Friday Open Thread

I'm still buried under with work, but I am hoping to take a little break to blog and barbecue this weekend.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Mick Jagger is OK After Heart Procedure | Kirstjen Nielsen's Resignation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Valerie Plame is considering... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by desertswine on Fri Apr 05, 2019 at 10:04:10 PM EST
    running for Congress in New Mexico.  She would be running for the seat now held by Ben Ray Lujan, who is going to run for Tom Udall's Senate seat.  Udall is retiring.  I believe she lives in Santa Fe.

    Saw that too (none / 0) (#13)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 05, 2019 at 11:13:23 PM EST
    and that she is divorced from Joe Wilson. Didn't Wilson move to Santa Fe with Plame?

    Yes, I think they both moved here, (none / 0) (#14)
    by desertswine on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 12:31:34 AM EST
    with kids, but I don't know his whereabouts now.

    Black Hole Wednesday (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 10:45:47 AM EST

    Astronomers Worldwide Are About to Make a Groundbreaking Black Hole Announcement

    The European Southern Observatory has just revealed there will be a huge announcement next week. Yes, we know how that sounds - but as far as we can tell, it appears the world is about to finally see the first ever photo of a black hole's event horizon.

    I read a description of the (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 06:41:13 PM EST
    Size of the two

    The April 10 image will show one of two supermassive black holes: Sagittarius A* from our Milky Way galaxy or M87 from the next-door Virgo A galaxy. Sagittarius A* is said to be 4 million times more massive than the sun and some 26,000 light-years away from Earth. M87 is said to be 3.5 billion times more massive than the sun and around 54 million light-years away from Earth.

    Is Sagittarius A* was placed at the center of our solar system it would reach about 1/5 of the orbit of Mercury.  Which is pretty big.

    If M87 was placed there it would extend 14 times the orbit of Neptune.  That's bigger.


    I'll never complain (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 01:37:38 PM EST
    about having to walk to the store again.

    Well, that's certainly a relief! (none / 0) (#73)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 08:22:29 PM EST
    I was afraid that NASA officials would instead share with us their finding that yes, the universe does indeed revolve around Donald Trump.



    Thats black hole (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 12:22:39 AM EST
    Not white azzhole

    155 indictments. 1 trial. Zero convictions. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 11:16:36 AM EST
    The Twin Peaks police massacre of 9 bikers debacle is  finally over.

    This went pretty much exactly as I predicted here 4 years ago.

    The McLennan County DA (at the time), Abel Reyna, ruined countless lives by indicting everyone present with no probable cause. He is out of job, primarily due to this gross abuse of power.

    Pete Buttigieg (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 11:04:55 AM EST
    I generally don't watch or read politics on the weekend, but I came home flipped on the TV and Chuckles Todd was on and he was getting ready to sit down with Pete Buttigieg.  I made an exception because I wanted to see what the allure was.

    Sorry, but there is no one even close to this guy.  Every answer, dare I say, was perfect.  He, to me is a person who can inspire voters and get people to the polls.  He blew me away.

    Please check him out, 15 mins you will not regret.

    And if that wasn't enough, this morning I see a clip where he talks about being gay and how he would have done anything to change that growing up, but that he is now glad he didn't.  Then he went on to say, in regards to folks like Pence:

    If you got a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me -- your quarrel, sir, is with my creator

    Say what, no he didn't... that comment elevated the man to near hero status in my book.

    I think he is someone progressives/democrats/D centrists/liberals can all get down with, he is the face of the party going forward.  Biden is the face of the party in the rear view, he just doesn't get it.  While Pete Buttigieg doesn't just get it, he is it IMO.

    I like him. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 12:28:57 PM EST
    But he comes off as too nice.

    2020 needs someone with a mean streak. A candidate who will throw a punch and follow up with a roundhouse. Someone who will call Bone Spurs on his BS. I want see a candidate who, when Bone Spurs starts skulking behind them and stalking the stage, will stop, and tell him sit the eff down. Tell him to get back over to his podium while they are speaking.

    Amy Klobuchar has been accused of being mean and caustic with subordinates. I don't know enough about her yet, but maybe that's what the Democrats need.

    The Dems need a catchy nickname (hey, I like Bone Spurs) for this GOP reprobate. Call him that EVERY SINGLE TIME. Never refer to him as Mr. President. NEVER! He has no respect for anyone. He has no respect for the office he holds, why should anyone show him any respect?


    I think republicans are worried (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 04:38:53 PM EST
    About Pete.  He has the headline and photo on DRUDGE almost every day.  Including today.

    I just saw a never Trump republican strategist talking about this.  He made a suggestion that relates to what you said. (Chuck)

    He said he is seen as too nice to go against Trump and offered a suggestion.  He said in the first debate he should punch Bernie in the face.  Rhetoricaly speaking.

    Good idea.  I would suggest on taxes.


    I think (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 05:12:58 PM EST
    Bernie is not going to know what hit him in the first debate all the way from Russian trolls he kept quiet about to taxes and not just from Pete. Probably from all the candidates.

    The biggest reason (none / 0) (#193)
    by ragebot on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 09:25:54 AM EST
    I lurk and post here is to get some feel for what dems think/are afraid of.  Same goes for why I lurk and post at several other places with diverse view points.

    After the letter from Barr was released none of the pubs seemed to be afraid of anything.  In fact they were elated and most thought no one could beat Trump in 2020.

    In 2016 there was significant blowback from a segment of dems who thought Sanders got the short end of the stick.  While CA has the power to move up their primary to benefit Harris this runs the risk of a similar blowback.  There are plenty of folks here bashing Biden, and to some extent Sanders.  Point is that as Obama has said the dems seem to be forming a circular firing squad.  As Donald pointed out he has doubts about an openly gay candidate, even if he will support one.

    Bottom line is many pubs are in a mode of 'as long as the dems keep digging themselves a deeper hole the right move is to not stop them'.  They don't seem to be afraid of anything.


    No (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by FlJoe on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 10:13:00 AM EST
    the reason you come here is to nit-pick Democrats while ignoring the major flaws in Republicans.

    Bottom line many pubs are fine with the immoral, insane and corrupt fool(IMO)in the WH as long as they can cling to power.


    Don't you love it (none / 0) (#200)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 10:53:10 AM EST
    When they try to save us from ourselves?

    I'm Gonna Pass... (none / 0) (#92)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 01:29:18 PM EST
    ...on a candidate who tries to out-Trump Trump.  

    I'm better than that and I will not support a party that isn't better than Trump.


    I could see (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 10:26:34 PM EST
    Someone with an ascerbic Gore Vidal-like ability to hit below the belt and draw blood and then turn around and elevate the discussion.

    The Slob has been allowed to get away clean with his bullying alpha ape schtick because it makes good copy. He needs to be put in place to his face and front of his MAGA minions so it leaves a lasting impression.


    That's exactly what I meant. (none / 0) (#122)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 09:40:59 AM EST
    I don't want to out-trump Bone Spurs. But I want a candidate that will take him on to his face, in front of national TV cameras, etc. Call him out when he lies, bullies, etc.

    The debates against Hillary were nothing compared to what is to come (if he even agrees to debate a Democratic candidate). I would not at all be surprised if he refused to debate. And in that case, the debate should go on, without him. A national forum with just the Democratic candidate.


    You Mean Like... (none / 0) (#144)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 01:14:58 PM EST
    ...telling Mike Pence to take up his issue with Buttigieg's sexuality with god ?

    Hillary should have said (none / 0) (#146)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 01:54:03 PM EST
    something like, "This isn't a beauty pageant dressing room. Can I have a little breathing space up here?"

    That's the kind of thing the slob understands.


    I didn't realize (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by CST on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 01:40:34 PM EST
    There were any corrupt, lying, wanna-be dictators running for the Democratic nomination.

    There's more than one way to be better than Trump.


    Maybe what might be even better (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 01:42:46 PM EST
    I am not unsympathetic to your point, but maybe some one who is so calm and self confident and self contained, who is clearly 100% comfortable with who they are.  Some one who can simply by showing up draw attention to Trumps phoney deferments by being the person with more military experience than anyone running in 20.

    Some one who simply by opening his mouth will make Trump look like the blathering idiot he is even with out a nickname.

    Some one who, as he points out with a weary smile, has delt  with stupid bullies his whole life.  And won.

    If we only had a choice like that.


    Apparently (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 04:04:24 PM EST
    he drew blood with his comments. If you go on twitter the evangelicals are now attacking Episcopalians.

    And FOX (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 04:22:31 PM EST
    is attacking him and his father

    Funny the comparison to Obama might not have the effect they want.


    My overriding (none / 0) (#106)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 04:06:09 PM EST
    criterion for the Buttigieg candidacy is the same as for the other Democratic contenders: can be defeat Trump.  Democrats have been working on the basis of being able to "walk and chew gum at the same time," presenting progressive agendas and defeating Trump.

    While this tact is understandable, and important, the fundamental issue for the 2020 presidential election is to deny Trump a second term.  His lawlessness and existential threat to the democracy needs to shouted from the roof tops. There can be no tip-toeing around about it, pretending that the real issue to motivate the voters is about bridges and roads.  

    My concern for Mr. Buttigieg is not his tenure as mayor of a city of about 100,000 since the country seems to have decided that experience is not a determinative criterion (cf. former Senator and Secretary of State Clinton). And, everything good about Mayor Pete reported by many, including the Captain and ScottW,--his military record, academic achievements, intellect and articulation of views---are evident.

    My worry is for the possible impact of homophobia on his prospects for election. While the nation has made great strides, we need to recognize that such bias is still alive and unwell in 2019.

    Certainly, no concern need exist for losing Republicans, especially Trump's base, but such bias may affect other parts of the electorate necessary to victory.

    Up until Trump, the country was, generally, unwilling to wildly experiment in the election of presidents, and the failed experiment of Trump may result, at this point, in no further veering than to, finally, elect a woman as president.

