15:47 PM EST
    the human body is more complicated than that
    by McBain

    When you eat food, the pancreas creates and releases insulin into the blood to process glucose.

    Arguably, the hormones leptin and ghrelin regulate appetite. But that's questionable. It's a complex process and despite the pop-science diet articles there is no valid science to assert that whole grains, or any other food, manipulates some hormone  that consequently makes one less hungry. And spinach won't increase testosterone.


    linea, by (none / 0) (#124)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 06:03:44 PM EST
    low carbs, do you really mean simple carbohydrates (processed sugars) and starches and pasta?

    What about the "good" carbs like veggies?

    I think the paleo diet is interesting. What do you think?


    Thank you!! (none / 0) (#153)
    by linea on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 03:21:33 AM EST
    Re: `I think the paleo diet is interesting. What do you think?'

    Thank you for asking my opinion. That's very sweet of you.

    On the paleo diet
    I consider the paleo diet a fad and little more than a twist on the low carb diet. If it helps you lose weight at all, it's only by reducing carbohydrates. I don't consider the paleo diet to be healthy or representative of the diets of early peoples who lived during the Paleolithic era. Additionally, nutritional anthropologists have documented that diets of many hunter gatherer peoples and they are quite poor nutritionally.

    On veggies during a low carb diet
    I love cauliflower in hollandaise sauce (yes, it sounds bland but I love it). During my last low carb diet, I consider having cauliflower in butter as a replacement until I realized how many carbs cauliflower has. Mushrooms have too many carbs too. If there is a zero carb vegetable, I don't know what it is. In the past I've eaten celery on a low carb diet but I won't do that now.

    On low carb diets generally
    I consider low carb diets to be unhealthy. But you can most certainly lose considerable weight on a low carb diet. My low carb diet typically lasts 4 - 6 weeks. It is easy to lose 10 pounds in a month without ever feeling hungry. My goal is always as close to zero daily carbs as possible and my low carb diet is also low in calories.

    Typically, I eat fish and sea food. Costco! I like to make a simple soup of fish, scallops, and shrimp (or other sea food) in chicken broth with minced ginger and minced habanero pepper for flavor. At work for lunch I have a single hard boiled egg. For me, cheating is having a beef jerky (about 3 carbs) rather than an egg.

    On my low calorie diets
    My standard diet is Very Low Calorie (VLC) and usually a variety of soups and the occasional apple. Unless I'm feeling crazy and go on a milk-only diet for a week or two (I like sweet milk so I add Splenda).

    A simple maintenance diet that I made up is `soup and salad.' At home eat mostly soup and the occasional small salad. When out with friends at a restaurant order a big chef salad and don't worry about it.

    A simple diet for lazy people is to fill your freezer with one of every Lean Cuisine and Healthy Choice frozen dinners and simply eat one for each meal until the freezer is empty. If that's too extreme, include a daily apple.

    Theoretically, the best and healthiest diet would be to determine the calories needed to maintain your ideal weight (for me that is 1300 calories) and regardless of your current weight simply commit to never exceeding that caloric amount for the rest of your life.

    Healthy Body Calculator


    What a boring culinary life. (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 08:24:02 AM EST
    Part of what makes life interesting is eating different and interesting foods. That's the best part of traveling the world. If I had to go through life eating bland food, or the same fare every day, I'd be looking for the exit door. And yes, I am overweight.

    I don't eat boring foods (none / 0) (#187)
    by linea on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 11:14:18 AM EST
    Typically, my diets only last one month.

    When I'm not dieting, I go to restaurants and eat a wide variety of foods. Seattle has many Japanese sushi restaurants and restaurants that specialize in Taiwanese dumplings, Vietnamese pho soup, Himalayan cuisine, traditional Mexican foods, fresh oysters and seafood, and artisan chocolate specialties.

    One does not need to travel to dangerous third-word countries to eat unique and interesting foods. In addition to being physically dangerous those countries lack sanitary standards and cholera, parasitic flatworms, and other food-bourne diseases are common. Travel advisories for countries like Vietnam recommend not eating street food and to instead eat at the large tourist hotels.


    The Lean Cuisine diet would be (none / 0) (#194)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 12:12:37 PM EST
    sky-high in sodium - not really the best way to go.  Lean Cuisine Glazed Chicken has 450 mg of sodium.

    I love salt.  But having just had to go on medication for my blood pressure, it seems salt is going to be a casualty of my condition.  

    Food just does not taste the same.  Mrs. Dash adds flavor, but it's not the same.

    The recommended amount of sodium per day is less than 2,300 mg, which is less than a teaspoon - and that's not added salt, that's total.

    Anyway, I have cut back dramatically, and telling myself I will someday get used to food without salt.

    Not sure I buy that, but we'll see,


    Nope (none / 0) (#195)
    by linea on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 12:32:28 PM EST
    Not healthy at all. I don't consider any fast weight loss diet to be healthy. But they work. The frozen dinner diet is actually a suggestion for people who don't like to cook. Also, my diets are typically only one month.

    From the articles I have read, losing weight has a dramatic effect on lowering blood pressure. If you're skinny, you can eat sea salt and vinegar potato chips.


    Steady state low intensity (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 10, 2018 at 10:46:12 PM EST
    cardio.   Yes, the trend is to hate it, and like the HIIT (high intensity) stuff....

    That tends to boost metabolism, and assist weight loss.  But old school cardio--running, etc.--is really quite good at building heart health.

    And, you need a caloric deficit to loose weight.  No way around that.  All kinds of gimmicks and ways to do it.


    Sleep (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 10, 2018 at 11:14:15 PM EST
    Apparently, a new gimmick that many believe in, is that sleep is helpful in losing weight.

    Yes sleep is very important to achieving (none / 0) (#40)
    by McBain on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 04:07:38 PM EST
    or maintaining a healthy/lean body. It's not a gimmick.  You can often breath out more bodyweight while sleeping than you can sweat out doing aerobic exercise.

    I disagree with your other post...