    The intellect and war pilot experience of George McGovern was not enough to defeat the known at the time sleazy "Tricky Dick" Nixon, losing 49 of 50 states. And, going back further, the intellectual, and eloquent "egg head" Adlai Stevenson could not touch the WWII general, Dwight Eisenhower, who specialized in grammatical faux pas. While no historical analogies fit the present situation, intellect, intelligence and civility do not always win out. Certainly, Trump is the most recent case.

    The worry I have is their a risk to Mayor Pete's candidacy that cannot be overcome. The primaries will be a test for Pete, as they will be for all contenders--- each in his/her own way. And, it may well be that, in composite, Pete brings a dispositive edge to his run for the presidency.


    Everything you say is perfectly logical (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 04:28:50 PM EST
    I have been saying it myself.  To myself.  


    That whole comment could but reworked for 2008 and Obama by changing names and prejudices.

    I think you are correct about the primaries separating the wheat from the chaff.  So to speak.  

    I think we will get a very good feeling about both how Pete will do in, for example, the south and how effective the inevitable right wing attacks are.

    I have said before I think the attacks they think will work could backfire spectacularly.

    Either way elections will tell the tail.  Personally I suspect he may be a big primary surprise for some.


    ... provoked a huge backlash amongst the ignorant right-wing masses, who proved themselves to still be a very formidable and potent force in American politics. Let's please not kid ourselves about that, not at this critical juncture when we need sound reasoning and good judgment.

    Look, I really like Pete Buttigieg. In fact, if anyone remembers, I first took serious note of his candidacy here at TL nearly two months ago. But that said, I also like my politics to be sober when I'm assessing the viability and potential of Democratic candidates for president. When compelled to decide between my heart and my head in a critically important race like this one, I'm going to go with my head. We need to win this next election, not place or show.

    And so I'll be perfectly honest here. I'm not at all convinced yet that Buttigieg is the horse who can wear the roses in November 2020. Now, I'm not saying it's unachievable. But this isn't Chicago of last week, where the black LGBT candidate emerged triumphant in a low-turnout race. Homophobia is going to be an awfully high bar to overcome in a national campaign, because the GOP right will turn out in droves and we'll need to match that effort and then some. In order to pull it off, well, it'll have to be an "All hands on deck!" moment for Democrats and progressives across the country.

    Are we up for it? We'll see. I will support whoever our party's candidate is in 2020. (But please, oh Lord, don't let it be Joe Biden.) And if Pete Buttigieg is our guy, them I'm all in, feet first. But come next February, if I don't think his candidacy has legs, I'm going with someone who does.



    Is there any reliable polling on how much of (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Peter G on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 04:45:14 PM EST
    the likely electorate would not, once in the privacy of the voting booth, cast a ballot for an openly gay man to be President? The more apt comparison, it seems to me, is not so much our first black major party nominee, but the fate of the first woman to run as a major party's nominee. However few points that prejudice cost her could easily have been the difference.

    Putting aside the whole Hillary part (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 04:57:11 PM EST
    Because it's not worth it, I would say if that's true he will not win the primary.

    Yes (none / 0) (#130)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 10:51:22 AM EST
    Let it play out. Does Mayor Pete have it to go the distance?  Is he substantive in addition to being real bright and sounding good?  Time will tell.... much time before voting begins.

    Same applies to Uncle Joe.  Are his polling numbers just a souffle of name recognition that will fall flat?  We will see.

    But Mayor Pete is a very talented communicator, and he will be around a long time. And that is a very good thing.


    I really (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 05:01:44 PM EST
    don't think he's ready to be president though he may make a good VP. I guess we shall see.

    So We Only... (none / 0) (#124)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 09:58:20 AM EST
    ...put up white males to satisfy the bigots ?  I understand your point, but it really does boil down to pleasing the bigots so that the biggest bigot doesn't win.  Seems counterintuitive, even wrong.  I think most of the folks that would decide on a candidate based solely on their sexuality aren't voting D, no way, no how.

    HRC lost because people didn't like her, she was terrible in crisis management, her last name was Clinton, and I would call her damn near intolerable.  The notion that we can elect a black person twice, but we aren't ready for a woman or a homosexual, is not something I will ever buy, especially when the only evidence seems to be HRC's campaign.  

    Same with this silliness that there isn't an un-quantifiable trait, let's call it likeability, that gave Bill Clinton & Obama 2 Presidencies each.  The folks that think policy is going to win a primary need to step aside and realize that for the most part, policy is almost identical w/i the party, what people vote for is charisma and Mr. Buttigieg is dripping with it.

    I also believe that if a minority and/or homosexual is not going to be judged on those qualities by democrats in the primaries other than thoughts similar to yours where somehow satisfying bigots in the best route to remove the head bigot.  I don't buy it and I don't think this country is going to care about sexuality with all that is at stake.  Put someone up there than inspires people and the W will follow, IMO.


    You don't win the popular vote by 3 million votes (5.00 / 5) (#177)
    by vml68 on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 09:28:58 PM EST
    HRC lost because people didn't like her

    if people don't like you.

    I would call her damn near intolerable

    Can you elaborate on what made her so much more intolerable than other candidates?

    The notion that we can elect a black person twice, but we aren't ready for a woman or a homosexual, is not something I will ever buy, especially when the only evidence seems to be HRC's campaign.

    Obama benefited from the fact that the country was ready for a change from 8 years of Dubya and also because the economy was in the toilet. I believe  just about any Democrat (including Hillary) would have won.
    There is a reason the regular Republicans like Jeb! did not win the nomination in 2016. After 8 years of the 'black guy' being in charge, the country was ready to go in the extreme opposite direction again.

    As for the country being ready for a woman, you only have to pay attention to the media coverage.  Biden, Bernie, Beto and Buttigieg are constantly in the news. How much are you hearing about Warren, Kamala, Klobuchar and Gillibrand?


    Yeah, Yeah, Yeah... (none / 0) (#195)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 10:03:57 AM EST
    ...I feel like you are purposely being obtuse about HRC when the proof is right there on the TV every day in bright orange speaking of hatred.

    I'm sorry, but I find this reasoning to be very flawed:
    We only elected a black president because the economy was in the cr@pper and we only lost the election because of white backlash.  Therefore a homosexual can't win in 2020.

    Obama winning had nothing to do with his message and charisma, had the economy not tanked, John McCain would have been President and after 4 years lost to the HRC.  She would have gave us Clinton Care with the help of Senate Majority Leader Barrack Obama and won easily in 2016.  And Donald Trump would still be firing people on NBC... And then you would wake up and realize reality is much different.  

    If Trump collapses the economy can we put up Buttigieg ?  How about if he broke the law, what sort on minority options are open for democrats ?  What kind of dire circumstances qualify for democrats to put up non-white/non-dudes, because if that is the rational, seems like we are right on track.

    Or should we just forget that silliness and pick the best candidate, some one like B Clinton or B Obama that inspires people ?  If now isn't the time for someone inspirational, we are in deep S.

    You give me an inspirational candidate and I will give you a chicken dinner.  Give me more policy wonks and I will give you more losses.  And I bet if AOC jumped in the race there would be more coverage than all others put together.  


    I find your reading comprehension to be (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by vml68 on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 11:36:25 AM EST
    I'm sorry, but I find this reasoning to be very flawed:
    We only elected a black president because the economy was in the cr@pper and we only lost the election because of white backlash.  Therefore a homosexual can't win in 2020.

    seriously flawed.
    Nowhere, did I say that Obama only won due to the economy but it was a MAJOR factor.

    The day John McCain lost the election.
    McCain suspends campaign
    I would link to articles in Wapo and the WSJ but I don't know if they will be behind a paywall for you. In any case, google is your friend, maybe try refreshing your memory.

    In the case of Hillary Clinton, it took decades of smears from the Right-Wing Smear machine, Russian interference, Comey, increased voter suppression in WI (if memory serves, you are originally from WI, so you are probably aware of the voter suppression) and let's not forget Bernie F'ckin Sanders crying that the primary was rigged, for months (something that Tr*mp was only too happy to run with and repeat) and that she was a corporate wh0re, to take her down. And, even then it came down to 70,000 votes between 3 states.

    With friends like you who were only too happy to feed the false narrative that Hillary was not liked (and intolerable, to boot!) even though there was/is plenty of evidence to the contrary, we didn't need any enemies.

    In both instances above you can also add in the fact that the country tends to pick a President from the opposite party every 8 years.

    As for Buttigieg, here is what I had to say about him LINK, LINK, before you jumped on the bandwagon.

    You give me an inspirational candidate and I will give you a chicken dinner.  Give me more policy wonks and I will give you more losses.

    Yes, God Forbid, we find women like Clinton and Warren who have well thought out policies and years of experience, inspirational. Apparently, inspirational is a few good sound bites and a pen!s. And, I say this as someone who supports and has donated to both Pete and Beto.

    Americans want a show horse not a work horse. Compared to Clinton, Tr*mp was most definitely a show horse, albeit an ugly, malevolent and mind numbingly stupid one.


    Not worth it (none / 0) (#199)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 10:51:42 AM EST
    How Can the Democrats Lose in 2020? (none / 0) (#203)
    by RickyJim on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 11:09:18 AM EST
    Thomas B. Edsall suggests some ways that they may go too far.  For example:
    The Marist survey found overwhelming opposition among whites in response to the question

    As a way to make up for the harm caused by slavery and other forms of racial discrimination, do you think the United States should or should not pay reparations, that is, should or should not pay money to African-Americans who are descendants of slaves?

    Whites were opposed 81-15. Latinos were split, with 46 percent in support and 47 percent opposed. African-American voters support reparations, 58-35.

    Of course the Republicans have lots of ways to lose also.  For example: overwhelming evidence of Trump's financial chicanery or starting a war with Iran.

    I saw that (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 12:50:44 PM EST
    For the same reason.  And I agree.  Every time I see the guy I am impressed.

    I was very wary at first.  No matter how good or how smart he is .......

    But I begin to think he really could be the anti Trump.


    I Probably Would have Changed the... (none / 0) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 01:34:45 PM EST
    ... channel if it wasn't for your comments.