    And, you need a caloric deficit to loose weight.  No way around that

    As I explained to Anne, the human body is more complicated than that.  I tend to lose weight when I exercise less because I lose muscle mass.  I can't do that forever, at some point my metabolism will change and I'll gain fat if don't put the muscle back on.  Lots of complex things going on inside the body.

    Yes, you will lose weight if you lose muscle mass (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by vml68 on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 06:53:03 PM EST
    I tend to lose weight when I exercise less because I lose muscle mass.

    because muscle weighs more than fat. But, the whole point of diet combined with exercise is to create a calorie deficit greater than what would be achieved by diet alone. (Aside from all the other health benefits of exercise)
    Diet - Fewer calories consumed, fewer to burn. Exercise = more muscle = more calories burned.
    So, the slight increase in weight due to increased muscle mass is offset by the higher number of calories burned.


    There's nothing magic about a calorie (none / 0) (#54)
    by McBain on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 07:39:16 PM EST
    knowing the caloric value or expenditure of something doesn't give you enough information to know how it will affect the human body.  
    muscle weighs more than fat

    Not quite.  A pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat... one pound.  You probably mean muscle is more dense than fat.
    But, the whole point of diet combined with exercise is to create a calorie deficit greater than what would be achieved by diet alone.

    The food we eat supplies our bodies with important nutrients. That's why it's good to eat nutrient dense food like grass feed beef, wild caught salmon and organic vegetables like broccoli.

    The physical stress we put on our body (sometimes through exercise) can signal the release of certain hormones like testosterone and HGH.  It can also influence the our body processes oxygen (VO2 max being one measurement). Having a goodly amount of those hormones and a healthy VO2 max is consistent with a body that will be healthy and resist fat gain.

    Focusing on calories is not a wise long term strategy for just about any goal, including weight loss.  Unfortunately,  with all the misinformation out there we're still stuck in the 20th century.  


    You have to start somewhere, and (none / 0) (#56)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 07:57:52 PM EST
    given that we all must eat in order to go on living, what we're ingesting seems like a good place.

    Yes, we're all different.  We all know people who eat whatever they want, in whatever quantities they want, who never seem to gain an ounce.  And it isn't because they spend hours in the gym.  We also know people who don't seem to be able to lose weight no matter how little they eat or how much they exercise.

    It's genetics, it's hormones, it's medications, it's metabolism.  Do you know that some teenage diabetics will sometimes reduce or go off insulin because it can cause them to lose weight?

    I don't buy into the junk science of certain foods, or foods eaten at specified times, leading to weight loss; that's the nonsense that's brought us the cabbage soup diet and the grapefruit diet.  High carbs, low carbs, no carbs, ketogenic - there's a diet for everyone.

    Is it any wonder that so many struggle with their weight?  It's a gazillion dollar industry.  Medifast, Jenny Craig, Nutrisystem, WeightWatchers, Mayo Clinic, 21-day fix: money, money, money!

    We all have to eat.  Our bodies, our chemistry, it all changes over time.  If what you're putting into your body, together with your essential chemistry/hormones/genetics, makes you gain weight, you have to put less of it in your mouth.


    My statement 'muscle weighs more than fat', (none / 0) (#73)
    by vml68 on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 10:26:24 PM EST
    was missing 'by volume' at the end of that sentence. Which is why your weight can stay about the same but you will be a lot thinner/slimmer, if you have more muscle.

    The Grand Cheeto (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 07:41:44 AM EST
    was proclaimed to be built like an NFL linebacker due to him being 6'3" (no, he isn't) and weighting some 230 odd pounds.

    What was missing was body composition.  An NFL linebacker is likely  to be less than 15% body fat; not so the Grand Cheeto.  And since muscle is denser than fat, the NFL linebacker will have less overall mass.....


    I disagree (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 07:38:07 AM EST
    Look to those who do this professionally:  body-builders.  They are still taking calories into account.  When they are in a "cutting" phase, they run a caloric deficit.

    Just saying things are complicated is not a plan for good health.  


    Professional bodybuilders take all kinds (none / 0) (#88)
    by McBain on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 10:00:18 AM EST
    of drugs to help achieve their muscle mass.  They  understand how important hormones are to shaping their bodies.

    Just saying things are complicated is not a plan for good health.  

    Not sure what you mean by that.  Human movement and digestion are complicated.  Go count calories if you want.

    I've had discussions like these for many years.  Talking about diet and exercise is like talking about politics or religion. People don't like to change their ways.  


    And I'd bet that another of your (3.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 10:29:47 AM EST
    favorite discussions is, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

    If you are going (none / 0) (#115)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 04:31:04 PM EST
    to categorically reject caloric intake as relevant, and do so dismissively of most modern fitness and nutrition experts, you would do well to provide a link or two.

    And, not just on how hormones and HIIT training are important, but to back up your assertion that caloric deficits are not required to lose weight.

    You basically imply here that you, and you alone (remind anyone of "I alone can fix it"), know all the intricacies of the human body and can see through the tired and erroneous dogma about fitness that us lesser educated people accept.  All based on your say-so.

    Yes, fitness can be a complicated subject, but I am generally quite open to trying new things, and at least once here on this forum have done so-- taking up a tidbit on glucosamine that I think Tracy tipped me to.  But you do not provide new facts or interesting detail--just your own broad pronouncements on how the rest of us have it all wrong.

    Tu no eres El Papa.


    I already provided a link to an article (none / 0) (#126)
    by McBain on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 07:14:50 PM EST
    that gave a good, basic summery of the flaws of the calorie in vs. calorie out theory.  In that article is a link to another article that goes into more detail

    The following explanation may be difficult to understand if you've been brainwashed with the "calorie in, calorie out" logic. It takes time to digest the concept (it did for me, too).

    Here's what's wrong with calorie obsession: It's absolutely meaningsless. It may seem logical and smart, but in fact it says naught, zip and nothing.

    Here's a third link that might be the best

    The False Premise Of CICO #Fails To Account For...