    That's great to hear (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 01:44:36 PM EST
    Bernie (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 03:46:06 PM EST
    fesses up  
    Sen. Bernie Sanders said in a new interview that he's a millionaire and that he will release 10 years of his tax returns in the coming days.
    Let me count the times he railed against "millionaires and billionaires"...just saying.

    I Think It Matters... (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 11:05:29 AM EST
    ...how deep a millionaire.  I think most of the middle class had better have a net worth of a million+ if they want a comfortable retirement.  I wouldn't call them millionaires, even though technically they are.

    If Bernie is at 1.2 million or something in the realm of most middle class Americans in his age range, no big deal.  But if he's millions-aire or pulling in deep six figures, problem.

    I think you can technically be a millionaire and rally against millionaires and billionaires since the term's value decreases every year.  It's a sliding scale enveloping more middle class every year.  

    Just sayin'... he wasn't rallying against the middle class who are saving decently for retirement and happen to hit a million for a couple years.

    I honestly don't think it matters, he's not going to get the nomination regardless of what he returns look like.


    Is that what he was doing? (none / 0) (#179)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 11:28:37 PM EST
    railing against millionaires and billionaires strictly for being millionaires and billionaires?

    That's a very Fox-ish spin.

    I thought his point was the unwarranted influence on policy people in that strata effect in pursuit of their narrow self-interest.


    Sure (none / 0) (#182)
    by FlJoe on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 05:29:51 AM EST
    a more nuanced version reads that way, but much of Bernie's rhetoric was couched with an us vs them revolutionary theme.

    his use of (none / 0) (#191)
    by leap on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 08:26:26 AM EST
    "brothers and sisters" when addressing a crowd or sending emails, always makes me cringe.

    What makes me cringe (none / 0) (#198)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 10:26:37 AM EST
    is what we've been voting into office for the last few decades.

    Netanyahu has vowed (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 08:56:37 AM EST
    to form a right wing nationalist government.

    I believe this will foment more hate and discontent in the middle east. I think another war is inevitable with this course. Terrorist attacks will increase around the world in countries that support Israel.

    I believe Bone Spurs (or at least his white nationalist staffers/advisers) is counting on this. They want an attack on US soil by "islamic extremists." Yes I really do believe that. Then, they can "save" or claim to save us. An attack fits the narrative they have developed over the last three years.

    Bibi's re-election is not good for Israel, not good for Palestine, not good for middle east,  and certainly not good for the rest of world.

    Bone Spurs has a carnival freak show (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 11:11:28 AM EST
    Big Tent these days that includes both "Heil Trump" white nationalists who blame the Jews for everything and Orthodox Jews and Christian-Zionists..And the Christian-Zionists are only pro-Israel because Jesus is coming back and then it's the Lake of Fire for the unconverted.

    He's got a hell of a juggling act on his hands.


    I had a Homer Simpson reaction (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 11:14:00 AM EST
    ohhh..honey-dipped glazed donuts.

    Scott regarding AOC (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by CST on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 02:36:31 PM EST
    Have you seen her favorability numbers?  The right wing smear machine is already working.   She would not be seen as likeable if she entered the race.  For that matter,  I can't think of a single female politician that's considered likeable by the media.  Ymmv.

    Scott, I could have sworn you said you liked (5.00 / 3) (#210)
    by vml68 on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 03:57:42 PM EST
    to argue and that if we agreed with each other all the time it would be boring, so don't back down now.
    I disagree with you very strongly on your take regarding the 2016 elections and it has no/will not have any bearing on whether I like you or not.

    I have never said Clinton did not make any mistakes during her campaign but if you can name a candidate who has run a perfect campaign, please feel free to share it. I listed some of the factors that are widely believed to have affected the election results. Your response was to dismiss all of them and lay the entire blame at Clinton's feet. You might want to examine why you hold her to a standard that no one else is held to.

    The race was starting to tighten towards the end and if you look at polling, you will see her numbers took a big hit after Comey did his bit a week before the election. It did not leave much time to recover before election day.
    Would it have made a difference if Comey had also mentioned that Tr*mp was under investigation? I'd like to think so, but I don't know.

    Well she is a woman and this country hates women, and yet white women overwhelmingly choose Trump

    And, black women overwhelmingly chose Clinton. Do they not count? Again, maybe do some research and see what underlying factors might have led to that variation in voting patterns.

    You are making the mistake of thinking that because quite a few of us here are/were staunch supporters of Clinton (or as you put it, "she walks on water around these parts"), we are not capable of being critical of her, but I can assure you, that at least in my case, that's not true.

    While the misogyny and racism from the right is blatant, I think for many of us women, we also recognize the subtle misogyny and sexism from our side. It is why I support all our women candidates, even when they aren't at the top of my list. I know that no matter how good they are, they have more barriers in their way than the male candidates.
    There is a reason why we had so many women run for the 2018 elections, we all saw what was done to Clinton.

    Oh it was the right wing smear machine, because literally no one mentioned that the right wing smear machine would never let another Clinton get elected. People were ran out of town over that suggestion because it was so ludicrous, we were told that simply wasn't a valid reason to not vote for her.

    I don't really even know how to respond to this. We essentially had two options by the time we got around to the primaries, Clinton or Sanders. She won the nomination decisively. Was she then supposed to step aside and in favor of Bernie? 'Cos you know the Republicans had nothing on him! He was a shoo in!

    One point I forgot to address... (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by vml68 on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 05:35:40 PM EST
    neglecting to go into those states on the run up to the election

    If physical presence is required to garner more votes, could you explain to me how Clinton managed to get a couple thousand more votes than Russ Feingold in Wisconsin?

    Avnenatti, Assange (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 11, 2019 at 10:48:19 AM EST
    Oh my
    We need an open
    If only to respond with recipes to "NoSides/linea"

    I don't think women can be (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 11, 2019 at 03:37:53 PM EST
    misogynists too is that far off base. And I'd add masochistic. And stupid.

    I don't care how horrifically run Clinton's campaign was and how myopic her supporters were. These people had time to think about and came to the conclusion Donald Effing Trump was Presidential material.

    Scott, maybe "back down" was not the (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by vml68 on Thu Apr 11, 2019 at 04:04:46 PM EST
    most accurate phrase to use. But, when you said you like me and so would rather not get into this, it felt a bit patronizing. We can argue ferociouosly and agree to disagree and still like each other.

    her backers won't admit they were wrong

    Can you specify what exactly you want us to admit we were wrong about? We knew the Right Wing was going to go after her hard and they did. But, we did not anticipate Russian interference or Comey.

    You keep saying that you were right and you knew she would not win. But, you haven't said what the alternative should have been. The people who did not want Hillary or thought she could not win should have put up a viable alternative and made sure that that person won the democratic nomination.

    I really hope you don't land on 'Well, women can be misogynists too.

    I am going to disappoint you and say that exactly.
    Female misogynists
    As for black women voting overwhelmingly for her, aside from the fact that the black community appears to have a favorable impression of the Clintons and tend to be loyal democratic party voters, I think this 'Mothers of the movement' channel black lives lost into support for Clinton, was also a big factor.

    I will be honest and say my heart sank when she highlighted the 'Mothers of the Movement' and Black Lives Matter during the convention because I thought it would have a big impact on the white vote. The ugliness with regards to Trayvon Martin and Colin Kaepernick was a big clue.
    And yet, I could not be more proud of her that she did it.  

    Thought we lost you (none / 0) (#1)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Apr 05, 2019 at 05:35:17 PM EST
    The Barr-Mueller conflict is heating up.

    The GOP desperation to keep Trump from being exonerated is amusing.

    We are clearly going to court (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 05, 2019 at 07:17:13 PM EST
    Over Trumps tax returns

    Neal is one of only three congressional officials authorized under to make a written request to the Treasury secretary for anyone's tax returns. The Internal Revenue Service is part of the Treasury Department. A rarely used 1924 law says the Treasury chief "shall furnish" the requested material to members of the Ways and Means Committee for them to examine behind closed doors.

    If the 5 conservative stooges on the SC interpret that as anything but SHALL they, it seems to me, will give democrats  the best excuse yet to expand the court to balance it.


    The whole provision is pretty darn interesting (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Peter G on Fri Apr 05, 2019 at 07:59:53 PM EST
    Internal Revenue Code sec. 6103(f):
    (f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress

    (1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation
    Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

    (2) Chief of Staff of Joint Committee on Taxation
    Upon written request by the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish him with any return or return information specified in such request. Such Chief of Staff may submit such return or return information to any committee described in paragraph (1), except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

    (3) Other committees
    Pursuant to an action by, and upon written request by the chairman of, a committee of the Senate or the House of Representatives (other than a committee specified in paragraph (1)) specially authorized to inspect any return or return information by a resolution of the Senate or the House of Representatives or, in the case of a joint committee (other than the joint committee specified in paragraph (1)) by concurrent resolution, the Secretary shall furnish such committee, or a duly authorized and designated subcommittee thereof, sitting in closed executive session, with any return or return information which such resolution authorizes the committee or subcommittee to inspect. Any resolution described in this paragraph shall specify the purpose for which the return or return information is to be furnished and that such information cannot reasonably be obtained from any other source.

    (4) Agents of committees and submission of information to Senate or House of Representatives
    (A) Committees described in paragraph (1)
    Any committee described in paragraph (1) or the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation shall have the authority, acting directly, or by or through such examiners or agents as the chairman of such committee or such chief of staff may designate or appoint, to inspect returns and return information at such time and in such manner as may be determined by such chairman or chief of staff. Any return or return information obtained by or on behalf of such committee pursuant to the provisions of this subsection may be submitted by the committee to the Senate or the House of Representatives, or to both. The Joint Committee on Taxation may also submit such return or return information to any other committee described in paragraph (1), except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.
    (B) Other committees
    Any committee or subcommittee described in paragraph (3) shall have the right, acting directly, or by or through no more than four examiners or agents, designated or appointed in writing in equal numbers by the chairman and ranking minority member of such committee or subcommittee, to inspect returns and return information at such time and in such manner as may be determined by such chairman and ranking minority member. Any return or return information obtained by or on behalf of such committee or subcommittee pursuant to the provisions of this subsection may be submitted by the committee to the Senate or the House of Representatives, or to both, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer, shall be furnished to the Senate or the House of Representatives only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

    (5) Disclosure by whistleblower
    Any person who otherwise has or had access to any return or return information under this section may disclose such return or return information to a committee referred to in paragraph (1) or any individual authorized to receive or inspect information under paragraph (4)(A) if such person believes such return or return information may relate to possible misconduct, maladministration, or taxpayer abuse.

    (f)(5) is intriguing. Curious re legislative (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 05, 2019 at 10:50:38 PM EST

    Especially (none / 0) (#46)
    by FlJoe on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 06:54:57 AM EST
    The law was first passed by Congress ... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 05:28:49 AM EST
    ... in the immediate wake of the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920s.

    As a related aside, I recently visited Greystone Mansion in Beverly Hills, the English Tudor Revival estate built by the late L.A. oil baron Edward L. Doheny -- whose backroom deals with President Harding's Interior Secretary Albert Fall were at the center of Teapot Dome -- as a gift for his son Ned.

    Unfortunately, Ned only lived there for four months before dying on the premises in a bizarre and scandalous murder-suicide with his personal male secretary in February 1929. His widow Lucy subsequently inherited the estate, remarried and lived there until she sold it in 1955.



    Lawerence was explaining last night (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 05, 2019 at 08:11:51 PM EST
    There is another rather obscure law that makes it a felony for Trump or anyone from the executive branch to to tell the IRS to not turn over the taxes.

    Lawerence (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 05, 2019 at 08:31:38 PM EST
    Donald Trump has absolutely no legal right to the stop the IRS commissioner

    from handing over those tax returns to the chairman of the House Ways and

    Means Committee.  Not only that, it is a crime for Donald Trump

    specifically to tell the IRS commissioner not to hand over his tax returns

    which brings us to an even more obscure law than the law chairman Neil

    used to demand the president`s tax returns.

    Internal Revenue Service code Title 26 Section 7217, prohibition on

    executive branch influence over taxpayer audits and other investigations.

    That phrase "other investigations" applies to the investigation that

    Chairman Richard Neal is conducting.

    This law uses the phrase applicable person because it`s a law that does not

    apply to you and me.  It doesn`t apply to everyone.  So, who is an

    applicable person in for purpose of this section the term applicable person

    means the president, the vice president, any employee of the executive

    office of the president and any employee of the executive office of the

    vice president.

    And here is what the law says about an applicable person meaning the

    president.  It shall be unlawful for any applicable person to request

    directly or indirectly any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue

    Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any

    particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer.



    As a criminal lawyer, I would read sec 7217 (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 10:10:39 AM EST
    as addressing only an "audit or other investigation" by the IRS that is an investigation of any particular taxpayer. Not as applying to a Congressional committee investigation, which cannot be of an individual. Criminal laws are read narrowly and strictly against the government (that is, in favor of the accused), with words understood in their context. It's also odd that this statute uses the term "audit," btw, since what is called in ordinary conversation an IRS "audit" is actually referred to the tax code as an "examination."

    Lordy (none / 0) (#12)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 05, 2019 at 11:09:16 PM EST
    Not sure I am going to read that whole magilla.  Just give me the punch line and I'll go for it.

    I kind of did that (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 08:13:43 AM EST
    In the comment he replied to.



    If the Supreme Court (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 02:38:53 PM EST
    conservatives find for Trump it would be my guess that it would not be on the basis of interpreting "shall" as being permissive.

    Rather, it would be based on the view that the intent of the demand for the tax returns and tax information was vaguely expressed or ill-defined and likely to be a fishing expedition to find politically embarrassing information.

    While I believe that House Ways and Means Chair, Richard E. Neal, has been careful to anticipate this view by saying his demand is about policy (e.g., extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the tax laws in the case of a president), not politics, the fishing claim gives better cover.

    Since the possibility of bringing impeachment charges is a part of oversight and investigatory responsibilities of the House, the strongest argument for seeking Trump's tax returns and other tax information, both personal and for his businesses, is the Constitutional one---to investigate public actions of the president that are suspected of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

    I realize that impeachment is "off the table", by most Democrats for political concern, but the seriousness is of such nature that tip-toeing around the obvious obstruction is irresponsible. The Democrats are gun-shy of even the hint of impeachment going back to what is viewed as the backlash against the Republicans for impeaching Bill Clinton--a different set of circumstances.

    It may not actually come to an impeachment resolution, but House oversight cannot properly occur without investigation, certainly for impeachment, and, even for legislative policy remedies. But, it would be difficult to imagine even Kavanaugh or Gorsuch coming down on the side of denying the House information as a part of what is expressly stated as an investigation for possible consideration of impeachment.


    Prediction (none / 0) (#43)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 09:20:26 PM EST
    It won't go to the supremes. Trump will say something like turn over the returns as soon as possible. That may take years.

    The top priority (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 10:50:51 AM EST
    for Trump is that tax returns and tax information must be thwarted at all costs---Trump knows how devastating they will be not only politically, but also, to him financially. And, if evidence of tax fraud, to his golden retirement years at his several dachas and clubs.

    Of course, Trump has already indicated, during the campaign, that the returns would be released--just as soon as the audit is completed. So maybe we do just need to await his promise, which is, as usual, good as the gold in his Trump Tower apartment.

    The Democrats have just one good chance to retrieve Trump's tax returns.  And, we know that Trump will squeal like a pig to avoid doing so. And, enlist every MAGA in the cause. Which, of course, they will readily do.

     As former Republican president, Richard Nixon, said: "people have got to know whether or not their President is a crook."

    That is why the Democrats need to use the strongest arrow in their quiver--the Constitutional one-- of investigation for possible consideration of impeachment, rather than possibly a lesser one---a 98-year old statute whose provenance is the Tea Pot Dome Scandal that may present greater chances for the Courts, especially for the conservatives on the Supreme Court, to bail Trump out.


    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by FlJoe on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 11:43:47 AM EST
    tRump could release them in a matter of days if not hours, if he chose.

    He never intended to turn release them and he never will voluntarily.


    But it's not up to him to allow it (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 11:47:15 AM EST
    I thought the IRS is supposed to have its own rules, not needing his permission. Am I wrong about that?

    He (none / 0) (#57)
    by FlJoe on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 11:59:57 AM EST
    can instruct the IRS to release it at any time and according to current law the congress can demand it.

    Of course tRump will contest it in court.


    Right, I know he's never going to (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 12:19:16 PM EST
    do that. But they don't need his permission to answer the demand from Congress, correct? If he stays out of it they can do their job. But he tries to instruct them not to, or the IRS just decides to defy Congress on their own,  hello court.

    Of course the IRS doing something (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 12:32:12 PM EST
    'on their own' takes on a new meaning when Trump picked the leader of the IRS expressly for this purpose - his willingness to break the law for Trump.

    "As soon as possible"? (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 07:00:23 PM EST
    That would be today.  He can release them anytime he wants and clearly has no intention of ever releasing them voluntarily.

    This is an interesting one to watch (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 11:38:36 AM EST
    And a preview to many other such battles...if Trump and his acolytes just refuse to obey the law, what happens? And have they managed to pack the courts enough yet to win every ruling?

    I know. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 05, 2019 at 08:02:14 PM EST
    All that crowing about how this was such a huge "win" for Trump has literally blown up in their faces. People that voted to release the Mueller report have done a 180 now. McConnell wants it buried. The worst news for Barr is that Mueller's team prepared non-classified summaries to be released to the public and Barr hid them.

    Winter is over (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 05, 2019 at 07:33:48 PM EST
    And Winter Is Coming.

    Ironic that.

    There has been way too much hyperventilating about it.  But it's coming.  The other day I was reading an interview with Maisy Williams/Arya.  She said an interesting thing that while many are rewatching the 7th season to get ready for the new one it might be better to rewatch the first season.

    So I did.

    The thing is I am a spoiler freak.  Detailed plots of all six episodes of the new season have been leaked.  In fact there have been lots of different "leaks".  But only one set from the guy who released the plot of season 7 early.  Accurately.  This set of videos is widely seen as authentic.  They have millions of views on YouTube.  If anyone is interested I can provide links

    But back to Maisy, she is totally right.  Knowing what I allegedly know about how the series ends watching the first season was great.  And so far into the second.

    The arc they have created for so many characters is mind blowing.  They should get some kind of special Emmy for epic story telling.  Every line of dialogue that seemed only like good dialogue foreshadowed.  Every scene is planned from episode 1 right through the season finale.

    Without spoilers I will say I love the ending.  After hearing it it's hard to imagine it ending any other way and it's never the way I thought it would end.

    Again, without spoilers, if you are a fan and you are wondering who ends up on the Iron Throne, as every website is, you are asking the wrong questions


    About the leaks (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 05, 2019 at 07:39:04 PM EST
    Who really knows if they are true

    I would be happy either way.  But here's the thing.  IF they are real, as was the leaked 7th season, by the same guy, who supposedly works on the set, I don't think they are leaks.

    I think they are marketing.  

    How hard would they have looked for this guy after last season if they cared.

    And, no one who is willing to sit through six half hour or longer videos is NOT going to watch the show.


    My 2 cents


    I'm making my way through the series again (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 11:34:57 AM EST
    I did find lots of nuggets and reminders in Season 1 that amazed me. Season 2 also.

    starting at Season 4 I have just been watching some of the episodes since I'm running out of time. But I did watch most of S4 - I think that is my favorite season over all.

    I'm in S5 today and not liking it - did not like it much at the time either. Those sparrows are not entertaining and I already know the outcome so I'm skipping right to Hardhome.

    Do you think there is any of the Sparrow or sand snake stuff I should make myself rewatch based on what you know?


    Nope (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 02:02:23 PM EST
    How about "GoT: Special Victims Unit"? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 07:48:35 PM EST
    Best T-Shirt Ever (none / 0) (#78)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 10:25:38 AM EST
    for King 2020

    We will build a wall and the White Walkers will pay for it.


    Please, absolutely no spoilers here.  
    I'm trying to wait a month before I start so that I can power watch.