    How Calories Are Calculated
    Your Body's Hormone Response
    The Quality of The Calories
    Your Body Fat Setpoint
    Addiction and Dependency
    The Macronutrient Breakdown
    Aside from that, the math based on the calories in, calories out model is clearly out of whack.

    No surprise but you mistated my point with this quote..

    You basically imply here that you, and you alone (remind anyone of "I alone can fix it"), know all the intricacies of the human body and can see through the tired and erroneous dogma about fitness that us lesser educated people accept.

    Not even close.  Once again, this is my main point... its 2018, we need to move beyond counting calories as an effective method for the goals of long term health and weight loss. I'm not the worlds expert on this topic but it is something I've studied/practiced for a long time.

    Your "third article" (none / 0) (#129)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 07:44:23 PM EST
    is interesting.   But even there you find this quote:


    By stabilizing insulin and providing the body with mostly satiety triggering macronutrients -- fat and protein -- low carb diets automatically limit calorie intake (through the natural balance of hunger hormones).

    So, the thrust of the article, as I interpret it, is to achieve a diet that helps with fat burning by not slavishly looking only to calorie counts.  And, by adhering to what I call "gimmicks," or perhaps better stated as eating strategies, to avoid the body's response to starvation by slowing metabolism, etc.  

    It doesn't really say caloric intake does not matter, but more the composition of what you eat matters greatly and can affect metabolism, etc.  I did clink on the link for their "cheat sheet" on eating. We'll see what rabbit hole that leads to.



    Okay, I tried it (none / 0) (#130)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 08:11:36 PM EST
    Your third link leads to an article and then to a "program."  Yep, selling product.  Another guru.  

    But no studies or other reliable data to support this article.


    You're free to do you own research (none / 0) (#140)
    by McBain on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 09:30:00 PM EST
    I provided you with articles plus my take. No one is saying you can't lose weight on a calorie restricted diet but many people, including me, are saying it's a losing long term strategy.  It's one of the wrong turns we've taken over the years.  

    In general, I think think obsessing with weight is a bad idea.  



    It all depends on what (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 07:52:04 AM EST
    you mean by exercise.

    Weight training keeps or build muscle mass.  If you stop weight training, you will tend to lose muscle mass.

    Exercise increases one's metabolism.  If you stop exercising, in general, your metabolism tends to go down.  And if your food intake remains the same, you will tend to gain weight.

    And, I am frankly quite dubious about the current war on cardio.  Some types of cardio may be better at fat burning than others.  But even steady state cardio does increase heart health and increase metabolism.  

    Bashing cardio is unhelpful, and for a tired mind or body looking for an excuse to not exercise, downing cardio is the perfect rationalization--"heh, why should I do this when it not only unfun, but is also not even good for you.".

    The key is to exercise, and telling people people they are not doing it right if they are a runner, etc., is not only condescending but counterproductive.  


    Some people are fat, some grossly so and (none / 0) (#28)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 11:33:45 AM EST
    others to some lesser degree.  I see fat acceptance in two ways: one, that it isn't up to others to judge fat people for being fat and, two, that it's okay for fat people to come to terms with and accept that fat is what they are, but not who they are.

    If someone is fat and has blood pressure within acceptable ranges, cholesterol the same, is reasonably and comfortably active, then what's the big deal?  Problem is that we don't wear our biometrics on our foreheads, so no one knows what our health situation is - and as we all know, people who look fit and healthy may not be.

    So, it's about making judgments, and about accepting things about ourselves.  Fat people probably already do enough self-shaming, they don't need the rest of us doing it to them.


    No fat acceptance at the NHS (none / 0) (#21)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 10:45:52 AM EST
    Not just IVF (none / 0) (#22)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 10:50:26 AM EST
    Good article (none / 0) (#35)
    by linea on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 03:03:37 PM EST
    It's a year old, but still a good article on how the Conservatives were purposefully underfunding the NHS and implementing restrictions on access to treatment.

    If citizens of the United Kingdom feel delaying hip or knee surgery for dangerously overweight patients is untenable, they are welcome to vote Labour and `return our NHS to its founding principle of universal provision, free at the point of need, with best quality of care for all.


    Having a 47 year old (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 10:50:29 AM EST
    Morbidly fat nephew drop dead of a massive heart attack less than a month ago I am sympathetic to the intolerance

    Or by US insurance companies (none / 0) (#63)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 09:13:41 PM EST
    Told to Lose Weight Before a Joint Replacement? Here's Why.

    According to The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) "Obesity is one of the most common diseases that adversely affect bone and joint health." It's also one of the most common reasons that patients are denied a joint replacement or surgery is postponed.

    As far as IVF, NHS covers that?  Wow!  The vast majority of Americans don't have IVF benefits, so the fact that NHS is requiring some patients to increase their chance of success for an expensive, elective procedure by losing weight isn't that surprising.  Good to know that the NHS coverage is so much better than private, US insurance system.

    But maybe that's not what you were going for?


    Did you ever notice (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 10, 2018 at 07:03:39 PM EST
    People only cough in movies when they are dying?

    Did you ever notice (none / 0) (#11)
    by linea on Sat Mar 10, 2018 at 07:54:04 PM EST
    If the door is locked, shoot the keypad and the door will open.

    If you want the door locked, shoot the keypad and the door will be locked.

    Air ducts are exactly large enough for the smallest member of the team and even provide access to bank vaults.

    The Samurai Katana sword is such a devastating weapon that one wonders why we even bothered to invent machine guns or space laser-blasters.


    Air ducts (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 10:53:00 AM EST

    They are always sparkling clean to boot.

    And well lighted n/t (none / 0) (#51)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 05:53:15 PM EST
    ... of that burning midtown office tower recently seized by impeccably well-dressed and highly literate European villains is always just long enough for our hero to rappel several floors below in order to both escape the raging inferno above AND ambush the unsuspecting bad guys, who are overconfident after the Police Dept.'s assault helicopter crashed to the street below, thanks to a timely shot of one of their rocket-propelled grenades.

    And of course, even though the suave villains are armed to the teeth with automatic weapons and said rocket-propelled grenades and never seem to run out of ammo, they prove to be such lousy shots that they always miss our hero, who just so happens to be a crack marksman with the single-shot pistol he's carrying.

    Hooray for Hollywood.


    This is also true in opera. (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 09:01:01 PM EST
    Currently working on my entry (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 10:45:04 AM EST

    Will post pics when it's done.  I'm doing an egg with an IT smile

    I'm using a mold of my own teeth taken a few years ago embedded in the plaster egg.

    My sister has (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 04:07:44 PM EST
    yapping dog

    I love my sister but every time you visit there is the dog.  Yap yap yap.

    I adopted a tiny chihuahua (none / 0) (#44)
    by McBain on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 04:26:47 PM EST
    a couple months ago.  She gets along well with my other dog most of the time but she does yap a bit when scared.  She's also not entirely house broken yet so there are some challenges but, for the most part, she's awesome.

    Both dogs are about to graduate from training class this week.


    What is (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 08:25:31 AM EST
    Your other dog

    Good question (none / 0) (#87)
    by McBain on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 09:53:04 AM EST
    They are both rescue dogs.  The chihuahua looks to be a pure breed.  Our other dog might be a terrier/beagle mix with perhaps some chihuahua as well.  

    I forgot if you have dogs?  


    I have three rescue dogs (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 10:01:46 AM EST
    Purely by coincidence they are all pure blood.

    A white Siberian husky a golden retriever and a chocolate lab.

    I know its wrong and illogical but I judge people by their dogs.  I'm sure there will be disagreement but IMO "real" dogs are big dogs.   I love dogs, even small ones but I have never had a small one.

    Thank you for rescuing dogs.  And I'm glad your other dog is not a toy dog.  


    We had a problem for awhile (none / 0) (#94)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 12:48:41 PM EST
    with everybody and his uncle around here getting pit bulls, as if they were some new, popular, fashion accessory. Get a tattoo, get pierced, and get a pit bull.

    One of the problems is people often get them from shelters, so the dogs are often urban 'damaged goods', meaning they were formally owned by some misguided sh*t-for-brains who wanted a badass dog and did things to make them that way, so that now maybe one-in-ten is a potential ticking time bomb, and that's too many.

    I speak from experience, in that a friend's brother was killed by one back in the eighties. It's the kind of thing you don't forget. On the other hand, I'll be the first to admit they have a lot of charm and some of them can be sweethearts; they're one of those breeds that literally smiles when they're happy. But overall, I think the breed has been ruined near irrevocably. I know The Dog Whisperer thinks differently, but on that score I think he's fos.


    We agree (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 02:21:36 PM EST
    Most pit bull owners should be put down

    Ironically (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 02:50:32 PM EST
    some states or localities in Ohio require you to have Pit Bull insurance if you want to have a pit in your home but don't require insurance for the ultimate killing machine a gun.

    The thing pit bulls and guns (none / 0) (#106)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 03:29:46 PM EST
    have in common is that too many maladjusted azoles are attracted to them.

    Pit bulls are dogs (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 03:36:46 PM EST
    Protective dogs like German shepherds and Doberman
    I have known pit bulls that are as sweet and harmless as any beagle.

    If you would like to have a memory that will haunt your dreams forever visit a shelter in LA.

    The one I visited had a pit bull building.  Seeing what has been done to these animals will stay with you.

    The owners should be put down


    Lasting impressions.. (none / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 03:51:38 PM EST
    one of the few times I was at the animal shelter here, in the ten minutes I was there, a pit bull somehow got his nose under the ceiling-to-floor chainlink divider and bent it up for the sole purpose of crawling under and attacking the golden retreiver in the next enclosure.

    What other dog does that kind of thing?
    I know Caesar says they're no worse than dobermans and shephereds, but my ass.


    I don't know what Caesar (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 03:59:32 PM EST
    Says or who that is.

    It's what I said.  My nephew has a pit bull that is as harmless as a kitten.

    If you train a dog to attack and kill from time time they can walk they will attack and kill.


    Any dog (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 04:02:12 PM EST
    Large enough.

    PS (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 04:10:32 PM EST
    I have three rowdy dogs who spend most of the time in the yard unsupervised.

    I just kept Rocky, my nephews 3 year old PB, for a weekend.   There was not a single cross word.  Or bark.


    Yeah I've known a couple (none / 0) (#114)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 04:20:43 PM EST
    of sweet-tempered ones and had run-ins with the ticking time bomb type. There's just too many of the latter around, imo.

    There's a reason why if you google child killed dog or child mauled dog, 9 out of 10 times it was a pit bull. There's also a reason why they're the dog of choice of people who stage dog fights.


    I like the Chinese approach (none / 0) (#116)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 04:33:41 PM EST
    to venting the lust for blood sport: cricket fights. It used to be a big thing over there.

    There is a reason they are called pit bull (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 04:33:51 PM EST
    Of course.  They are bred for it.  High pain tolerance, tenacity etc.

    Terrier were bred to hunt and kill rats.  They don't all kill rats.

    Pit bulls have characteristics that mean they can't always be treated like other dogs.  They don't take abuse well for instance.  

    You can kick your lab through a hedge and he will beg for more.  A pit might not have the same reaction.

    I don't argue sometimes pit bulls attack for no reason.  I had a friend who had an Afghan who never harmed a living thing until one day for no reason it ripped her face off.

    Here's what I think.  Dogs are inherently good.  Even pit bulls.  They are in every way that matters superior to humans.  They are more loyal, more honest and more selfless.

    You can make a dog anything including a weapon.


    Raising dogs (5.00 / 6) (#118)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 05:08:22 PM EST
    teaches me about people.

    I had a Golden that knew only love his whole life.  He was born to a young family with kids that had the mama and papa Goldens.   When I picked up my Golden, the young girl of the family gave me a scrap book of his little puppy life in her home.  Photos and papers.

    After we had the Golden for a couple of weeks, the little girl from his birth home had her mom take her to come by and visit him in his new home.  We passed muster. Then, the girl's family had a re-union a year later with all the pups in the litter and their new people.