    You are probably going to have to avoid (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 12:53:10 PM EST
    All broadcast and social media to do that.  Good luck.  You won't find them here.  At least from me.

    But it is going to be the only thing being talked about.  

    Never has escapism been so needed.


    There is definitely no shortage (none / 0) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 02:19:36 PM EST
    Of Thrones coverage.  But one pretty good one is the AVClub


    Month of Thrones
    We're counting down to Game Of Thrones' final season by distilling the fantasy epic to 30 essential moments. This is Month Of Thrones.

    They started threes ago with the death of Ned Stark.  Today Ramsay gets to be dog food.


    I Did it For 5 or 6 Years (none / 0) (#126)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 10:03:30 AM EST
    I thought you did as well.  I really have a bad memory when it comes to the TV.  So waiting even a week has me forgetting sub-plots and other vital things.  I'll wait until a rainy weekend and watch the whole works.

    I did come late (none / 0) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 10:59:01 AM EST
    Season 4 I think.   But things were different then.  Although even then it was getting hard to avoid.

    I've been watching it live (none / 0) (#150)
    by CST on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 02:15:27 PM EST
    Since season 1, and I'm sure as hell not stopping now. To be honest  I can't think of a single other show in the DVR era where that's been the case.  When it's all over I might watch it again once through.

    If you have only ever seen it once (none / 0) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 02:19:09 PM EST
    You definitely should.  Being obsessive I have rewatched parts of it every year when it is being rebroadcast in the run up to a new season.  Like now.  Watching it on and off today.

    It really does get better with every viewing.


    Most interesting thing to me (none / 0) (#194)
    by ragebot on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 09:33:33 AM EST
    is watching the 'stay tuned for a look inside the episode' after the actual show.

    One thing that kinda shocked me was after Ramsey married Sansa there was a lot of blowback here about her being raped; something that was never mentioned by the creators in the look inside.  On the other hand there have been some very interesting comments in that segment.


    Julian Castro (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 05, 2019 at 11:07:33 PM EST
    Saw him on Bill Maher. I really liked him. If he is still around for California, I could easily vote for him.  Maybe this time he will get VP.

    Having a President (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 08:16:01 AM EST
    With an identical twin could lead to some Patty Duke show type hijinks

    So, (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Zorba on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 05:17:17 PM EST
    which Castro twin likes the minuet, the Ballet Russe, and crepes Suzette, and which one likes rock and roll and hot dogs?

    And I swear, I did not look those lyrics up- they just popped up in my head.  That's why I cant remember where I left my keys or my phone- cr@p like old TV show theme lyrics fills my brain.  No room for new things.


    Hahahahaha! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by caseyOR on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 06:49:24 PM EST
    It's funny because it's true.

     I have long thought that, on my deathbed, even if I no longer know my own name, I will still know all the words to "I Got You, Babe".


    Obama opposes push to the left by Democrats... (none / 0) (#20)
    by NoSides on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 11:18:04 AM EST
    "Former President Barack Obama on Saturday chided fellow Democrats for creating a "circular firing squad" that targets party members who don't support far-left views.

    "The way we structure democracy requires you to take into account people who don't agree with you," he said at an Obama Foundation town hall event in Berlin. "And that by definition means you're not going to get 100 percent of what you want."

    "One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives ... we start sometimes creating what's called a `circular firing squad' where you start shooting at your allies because one of them has strayed from purity on the issues," Obama said.

    This is the kind of "centrist" (conservative)thought that threatens to doom Democratic hopes in 2020. The same thinking that tarred Sanders with the "he can't win" mantra that gave us the one candidate who could in fact lose.

    Can you imagine that Biden, until finally confronted for his intrusions into "personal space" (what a euphemism) - was leading in the polls as a potential Democratic candidate? Is this the kind of person with whom Mr. Obama would be comfortable in 2020?

    Dolmades (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Zorba on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 02:20:34 PM EST
    Dolmathes (Stuffed Grape Leaves)

    1 jar grape leaves, packed in brine
    1/2 cup olive oil
    2 large onions, finely chopped
    4 green onions, finely chopped
    1 1/2 cups long-grained converted rice
    1 cup water
    2 tablespoons chopped fresh spearmint (or 1 tblsp dried, crumbled)
    3 tablespoons chopped fresh dill (DO NOT use dried)
    1/3 cup pine nuts, toasted
    1/3 cup currants
    1 1/2-2 cups water ( enough to just cover dolmathes along with olive oil)
    3/4 cup olive oil
    1 lemon, juice of
    lemon wedges, for serving at table

    Sauté  onions in ½ cup olive oil until translucent.
    Wash and drain rice well and add to onion along with 1 cup of water.
    Cook for 10 minutes.
    Add herbs, pine nuts, currants and salt and white pepper to taste.
    Set aside to cool.

    Prep leaves by rinsing well under running water and blanch in boiling water for 1 minute. (Actually, you can even skip this, it's mainly to remove salt on the grape leaves. If you don't blanch, just skip the salt in the recipe, it will be fine.)
    Cut off any tough stems by cutting a V around the stem, and discarding stem.
    Place 1 leaf on flat surface, shiny side down, add 1 teaspoon of filling and roll LOOSELY (as for a tiny eggroll, tucking in sides first and then rolling up), as rice will expand during cooking.

    Place seam side down on bottom of large saucepan which has been covered with a layer of thicker grape leaves (rejects from your jar - they may be very thick, therefore, not tender or torn and not suitable for being used as a wrapper- these protect the dolmathes from scorching. If you don't have enough grape leaves left over to cover the bottom of the pot, use a lettuce leaf- it will be fine).

    Repeat each grape leaf in same manner until all are used, packing them in tight- one next to the other- seam side down.
    Add 1 1/2- 2 cups water, dash salt, 3/4 cup olive oil and the juice of 1 lemon (enough liquid to just cover the dolmathes).
    Cover with a heavy plate to keep dolmathes immersed in liquid, and simmer for 45 minutes, or until rice is cooked.
    Serve cold or at room temperature as a "meze" (appetizer).

    Serve this with some lemon wedges, to squeeze on the dolmathes. These are also really good served with a dollop of Tzatziki sauce.


    \_(&#12484;)_/ (4.00 / 1) (#21)
    by leap on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 11:30:11 AM EST

    Obama was a good man (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 11:54:41 AM EST
    And a passable president.   But he never escaped his bubble of imaginary centrism.  What did it get him?  Did all of his groveling and weedeling get him a single vote on the ACA?  Or anything else?

    He never understood and apparently still does not understand that there is no center.  Or if there is it mostly made up of people who are to vacant to have an opinion and believe the last thing they heard.

    Obama won by motivating the progressive base.  And he never really governed for it but managed to get a second term mostly because of Romney.

    Trump won by motivating the reactionary right and has done exactly the opposite.  Everything he does and says is for them.  Which it turns out is probably equally ill advised.  Or worse.

    Who ever wins in 2020 will win by motivating their base.  It will be the ultimate base election.

    Biden will not motivate the progressive base.

    But thanks anyway Mr President.


    My view of "Centrism" (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 03:08:21 PM EST
    is that of a political fringe that enjoys an electoral yearning for the elusive kumbaya. It is an averaged view of norms at any given time, holding itself up as a stand for two contradicting positions.

     Is it a political ideology? Does the centrist believe it is necessary, for example, to find a balance between social equality and social inequality?  It seems more likely to me to be a political signal for a willingness to compromise elements of one ideology with another---holding neither very deeply in heart. Or, worse, a more sane Republican masquerading as a Democrat.

    Centrism should not be conflated with moderate, since one can hold an ideology strongly, but is prepared to move toward goals in a manner and way that promotes their achievement.

    President Obama seemed to believe that working in good faith with political opponents would yield his goals, albeit with some compromise.

     Perhaps, he was deluded by his early relationships as a US senator, with friendships with right wingers such as Senator Tom Coburn( R. OK), whom he called his "Brother in Christ."  His Catfood Commission was an attempt for the fabled bipartisanship to solve problems. The results got no further than Boehner.

     Republicans, he ultimately learned, are barracudas, an observation he could have picked-up from Bill Clinton in his tax increase plan, which, like ACA, had no Republican support.

    For the most part, President Obama was a successful president.  But, that was his presidency, and what worked then, is not likely to work again, or for another.

      In addition to Joe Biden's salutational relics, I am concerned by his defining himself as an "Obama/Biden" Democrat.  Sure, he is trying to piggy-back unto the popularity of the past president, but,it does concern me that he does not grasp the new political and social landscape.


    The irony (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 08:04:17 PM EST
    I find about Obama is anything he did going to be left? The GOP has hacked at Obamacare to the point where I'm not sure it is going to survive. And the Iran deal is gone.

    Hopefully we learned from Obama that we need a candidate that will stand tall. Armando calls Biden a marshmallow and I think he's probably right on that account.


    Marshmallow (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 08:29:19 PM EST
    Is one word.  Another might be collaborator

    There's always (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 09:05:55 AM EST
    a center but it's also always being redefined because it always shifts. So what Obama thinks is the "center" is not necessarily where the center of the electorate is these days.

    I don't see this election as a motivating the progressive base election because there are people again who are not going to vote for the nominee on the left unless we nominate Bernie which would create an entirely different set of problems. What I do see it as is creating a new coalition with some of the old coalition along with new members. What is that going to comprise itself of? I'm not sure but I do know the old Dukakis coalition that Obama won with is kaput. There's a good 60% of voters to create that coalition with.


    Bernie was a (none / 0) (#60)
    by KeysDan on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 12:52:19 PM EST
    guest on Trevor Noah's "Daily Show" last week.  Despite the interview being longer than is usually given to guests on this show, Bernie had nothing new to say since the last campaign, and even said it all with the same old words (e.g., millionaires and billionaires, health care is a right not a privilege).  The show's studio audience which is, primarily, young, applauded very enthusiastically---probably all new information to them.  

    It is true that many of Bernie's positions have become a part of the Democratic mantra, but he needs to move on to ways and means of achieving them, perhaps in a better way than other presidential contenders. And, to address new issues that have arisen. Not much on Trump.

     Once again, he agreed that it is essential that a presidential candidate (and president) needs to release tax returns and tax information.  And, once again, he says they are on their way.

    Trevor's take on the issue was that Trump does not want to release his tax returns because it will show that he is not a billionaire; and that Bernie does not want to release them because he is.


    My point on Bernie is that (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 01:05:43 PM EST
    those things have long been part of the Dem ideology, yet he acts like he invented it.

    I was already sick of him hectoring me about things I already knew in 2016, even more sick of it now. He has no actual plan to reach out to women and/or people of color, nor a plan to make life better for us.


    I'm sure Bernie (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 02:26:01 PM EST
    being a millionaire is one reason. Another reason is that the partial 2014 that he released showed Jane receiving money from a nuclear waste board. The same board that dumps toxic waste in a poor Hispanic community. He's running a Trump campaign. Just keep saying that it's forthcoming or under audit until people get tired of asking. Perez should just come out and say no room on the debate stage for anybody that has not released their taxes. With us going after Trump's taxes, there has to be nobody running that has not released taxes. And Bernie has also said when Trump releases his taxes I'll release mine. Dude, Trump is never going to voluntarily release his taxes so I guess Bernie is not going to either.

    That said (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 12:38:56 PM EST
    There is a meme being pushed on right wing web sites that Biden is the biggest threat to Trump and so must be stopped.

    Which based on comment history I would guess is the source of the above.
    but whatever
    A stopped clock is right twice a day, yeah?


    Democrats didn't criticize President Obama (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 09:27:59 PM EST
     much when he was in office. Surprising Democrats are criticizibpng him now.

    That's just not true (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 08:15:39 AM EST
    There was plenty of criticism of Obama from democrats when he was in office.  Definitely including this website.  From making a health care system based on republican ideas, that is what the ACA for all the good it did him, is to drone policy.  But mostly his constant attempts to "reach across the aisle" even after Mitch famously was quoted as saying they had one job of making hm a one term president.

    But criticizing Obama is not the point here.  It's Biden who is the point.  And the mealy mouthed centrist policies.

    And yes, Obama was orders of magnitude better that either.  Doesn't make him immune from criticism.


    Maybe Dem pols did not criticize him (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 11:43:05 AM EST
    but many Dem people did, for his economic centrism to his use of drones to bomb people, including civilians and at least one American citizen.

    That said of course I'd give my left arm to have him back.


    I don't understand that (none / 0) (#45)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 09:50:12 PM EST
    I'm pretty far left of Obama, but JEEEEZ, W and Trump for bookends make him look lot more like a saint than he did then.

    Silly... (none / 0) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 10:35:57 AM EST
    ...there was a poster, something like 'ABG black guy', who ended up leaving because no one wanted to hear his never ending 'Obama is the best' mantra.

    That first term was not good for Obama, he was essentially republic-right and as mentioned above, he though the good stuff was in the middle and democrats were not down with that, for the most part.

    He came around 2nd term and I think a lot of us really got on board after about 6 years, the time it took for him to understand that reaching across the isle was only hurting democrats.

    I don't want to here what Obama has to say about compromising or how the good stuff is in the middle or that democrats calling out their own is bad for the party, when he is calling out democrats.


    Motivating the base is important, but (none / 0) (#64)
    by ragebot on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 05:14:51 PM EST
    Bill Clinton used what was called triangulation to win.  He did a decent job of motivating the base while providing enough things those outside the base liked to win.  He had his Sister Souljah moment which got more votes from moderates than it lost votes from the base.

    Many of Trump's positions that anger the left don't lose him any votes because those people would not vote for him anyway.  Clinton was never able to motivate her base and lots of possible voters were angered by what happened to Bernie.

    Truth be told a lot of bashing of Trump falls on deaf ears.  Before the election few were not aware of what the dems view as Trump's short comings.  Everyone knew he was a loud mouth braggart who treated women as disposable toys and exaggerated everything he had done.  His voters don't really care about his taxes, his sorted affairs, or his constant BS; he was elected to do what he has done, reshape the federal courts, make noise about immigration and possibly do something about it, and reduce the federal government's reach into people's daily lives.

    The good economy is just a bonus.  As long as Trump keeps poking a stick into the establishment's eye a lot of voters will support him.  

    To make matters worse for the dems, as Obama has noted, they seem to be forming a circular firing squad while moving more and more to the left.

    The biggest question I will be interested in seeing answered is if any of the possible third party or insurgent pseudo dems will have the staying power of Perot.  Even with out a significant insurgent Trump seems headed for a win; but with one it is hard for me to see a path for the dems to win.  Kind of shocked to say it but I agree with Obama on this one.


    Dude (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 05:09:21 AM EST
    nothing happened to Bernie other than he lost the primary by around 4 million votes. It's not 1992 anymore and the GOP base is 40%. They have no plan to expand that base of support.

    Trump's problem is that he doesn't have enough voters. Nobody should really care what his voters think. There's 60% of the country open to get votes from.


    Problem with you claim of (none / 0) (#77)
    by ragebot on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 09:50:53 AM EST
    60% is it suffers from an over reliance of CA, NY, and IL.  Not much doubt the dems will win those three states.  Also not much doubt both dems and pubs will ignore those states and only visit states up for grabs.  Lots of agreement that Hillary spent too much time in CA running up her margin and amassing contributions while Trump spent time in swing states where he won several by narrow margins.

    This is the dilemma dems face someone like Biden might do better in the swing mid West states but would not excite the base while the more liberal candidates would excite the base but turn off the swing voters with some of their positions.


    You obviously (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 12:38:15 PM EST
    have not watched what happened in states like MI and PA and WI last year. Those states are now gone for the GOP and those states are what Trump depended on to win. VA is gone for good now and likely GA and AZ are going to move out of the GOP column in 2020 along with NC. You tell me how a white nationalist party is going to win an election in increasingly diverse states?

    You are so clueless. Hillary spent no time in CA running up her margin. You can't face the facts that Trump was a candidate that eked out enough support in a couple of states along with complacency in the Dem base that got him in the white house. Also don't forget that these idiots absorbed targeted propaganda that they believed there was a pedophile ring in the basement of a pizza parlor. We're onto you guys and your Russian propaganda these days. You're not going to get away with it again.


    I think PA will not go to Bone Spurs (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 01:36:16 PM EST
    in 2020. Support for him has waned here in the Susquehanna Valley. I worked for a defense company where nearly no one I talk to in my dept. supports him.

    The polling (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 03:37:36 PM EST
    backs you up. In WI and MI Trump is negative 12. Pa is negative 7 but he is also down 9 in Iowa and 5 in Ohio. So along with WI, MI and PA Iowa is more than likely gone for Trump too. Florida does not hold much good news for him either at -2.

    Tell me again (none / 0) (#119)
    by ragebot on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 12:51:51 AM EST
    what all the polls said about the 2016 election.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 06:13:38 AM EST
    Tell me what they said about 2018? Trump is -12 in WI and MI. You have to accept the fact that even if the polls are off -12 is still bad news. Trump is done electorally. Many other presidents have recovered from a 40% approval rating. Trump does not have that in him. He's been mired in low numbers since the beginning. We're also onto you guys getting aid from Putin. We're gonna be watching you guys.

    Didn't they say (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 09:55:40 AM EST
    That Hillary was considerably more popular than Trump, who lost the popular vote by 3,000,000?

    Was that wrong?


    Russia (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 10:03:29 AM EST
    Just sayin

    Why does it say (none / 0) (#24)
    by fishcamp on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 02:06:25 PM EST
    Not Secure when I bring up TalkLeft?

    Do you have (none / 0) (#26)
    by Zorba on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 02:25:16 PM EST
    An iPhone?  Because iOS was recently automatically updated, and after that happened on my iPhone, I started to see "Not Secure" on a lot of websites I visit.

    I get the same message on my iPad. (none / 0) (#30)
    by caseyOR on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 02:39:54 PM EST

    I don't (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 02:41:45 PM EST

    I also get it on my (none / 0) (#34)
    by leap on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 03:24:10 PM EST
    MacBook Pro, after a "security" update. But lots of other sites I go to, but not all, also have "Not Secure" in the URL space. Don't know why some and not others.

    OSXDaily (none / 0) (#35)
    by Zorba on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 03:41:21 PM EST
    Website said:
    "In other words, the device and website is no more or no less secure than it was before updating the web browser and seeing the "Not Secure" message. By seeing the `Not Secure" Safari message on an iPhone, iPad, or Mac you are simply being informed by Safari that the website or webpage being visited is using HTTP rather than HTTPS, or perhaps that HTTPS is misconfigured at some technical level."

    Okay. Thank you, Zorba. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by leap on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 04:06:05 PM EST
    Guess I will...not do anything about it. !

    I don't (none / 0) (#39)
    by Zorba on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 05:19:16 PM EST
    get it on my iPad, but then my iPad is an older version and no longer gets updates.
    It still works, though.

    Yes that's when it started. &#128064; (none / 0) (#36)
    by fishcamp on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 04:05:28 PM EST
    Who was it that said, "You can have (none / 0) (#27)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 02:27:16 PM EST
    security, or you can have liberty, but not both"?

    I believe the quote you are referencing is (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Zorba on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 02:32:48 PM EST
    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

    Benjamin Franklin


    That would be the same Ben Franklin ... (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 08:15:11 PM EST
    ... who, upon the adjournment of the 1787 Constitutional Convention at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, was asked by a local woman, since identified only as Mrs. Powell, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

    Responded Franklin without hesitation, "A republic, Madam -- if you can keep it."

    Let's hope his not-so-subtle insinuation isn't prophetic.


    NarcoLogic (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 06, 2019 at 02:51:36 PM EST
    Sounds made for TL

    The United States' 'War on Drugs' Really Did Make Things Worse, New Research Finds

    After five decades of intense and expensive policing, the United States' so-called 'war on drugs' has only created a bigger problem, a new study has found.

    The research is based on a unique geographic model, called NarcoLogic, that was designed to figure out how cocaine smuggling networks have adapted to US drug interception over the years.