    My Golden was never yelled at; no rolled up newspapers, etc.  Once he tried to go outside desperately and did not make it, and threw up in the house.  He was devastated he "went" in the house.  Had to console him.

    This Golden loved everyone and every other dog.  Early on, I would let him off leash and he would run across a field to greet another dog--great joy!  Another friend to play with.  I had to stop this as he got older--he was big, and charging across a field at a little kid--to play with and kiss--made the moms mighty uneasy, not knowing what he would do.

    Love in--love out.  Simple lesson.  Hate in, hate out.  Violence in, violence out.  

    And, it occurred to me that we as "owners" have complete power to make a dog happy or miserable.  Makes you wonder about a human's susceptibility to their environment.


    I wish I could (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 05:10:16 PM EST
    Give this a 10

    But it's not true you guys (none / 0) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 09:57:40 PM EST
    Dogs don't have much prefrontal cortex. They don't emotionally scar very easily.

    I love dogs, could not live without them. And dogs deserve every kindness. Pit Bulls have been specifically bred since my great grandfather was kicking around to not be able to interpret social structure. That is what prevents most dogs from being out of hand aggressive. The problems with Pits is 100% genetic. Their prey drive can completely overtake any sense of social structure they might understand.

    When most dogs go through law enforcement type training, theit natural ability to interpret or respect social structure is what in part the training attempts to over ride.

    The temperament of Goldens though is largely genetic also. Generations of selective breeding.

    Dogs are also born introverts and extroverts. Every shy dog you meet is not the product of abuse.

    And genetics in dog temperament is so strong that the dogs our military uses...the littermates that are not selected for training and service are euthanized. They cannot become someone's pet. They cannot be trusted. They were not bred to be family pets.


    Probably the best way (none / 0) (#197)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 01:14:39 PM EST
    to raise a pit bull would be to bring it up as a pup with other non-pit bull dogs, so that it's older pack instinct is reinforced in order to override the hyper-aggressive predatory instinct.

    The bad ones these days are raised in relative isolation, so that they may bond with one or two humans who often have social 'issues' themselves.


    I wouldn't stop at dogs (none / 0) (#120)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 05:13:19 PM EST
    For instance, I've developed a real fondness and deep appreciation of the foxes and crows around here in the last few years.

    One thing I've noticed about dogs and even cats is that they're more quick to respond to a person in distress and upset than most humans are.

    As old Walt said, they're so placid and self-contained..


    Cats are very (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 05:36:40 PM EST
    sensitive and their disposition seems related to that of their owners.  Our first cat was truly a rescue...taken in after being abandoned during a hurricane and a part of the family for the next 12  years until cancer took her away.  Our present cat, so different from the first, but a treasure that brings the same joy. A rescue from a Kill shelter, so happy we all met in time.

    AS for wild life, I am with you, too.  A big issue these days is coyotes.  A part of the natural landscape and fun to watch them play as they run about.  They, of course, are wild animals and need to be appreciated as such.  But, we can co-exist with intelligent care.   Trapping or killing them, if you can put that violence aside, is counter-productive given  re-population in keeping with their biology and social structures.


    At my old house (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 05:43:56 PM EST
    Coyotes would sing me to sleep almost every night.

    I never hear them here.  Not sure why there is lots of other wildlife.


    We have (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 06:49:47 PM EST
    coyotes come through my neighborhood from time to time. It does not bother me because it is at night and my animals stay inside. My husband was afraid to let the cat out when she was a kitten because he thought the raptor birds might swoop down and take her or a coyote would eat her. They do scare me for my dogs because they could eat my 10 pound dogs. So I'm careful.

    Where I live most of the dogs (none / 0) (#141)
    by McBain on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 09:37:40 PM EST
    available for adoption are pit bull or chihuahua mixes.  My mom's rescue dog is part pit bull but she didn't know that when she got him.  No problems yet other than he jumps fences and opens doors.  If you want privacy in the bathroom or bedroom, you better lock the door.

    My friend's pit mix attacked another dog but is super sweet with people and kids. When I walk my dogs and see a pit I use my instincts as to weather I need to be super cautious or not.  Kind of hard to avoid them here.


    Where I live most of the dogs (none / 0) (#142)
    by McBain on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 09:37:47 PM EST
    available for adoption are pit bull or chihuahua mixes.  My mom's rescue dog is part pit bull but she didn't know that when she got him.  No problems yet other than he jumps fences and opens doors.  If you want privacy in the bathroom or bedroom, you better lock the door.

    My friend's pit mix attacked another dog but is super sweet with people and kids. When I walk my dogs and see a pit I use my instincts as to weather I need to be super cautious or not.  Kind of hard to avoid them here.


    Immigration Issues in the EU (none / 0) (#47)
    by linea on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 05:18:10 PM EST
    Germany's future interior minister Horst Seehofer vows to increase deportations

    Merkel's new coalition government will be restricting refugee and asylum seekers to under 200,000 annually and increasing deportations with a "zero tolerance" law-and-order policy.

    Meanwhile, Merkel continues to demand that other EU countries accept additional migrants as refugees. Including those countries with limited employment prospects and limited social service infrastructure for new immigrants.

    My opinion, France and Germany should have primary responsibility to settle all refugees. Germany in particular, should take more, not fewer, persons for resettlement.

    Why? (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 09:35:06 PM EST
    My opinion, France and Germany should have primary responsibility to settle all refugees. Germany in particular, should take more, not fewer, persons for resettlement.

    Since the war began, about a million refugees and asylum seekers have immigrated to Europe.  Germany has taken in more than half of them (over 500,000).  That would be the equivalent of the US taking in more than 2 million, as opposed to the 18,000 we have taken in.


    American millions (none / 0) (#132)
    by thomas rogan on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 08:20:59 PM EST
    We have millions of de facto refugees; every time someone wants to deport an undocumented person the press talks about horrific drug gangs in Mexico or Central America or else 17 years of temporary horror in Haiti, etc, etc.  