    Uncle Joe (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 08:36:19 AM EST
    This sack of S has to be stopped (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 10:39:17 AM EST
    Whatever it takes.

    In case you missed it Biden is already sticking his foot in his big mouth by making jokes about invasions of space.

    And right after he did that he said "being a progressive these days means being a socialist"

    Adopting the language of Trump world.

    I wish I was kidding.

    I will not link to it but it is hardly an accident that if you google it the top three choices are  Breitbart, The Free Beacon and InfoWars

    F this stupid codger.  He needs the go down


    If Trump is the Old... (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 12:22:16 PM EST
    ...man yelling "get off my lawn', then Biden is the old man that can't figure out how to add a picture to a text or email.

    I hate to say he is too old, but he is too old.  
    If he wins he would take office at 78.


    And meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders ... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 07:59:07 PM EST
    "If you open the borders, there's a lot of poverty in this world, and you're going to have people from all over the world. And I don't think that's something that we can do at this point. Can't do it."

    ... talks about the issue of immigration as though he were channeling a union agent from the UA Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 92 in Oskaloosa, IA circa 1973, rather than speaking as a serious candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.

    Cue eye roll.


    I watched SNL for the first time in years (none / 0) (#86)
    by McBain on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 12:55:57 PM EST
    this weekend. It wasn't terrible but it had the same old, tired beginning.... political sketch followed by the host taking scripted questions from the audience that included cameos.



    I Really Take Issue... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 01:47:18 PM EST
    ...with people who never watch it, then claim it sucks.

    I can't actually think of a time that it hasn't been good.


    I assume you're not talking about me (none / 0) (#117)
    by McBain on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 09:58:02 PM EST
    I clearly said "it wasn't terrible"

    As for your claim...

    I can't actually think of a time that it hasn't been good.

    The Charles Rocket, Gilbert Gottfied cast didn't appeal to me.  Neither did the Anthony Michael Hall, Robert Downey Jr era (although I did appreciate some of the experimental music from that time)

    I pretty much missed out on the Alec Baldwin as Trump episodes.  I did enjoy some of Baldwin's earlier work on the show.

    Even during it's best years, my least favorite parts were usually the host monologue and weekend update. I preferred the more original sketches and short films that often occurred in the second half of the show.  


    Called (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 01:04:56 PM EST

    And yes (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 01:06:53 PM EST
    They have been doing it for 44 years

    You can call it what you want (none / 0) (#98)
    by McBain on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 01:44:50 PM EST
    It was less predictable 25-30 years ago.

    My favorite era was the Phil Hartman, Mike Meyers cast.  I also liked the original cast and the Martin Short, Billy Crystal days.  


    DHS Secretary Nielsen (none / 0) (#65)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 05:18:42 PM EST
    resigns this evening.

    Now there will be someone even worse. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by leap on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 09:14:18 PM EST
    That's the *Rump pattern of replacement a$$holes. Wonder who that will be? There seems to be an endless supply of horrible [tautological] Republican people.

    Great (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 05:38:41 PM EST
    Nielsen's imminent departure is a part of a massive DHS overhaul engineered and directed by top Trump adviser Stephen Miller, according to a senior U.S. official.

    Apparently, Ms. Nielsen (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 02:23:10 PM EST
    was not cruel enough. Some well-concealed morality must have kept her from going full Himmler. She was ready to resign, no doubt noting the defenestration of her ally, Ron Vitiello, last week, to be head of ICE. Probably, too, she may have run afoul of Vanky and Jared.

    Stephen Miller sure is on a rip, firing the head of the Secret Service, Randolph (Tex) Alles. While the nickname of "Tex" might be reason enough for some, "reforming" the Secret Service, a part of DHS, may be necessary.

     The agency has responsibilities beyond protection of the president and other designated officers, conducting financial investigations of bank and financial institutions, wire fraud, illicit financial operations, counterfeiting, and major conspiracies.

    Reveling in the performance of Barr, Trump may be buoyed enough to appoint another Roy Cohn wherever financial matters are investigated. And, too, stopping those Chinese spies at Mar-a-Lago, was probably seen as a little too aggressive--the woman, after all, only wanted to use the pool. And, geez, it is not as if it were emails.

    Miller no doubt has Erik Prince in mind for Tex's replacement.  The Secret Service will, no doubt, soon have sharp, new uniforms designed by Hugo Boss.


    Please nominate Bernie. (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 07:49:51 PM EST
    Please see my comment #70 in this thread. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 07, 2019 at 08:01:40 PM EST
    Just heard the "acting" (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 01:08:21 PM EST
    Is an Obama holdover who Obama gave an award for public service.

    Thats a tiny bit encouraging.


    Oops! Too late and too bad. (none / 0) (#183)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 05:35:21 AM EST
    Apparently somebody pointed that out to wingbat Stephen Miller, who told Trump, who then fired the woman yesterday.

    OUR PLANET (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 01:18:13 PM EST
    Been watching this new doc series on Netflix.  It very good.  Very much like the Planet Earth and Blue Planet series.  Most of the same people I think.

    With one big difference being the heavy focus on conservation, climate change and pollution.  So there is a frame of sadness.  

     Very good tho.

    Like I said (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 01:22:42 PM EST
    The story of that horrifying walrus scene in Netflix's "Our Planet"



    I can't watch that. (none / 0) (#116)
    by desertswine on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 08:25:01 PM EST
    It's pretty short (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 08:42:32 AM EST
    But its rough

    The series is very good tho.   I hope stories like this don't stop people from watching it.  

    Although the people who need to watch it almost certainly will not.

    There has been grumbling in the conservationist world for years that's these beautiful nature shows tend to lull people into thinking everything is ok when it is anything but.  

    I applaud them for doing it but as you say it's not the best plan to get a wide audience.

    And btw that's not the only difficult part to watch.  Just the worse


    A lot easier to watch on the tube (none / 0) (#141)
    by ragebot on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 01:08:56 PM EST
    than to see what is happening in real life.

    I spend a lot of time in the Florida Keys where there are real disputes about over fishing.  Same goes for the Bahamas where I also cruise.

    A recent report provided data that over 50% of the lobster caught in the Keys are shipped to China.  No way it is sustainable for the Keys to supply lobster to China.

    NatGeo is documenting the decline of the conch population in the Bahamas, something that is basically gone in the Keys.  When I was a kid they were everywhere, even after I finished school and started working I would visit my parents in Marathon and always see them.  Sad to say that is a thing of the past.  Again it is not just local consumption the Bahamas ships tons of conch meat to the US.

    The dirty little secret no one wants to talk about is as Sir David Attenborough noted is overpopulation.


    I'm sure thats true (none / 0) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 02:07:12 PM EST
    Where I live the corruption is much less visible.  Some kinds of wildlife are coming back like bear and big cats because of the deer overpopulation.

    It's invisible in this part of the country mostly.  Toxins from agriculture and chicken and pig farms slowly poisoning everything.

    It must be rough to be close to the sea.  What's happening is much more visible.


    The world's population has doubled ... (none / 0) (#185)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 06:43:27 AM EST
    ... in my lifetime. In California, where I was born and raised, population growth has had a significant and demonstrable adverse impact on the state's environment.

    When my grandmother was born in Pasadena in 1902, the state's population was less than 2 million. When my mother was born there in 1935, it was a little over 5 million. When I was born there in 1961, it was 16 million. It's now 40 million. More people currently live in greater metropolitan L.A. (18 million) than resided in the entire state back in 1961.

    The population of Las Vegas, NV was less than 200,000 in 1960 and about 750,000 in 1990. It's well over 2 million today. And Phoenix / Scottsdale, AZ just surpassed the San Francisco Bay region as the 11th largest metropolitan area in the country with almost 5 million residents.

    That explosive rate of growth can't help but effect the local environment -- and particularly in the arid U.S. west, our sources and supplies of freshwater. It's likely unsustainable.



    Check Out (none / 0) (#100)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 01:57:48 PM EST
    ...Curiosity Stream.  It's $6/mth

    The Impossible Whopper (none / 0) (#103)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 02:51:43 PM EST
    Not a fan of the Whopper, but a huge fan of meat substitutes like Meatless Meatballs or Boca Burgers.

    So I am very interested in a meatless Whopper that a senior meat industry lobbyist wrote:

    Admitting the differences in taste between the two burgers was "pretty minor", Bohl said the advance of fake meats provides a looming and existential threat to the industry he represents.

    "If I didn't know what I was eating, I would have no idea it was not beef," he wrote. "Farmers and ranchers need to take notice and get ready to compete. I've tasted it with my own mouth, and this fake meat is ready for prime time."

    I really like meat substitutes, but I think it has more to do with the health aspects than the actual taste, which I would call more like an additional food than an actual substitute.

    I love Burger King double cheeseburgers, I haven't had one in years.  To think that there is one that is a meatless version and tastes like the original is really got me giddy with excitement.  To be able to eat healthy, have it taste good, and be kind to animals/environment is just plain awesome.

    Unraveling hate (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 05:43:42 PM EST
    this is brilliant

    But it will make you a little sad for our country

    Total eclipse (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 05:58:25 PM EST
    The weatherman just reminded me that we need to hope the weather 5 years from today is better than today.  It's raining.

    But 5years from today April 8, 2024

    there will be a total solar eclipse

    Not like the partial we had a while back.  The red line on that map literally goes right over my house.

    Mark you calendars if you are in the path.

    I Took My Camper... (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 10:20:44 AM EST
    ...my GF, and my dog to New Franklin, MO for the last one.  We were something like 200m from the longest possible total eclipse time, I want to say just over two minutes.

    To say it was inspiring would be an understatement.  The morning was cloudy, but like 5 mins before the ellipse it cleared up and I was able to film the entire eclipse and lean back in my chair and watch it as well.  There were a ton of people at the campground, they brought in a band the night before, and it was craZy.  Ended up camping next to some folks form Wisconsin & Texas.

    I will never miss another.  And like 4 days later, while in Kimberling City, MO Hurricane Harvey was demolishing my state and city.

    I will never miss another in the US.