    They should take in more (none / 0) (#148)
    by linea on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 11:23:05 PM EST
    They certainly shouldn't take in less which is what Merkel is doing now.

    Re last paragraph: why? (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 09:26:54 PM EST
    Okay, why? (none / 0) (#74)
    by linea on Sun Mar 11, 2018 at 10:37:22 PM EST
    First, I wrote `my opinion' so I don't have a thesis prepared.

    I also thought it was somewhat addressed in the body of my post when I referenced `countries with limited employment prospects and limited social service infrastructure for new immigrants.'

    Germany is a wealthy multicultural and multi-ethnic society. They have refugee processing centers, dedicated social services, and new immigrant language programs. They also have lots of manufacturing jobs. Same with France.

    Lithuania and Latvia are supposed to take refugees? There are no jobs and certainly no jobs for a 20-something male who doesn't speak Latvian. Anybody want to try living in Riga on €139 a month?

    Maybe some countries will pay for a flat for one year and sign you up for a language course. But that's it. And other countries, like Czechia, don't want refugees and are openly hostile to the idea - why is Merkel forcing them?


    She's "forcing them" ... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 07:59:26 AM EST
    ... because it's the law.  Or because Germany had already accepted a greater number of refugees than all the other European countries combined.  Or because there are many other European countries with good social services.  Or because there are several other European countries with unemployment rates comparable (or better than) Germany and many more comparable/better than France.  Or because they should not be punished with an even greater disproportionate burden for welcoming refugees, and other countries' open hostility should not be rewarded and encouraged.

    I understand why you are confused. (none / 0) (#145)
    by linea on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 10:06:44 PM EST
    I'll try to explain it to you.

    First, nobody is punishing Germany.
    Did you read the articles I linked to? Seems more like you want to punish the refugees and economic migrants.

    You need to understand that the E.U. (or European Union) is a union of many different countries and the primary purpose of that union is economic. Each country in the E.U. has its own criminal laws and laws on asylum, immigration, and citizenship. The United States has different laws too and those laws are often different than, for example, Canadian laws.

    You wrote, `it's the law' but each country has their own laws. However, many countries, but not all, agreed to abide by the Dublin Regulation on refugees and migrants when they joined the E.U.

    In July 2017, the European Court of Justice upheld the Dublin Regulation declaring it still stands despite the high influx of 2015, giving EU member states the right to deport migrants to the first country of entry to the EU.

    The Dublin Regulation requires that a refugee request asylum in the first country of entry. Let me use an example to explain that to you. A citizen of Kenya can fly to Canada and request political asylum from Canada but he can't fly to Canada and demand asylum in, for example, the United States or Australia because he likes those countries more.

    There are many reasons why Germany should accept the bulk of the economic migrants and refugees. With France and the point-of-entry countries accepting the rest.

    Germany has the jobs.
    Germany has the manufacturing, industrial, and labour jobs. The refugees and economic migrants are for the most part low-skilled and semi-skilled. Germany has been importing cheap labour for two generations and not only has a need for this type of worker but has the support services, the language training, and technical colleges to where they can learn needed skills. It's not just that they have jobs - they have the type of jobs that are needed.

    Germany is wealthy.
    Germany has the highest GDP of any E.U. country. Germany can afford to accommodate, support, and train economic migrants and refugees. Germany, if they so choose, could afford to give them government jobs fixing park benches and cutting the lawn at national monuments. Also, because Germany has rich people, there is an underground labour market where migrants can do a variety of household jobs (just like America).

    Germany invited migrants to come to their country.
    Germany has imported foreign labour for two generations and it's in their economic interest to have low-skilled and semi-skilled labour. Merkel invited everyone to come to Germany. This kick-started the largest migrants crisis in history. Now all of a sudden, because of internal politics, Merkel is radically reducing the number of refugees and economic migrants they will accept and launching a law-and-order crackdown and starting mass deportations. No, that's not right. Germany needs to take more, not fewer, refugees and economic migrants.

    September 2015: German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, announced that there are "no limits on the number of asylum seekers" Germany will take in. She said that "as a strong, economically healthy country we have the strength to do what is necessary".

    Germany is a multicultural and multi-ethnic society.
    America was founded as a multicultural and multi-ethnic land of immigrants... where everyone gets a six-shooter. Germany is also a multicultural and multi-ethnic society. Germany can easily integrate all these economic migrants and refugees into their country and they value the different cultures and diverse ethnicities these people bring. Not every country is like America and Germany.

    As an American, it's important to understand that other countries, democratic countries, have different values. Many countries, for example, don't guarantee the `right to bear arms' and people in those countries are happy with that because they have different values than American values.

    Some countries were brutalized by the Soviet Russians and had many of their native peoples sent to Siberian Gulags. They were replaced be ethnic Russians, who only spoke Russian, and were loyal to the Russian state. After gaining their freedom, many of these countries have a strong desire to reassert their unique ethnic and cultural heritage and only invite those people who want to learn their unique language, traditions, and myths. They only invite people with a strong desire to assimilate into their society's unique culture and heritage.


    I always wondered (5.00 / 5) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 11:59:14 PM EST
    What the EU was.

    Live and learn.


    Germany didn't embrace multi-culturism or (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 12:32:46 AM EST
    Multi ethnicities under Hiltler-that's my opinion.

    Not to mention (none / 0) (#156)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 06:00:48 AM EST
    ... the fact that other countries have different values than the United States.  I'm not sure if the silly platitudes are worse than the definitions or not.

    I'll respond later.  Looking for my "six shooter" and can't find it.  Weird.  Apparently, we all got them.


    No bullet points (none / 0) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 08:14:58 AM EST
    Really needed bullet points

    Germany's in Europe??? (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 08:29:57 AM EST
    Got to see Annihilation over the weekend (none / 0) (#98)
    by McBain on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 01:57:59 PM EST
    It's from the same director as Ex Machina.  I thought it was mostly good.  A combination of The Arrival, The Thing and the recent Ghostbusters reboot.

    Are you comparing it (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 02:24:12 PM EST
    To Ghostbusters because of the female cast?

    I just finished the book and I see no other similarity


    To put it another way (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 02:40:56 PM EST
    Ex Machina was one of the best films of the last decade.  Annihilation was the best book I have encountered in a long time.  Ghostbusters was a stupid pointless remake for money.

    I will be very disappointed if your review is not FOS.


    Trite (none / 0) (#147)
    by linea on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 11:17:39 PM EST
    is how I would describe Ex Machina. My opinion.

    In the male psyche, there are two types of women: the `good' women in need of rescue and the `evil' woman who will trick and manipulate men. The evil woman will pretend to be a damsel-in-distress and use her seductive charms to achieve her goals but always, always, will leave behind the man who loved and helped her.

    There are two `female' robots in the film. One is demure and abused and the other is the evil femme-fatale.

    The hackneyed `virtuous' vs. `fallen' woman trope is also an overused device in older American Western novels and films; the innocent young woman in need of rescue vs. the whore (often the woman who ran the saloon and brothel).


    If only we all (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 11:46:44 PM EST
    Had your wisdom and insight

    Ghostbusters reboot? (none / 0) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 09:02:02 PM EST

    Here you go (none / 0) (#184)
    by McBain on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 10:15:46 AM EST
    Ok I'm confused (none / 0) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 11:18:32 AM EST
    That link says it's being released on NETFLIX.  which made me really excited because I thought it would be weeks before I saw it.


    Because I can not find it on NETFLIX.


    Please (none / 0) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 11:29:49 AM EST
    Could someone with NETFLIX search for this film and tell me if I am slipping into dementia because it's making me crazy

    I couldn't find it. (none / 0) (#190)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 11:40:29 AM EST
    Thank you (none / 0) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 11:46:55 AM EST
    I believe (none / 0) (#191)
    by linea on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 11:44:46 AM EST
    Unless I am getting my films mixed up, Annihilation Is on Netflix internationally but at theaters in the US (opened Mar 2, 2018).

    I saw it in a multiplex theater (none / 0) (#196)
    by McBain on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    the day it came out and it was already pushed into one of their small screens.  

    You definitely need to see this soon.  There are some cool H.R. Gigeresque visuals.  There was one thing about the direction of the film I didn't like but I'll wait until you see it.


    It's the kind of story (none / 0) (#198)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 03:05:25 PM EST
    That makes directorial interpretation necessary

    Garland was the perfect choice IMO


    Republican politician (none / 0) (#112)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 04:02:51 PM EST
    gets into trouble for kissing a lobbyist---on the lips.  Other lobbyists body parts, of course, are usual and customary, and irrelevant to the job.

    Iowa State Senator and majority leader, Bill Dix, resigned after videos appeared of him kissing a female lobbyist in a Des Moines bar. The little missus was, apparently, back at their farm in northeast Iowa, where they grow squash, melons and pumpkins.

    The former Republican majority leader had been criticized in the past for his handling of a sexual harassment case and was known as a staunch family values and marriage sanctity guy, having opposed same sex marriage and civil unions.  

    When a GOP (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 03:44:00 AM EST
    ...politician has to get a divorce because he gets caught shtupping the help, does the ex-wife get the Family Values or do they split them as community property?

    Buh bye, good riddance. (none / 0) (#146)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Mar 12, 2018 at 10:23:53 PM EST
    One down, many more to go - King, Grassley, Ernst, etc.

    Spent a lot of time at that bar in my youth - no where near the Statehouse - seems he thought he could get away with something there.


    Tillerson (none / 0) (#157)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 07:42:15 AM EST
    is gone. I think this is the beginning of a major purge.

    Very convenient timing (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 08:13:27 AM EST
    The House "Intel" committed clears Trump of collusion.  You might be right.

    Buckle up.  


    Pompeo moves to state (none / 0) (#162)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 08:26:31 AM EST
    McMaster takes over the CIA? As I am hearing that can be a 4 star position. Bolton becomes NSA.

    Nobody to help Mattis slow roll Trump war plans then.


    Wapo and HuffPo (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 08:29:08 AM EST
    are reporting that Pompeo's deputy Gina Haspel to named CIA Director.

    That's a relief (none / 0) (#168)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 08:31:37 AM EST
    For now

    I fear Bolton coming in.


    I share your fear (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 08:33:10 AM EST
    He will find a spot methinks

    What do they do with McMaster? (none / 0) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 08:37:43 AM EST
    You can't fire slaves :)

    Do you think Trump would do something uber chitty to him like "forcefully retire" him in the weird apprentice-like Trump disgrace?


    I just heard a woman was taking CIA (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 08:30:04 AM EST
    Did I misunderstand?

    Gina Haspel, a torture proponent (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 09:01:49 AM EST
    She played a direct role in the C.I.A.'s "extraordinary rendition program," under which captured militants were handed to foreign governments and held at secret facilities, where they were tortured by agency personnel.

    The C.I.A.'s first overseas detention site was in Thailand. It was run by Ms. Haspel, who oversaw the brutal interrogations of two detainees, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

    The sessions were videotaped and the recordings stored in a safe at the C.I.A. station in Thailand until 2005, when they were ordered destroyed. By then, Ms. Haspel was serving at C.I.A. headquarters, and it was her name that was on the cable carrying the destruction orders.

    The agency maintains that the decision to destroy the recordings was made by Ms. Haspel's boss at the time, Jose Rodriguez, who was the head of the C.I.A.'s clandestine service.

    But years later, when the C.I.A. wanted to name Ms. Haspel to run clandestine operations, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, then the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, blocked the promotion over Ms. Haspel's role in the interrogation program and the destruction of the tapes.

    On Thursday, critics of the C.I.A. questioned the choice of Ms. Haspel.

    Mr. Pompeo "must explain to the American people how his promotion of someone allegedly involved in running a torture site squares with his own sworn promises to Congress that he will reject all forms of torture and abuse," said Christopher Anders, the deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union's office in Washington.

    Yes, she sounds wonderful...


    But she is also a Russia Hawk (none / 0) (#181)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 09:09:07 AM EST
    Deputy head of Russia House.  CIA Russia spying operation.

    Got the GHW Bush Award for excellence in counterterrorism (whatever that means - probably related to your quote)


    It's an interesting choice


    There aren't enough buckles... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 08:29:04 AM EST
    And...Devin Nunes cleared Trump; the rest of the Republicans on the committee went along with it.

    He says he wanted a new team in place in advance of the NK meeting - given Tillerson's lack of experience, that may not be such a terrible idea.  Someone's got to mind Trump, right?

    The problem is that I think Trump just wants toadies and lickspittles - he's going to do everything his way, no matter what advice he gets; he might as well just have life-sized cardboard cut-outs as real "advisors."

    Can't wait to see the size of the protests expected in California.


    A new team (none / 0) (#170)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 08:33:21 AM EST
    Like we're selling Amway

    And the democrats were like (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 08:37:59 AM EST
    Wait, they did what now ?

    IMO this is desperation.  And it will not end as Trump expects.

    I would bet there is rumblings of Mueller announcements and this is desperate backfilling.

    Remember there is another congressional committee that appears to possibly be doing real work.

    But it's going to get interesting. In the Chinese sense.


    State department didn't know (none / 0) (#176)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 08:56:24 AM EST
    West wing reported to be in shock

    What must it be like to be related to Trump? It must make you nuts to live with him. I've never seen anyone with power act like this, I've only ever helped someone like this unfold their napkin and find their fork.


    Trump gives tiny interview getting (none / 0) (#173)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 08:44:32 AM EST
    On Marine One.

    He fired Tillerson because "we disagreed on things" (The Iran Deal).


    He fired him because (none / 0) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 08:51:55 AM EST
    He said some marginally not nice things about Russia the last few days.

    I wonder about Pompeao.  He strikes me as a shrewd and ambitious one.  Like one who would toss Trump under the bus without a backward glance if he profited from it in any way.


    If the Russia thing is why (none / 0) (#177)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 08:58:39 AM EST
    Our country is once again turned upside down with no warning, the President is CRAZY compromised. My God!!!!

    I would guess (none / 0) (#180)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 09:04:42 AM EST
    It's that plus convenient timing.  

    Ken Dilanian says Gina Hosple was a ringer.  Saying it's good to see Trump investing in the deep state.


    And today is special election Tuesday right? (none / 0) (#182)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 09:16:54 AM EST
    Did he stop for a minute to reflect on that, or did he think this would help?

    Might have something to do with (none / 0) (#183)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 09:24:14 AM EST
    Trump thinking - and apparently saying - that Saccone is a weak candidate:

    There's a reason Trump said hardly anything about Republican candidate Rick Saccone during a rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday night that was supposed to promote his candidacy.

        The reason: Trump thinks Saccone is a terrible, "weak" candidate, according to four sources who've spoken to the president about him.

        Trump held that opinion of Saccone before leaving for the rally, and I've not been able to establish whether his time on the ground with the candidate changed his mind.

        Trump isn't the only top Republican who's found Saccone underwhelming. The widely-held view from Republican officials: Democrat Conor Lamb is a far superior candidate to Saccone and running a far better campaign. Lamb is running effectively as Republican Lite. He's pro-gun and says he personally opposes to abortion (though he supports abortion rights).

        The thing that most irks senior Republicans involved in the race: Saccone has been a lousy fundraiser. Lamb has outraised Saccone by a staggering margin -- nearly 500 percent.

    Didn't he know that when he nominated him? (none / 0) (#175)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 08:54:26 AM EST
    [she asks with tongue firmly planted in cheek]

    Let's see, Comey got his news when he saw it on the TV; Tillerson found out in a tweet.  Word is that Trump and Tillerson didn't even have a conversation about it.

    Such a classy guy.


    In the presser (none / 0) (#179)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 09:01:57 AM EST
    He said he was close to getting the cabinet he wants and "other things" he wants.

    He is so subtle


    Bombs (none / 0) (#193)
    by linea on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 12:05:30 PM EST
    A Wrinkle in Time is doing poorly at the box office and getting poor reviews from critics and viewers. As is Red Sparrow.

    And OMG, perhaps Jennifer Lawrence could have phased "I always talk like I want d!ck" in a more subtle manner?

    If Oregon was that racist (none / 0) (#201)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 03:39:30 PM EST
    did the segregationist mentality extend to NAs?

    I always saw a lot more Indians in the Northwest than in other parts of the country, particularly parts east of the Mississippi.

    That Jennifer Lawrence statement (none / 0) (#202)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 03:48:28 PM EST
    was, I believe, originally attributed to Catherine The Great.

    Anyway, it's been around for awhile.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#203)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 03:51:18 PM EST
    I read in one if those posts it was specific to blacks and related to slavery.

    Supposedly the idea was the people behind this in the late 1850s were abolitionists.  They were against slavery but also did not want to live along side blacks.

    Odd.  But that what it said.  

    Apparently the anti slavery laws were not strongly enforced though

    I recommend reading one of those links

    Sorry, second photo (none / 0) (#205)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 04:16:48 PM EST

    1952 (none / 0) (#207)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 04:21:47 PM EST

    Towanda's photo you mean? Yes, I know. (none / 0) (#208)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 04:24:12 PM EST
    Looks like the sign was taken down shortly after, so taken down in the early/mid 1950's.

    Waddles was a great old (none / 0) (#209)
    by fishcamp on Tue Mar 13, 2018 at 06:41:48 PM EST
    drive in restaurant out by the Columbia river on the Oregon side.  They could have had that sign up, but none of the photos clearly show that.  We were too busy eating hamburgers and having fun in our cars to notice.

    Sarc, that other blatantly offensive restaurant on Sandy Blvd. was Little Black Sambos.  It later became Elmer's Waffle House.  The Elmer boys were junior ski racers up on Mt. Hood  and we were all pals.

    Sorry to rum on the filled open (none / 0) (#210)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 14, 2018 at 11:45:01 AM EST
    But I need to note the passing of Stephen Hawking

    A truly great man.