    We flew to St. Louis (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 11:56:02 AM EST
    Rented a car, and drove to a small park in Southern Illinois to watch the eclipse.  Stunning.  We were worried it would be too cloudy but fortunately the clouds parted.

    (And we also got to visit relatives, and our favorite museums and other sites, plus a bunch of great restaurants.  St. Louis is no longer just the home of great Italian food and barbecue, it has lots of other choices now as well.)


    The last one was about 95% (none / 0) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 10:48:40 AM EST
    Here.  Like in my yard.  I had friends come up from farther south to visit and the plan was to drive about 90 miles north to be the the path.

    But we started to early.   Got to high and decided to appreciate the 95% in my back yard.

    I regretted it later.  I'm really looking forward to the next one.


    That's 85% (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 10:50:09 AM EST
    I feel Like There is a... (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 11:12:39 AM EST
    ... 80's anti-drug commercial in there somewhere.

    They brought "edibles" (none / 0) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 04:37:42 PM EST
    Which none of us were very experienced with.



    Revisited My Notes (none / 0) (#157)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 03:55:53 PM EST
    The solar eclipse where we were at was 2 mins & 40 seconds.  If memory server me right, I believe the one in 2024 will be closer to 5 mins.

    I remember stores in some city had painted the line of totality down the street and through their building.  LINK

    The closer you get to the line, the craZier the people get.  So if you are right on it, you are in for a real treat.


    It probably will be wild (none / 0) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 04:21:46 PM EST
    Because I live in what began as and to a certain extent still is a vacation community.  Lakes, golf courses, etc. so there are usually lots of summer people.

    And the line really does go right smack over me.


    can we have a Talkleft (none / 0) (#165)
    by leap on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 04:43:14 PM EST
    meet-up at the line over your house on April 8, 2024? I can bring some Warshington weed...

    I like it (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 04:46:40 PM EST
    If anyone is serious (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 05:13:47 PM EST
    Don't think 5 years is to early to start thinking about reservations.  I heard they were all gone a couple of years before the last one.  The thing is compared to urban areas they are kind of limited.

    But there are very cool little cabins to rent here.   All around this area.

    I can post links.


    My dinky paint program saved it sideways (none / 0) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 05:16:31 PM EST
    Our Public Lands Hate You (none / 0) (#133)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 11:20:41 AM EST
    Morons (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 11:29:34 AM EST
    Yes, they are (none / 0) (#135)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 11:49:34 AM EST

    Election Day in Israel (none / 0) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 11:51:52 AM EST
    It looks like Bibi might be losing

    Which would not just be awsum for Israel it would be a slap in the face for Trump who has gone all in to save him.  

    Bye bye Bibi? (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 12:01:52 PM EST

    Warning of the rise of the Left, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cancelled a planned campaign event in Ashdod on Tuesday and returned to Jerusalem, where he said he was going to work to "save the Right" and ensure that a right-wing government comes to power following the elections.

    "I received a dramatic update that there is low turnout in Likud strongholds but that there is high turnout in left-wing strongholds," Netanyahu said. "We have to save the Right. There are only a few more hours."

    I sincerely (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 01:11:26 PM EST
    Hope it's good-bye for him.

    Polls closed (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 02:11:59 PM EST
    At 2 I think.

    Too close to call.  Which is good.


    Ironic (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 02:15:11 PM EST
    that he's concerned about "the left" when he aligned Likud with the Israeli Nazi Party because he was so desperate for voters.

    Gantz is saying he won (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 02:20:23 PM EST
    I wish I understood parliamentary systems better.

    Both side are claiming (none / 0) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 02:38:42 PM EST
    The win

    Benny Gantz is hardly a leftist (none / 0) (#155)
    by Peter G on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 02:58:24 PM EST
    Although he appears to hold positions within the range of sane (for a change).

    They are saying (none / 0) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 04:35:29 PM EST
    Gantz won by the numbers but Bebe May still be able to pull it out by putting all the crazies together.

    I hope they are wrong.  

    Guy just said 19 out of the last 20 elections ended with the person who won by the numbers getting to put the government together.

    The world needs a win.


    As I understand the parliamentary system (none / 0) (#167)
    by Peter G on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 04:51:25 PM EST
    the candidate who "won by the numbers" in a multi-party election has the first opportunity to put together a governing majority coalition.

    I'm sure (none / 0) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 05:05:27 PM EST
    Bebe is horse trading like his freedom depends on it.   Because it probably does

    Guy on MSNBC (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 02:22:29 PM EST
    Saying Bebe might get together with the extremist right parties if they agree to keep him out of jail.

    Rachel Rollins (none / 0) (#139)
    by CST on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 12:40:06 PM EST
    The new Suffolk county DA (city of Boston plus a few small cities) has escalated fight with the moderate Republican governor of Massachusetts,  Charlie Baker, and the usual suspects (media) are all in a tizzy about it.  You see she called out his privilege and blindness in a rather blunt manner that involved his son.  And despite the fact that she was spot on in her criticism,  she was mean you see, and he was so nice, and likeable, in the public letter that cr@pped all over her signature policy.

    In all seriousness,  she went personal, and of course people are pissed.   But what everyone else misses is that it was always personal,  just not to them.

    Also,  I'm pissed, I don't want to be nice, and I don't want my politicians nice either.  On that note,  Stephen Miller is a white nationalist.

    Reminds me of the current (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by caseyOR on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 04:16:03 PM EST
    Whining by Chicago police, Cook County police chiefs and Rahm Emmanuel about Cook County state's attorney Kim Foxx.

    They hate Foxx because she won, in the aftermath of the police killing of LaQuan McDonald and the coverup, by defeating the former SA who helped with the coverup. Foxx campaigned hard against police corruption. They hate her.

    And that is why they have jumped on the Jussie Smollett thing like a pack of dogs with a bone.


    And Stephen Miller is a (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by caseyOR on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 04:16:50 PM EST
    White Nationalist.

    Context (none / 0) (#140)
    by CST on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 12:45:51 PM EST
    She put out a formal non-prosecution policy for minor crimes that the Baker administration went out of their way to publicly oppose.  Barker's son allegedly sexually assaulted a woman on a plane and wasn't prosecuted. Rollins mentioned that specific incident and the fact that many residents of Boston can't afford expensive lawyers to get them that kind of deal.  And she didn't stop there, she also called out the lack of diversity in his administration and personal wealth and privilege.

    Republicans are...well (none / 0) (#143)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 01:11:30 PM EST
    Republicans, "nice", "moderate", still Republicans. Makes me think of the New Jersey governor's race in 2013. Barbara Buono, well-regarded NJ State Senator, received little support from the Democratic Party and even less support from the media. Chris Christie, the incumbent was not nice, but that bullying and arrogance was considered, at the time, to be charming.  And, Christie was nice to President Obama when touring Hurricane Sandy damage.  Kumbaya finally, return him to office, pronto.  

    Another delusional dem (none / 0) (#158)
    by ragebot on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 04:09:54 PM EST
    who thinks he can be prez.

    More likely he is hoping to be the VP for someone else.

    Probably (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 04:36:29 PM EST
    angling more for a cabinet post, which is the best case for most of them anyway. Plus cred for a future run.

    His white maleness might be a good compliment to Kamala but two Californians is a stretch, otherwise he would seemingly have no added value as VP.

    Depending on how the investigations play out he is likely to get plenty of face time over the next several months.

    Delusional is not the word I would use to describe any of the candidates, most of the long shots know the odds, but there are always benefits to taking a shot.  


    Rep. Swalwell is (none / 0) (#171)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 05:32:07 PM EST
    rolling the dice---he will not run for re-election in 2020 as representative for his Northern California district--a safe Democratic district.  He has been a frequent contributor on MSNBC for the past several years.  He is thoughtful and well-spoken, but along will several other contenders, a long shot.  

    If (none / 0) (#172)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 05:44:26 PM EST
    he plays his cards right and a Democrat wins I could see CIA director. If they lose then it's probably off to the gulag for the lot of them.

    Unless the dems take the senate (none / 0) (#174)
    by ragebot on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 06:05:40 PM EST
    if they win the prez confirmation hearings may make the Kavanaugh confirmation look like a pillow fight in a sorority house.

    Harris is counting on the (none / 0) (#173)
    by ragebot on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 06:04:13 PM EST
    California primary purposely moved up to give her an edge in delegates early on.  Swalwell can only hurt even if he gets a tiny amount of votes there being from California will help.

    I have no idea what is going on in California in terms of the primary polls but with all the possible candidates I wonder what level of support will be viewed as a win for Harris.

    In 2016 Trump was able to win many of the early primary with a less than stellar plurality; IMHO because he went for the base vote.  My guess is the candidate who does that on the dem side will do the same thing.  Harris seems to be closer to the middle than some of the other dems and may fail the same way many of the better known pubs did against Trump.


    Uh, no. The California primary was not ... (5.00 / 4) (#184)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 06:19:08 AM EST
    ... "purposely moved up to give [Kamala Harris] an edge in delegates early on." The date was changed from June to March by the California State Legislature to make California more relevant and competitive in the overall nomination process.

    SB 568, "The Prime Time Primary Act," was first introduced in the State Senate on Feb. 17, 2017, which was only six weeks after Kamala Harris first took her seat in Congress. The State Senate later agreed to the Assembly's amendments on Sept. 22 of that same year, whereupon it was sent to Gov. Jerry Brown for his approval. Brown signed SB 568 into law, and Secretary of State Alex Padilla enrolled and chaptered it in statute, on Sept. 27, 2017.

    Truth be told, more people in California back in Feb. 2017 likely thought L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti would be running for president, rather than Harris. Regardless, I suggest that you first do a little research on your subjects before opining about them.



    Must see TV (none / 0) (#175)
    by ragebot on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 06:09:20 PM EST
    Mnuchin is NOT (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 11:21:45 PM EST
    ...ready to be scolded by a black woman who could spot him the first three moves and still beat him at tic-tac-toe.

    His white privilege and "who do you think you are, black lady" oozed out of every pore.

    The smackdown she delivered this whining was the most delicious thing I have seen in a long time. I loved how she took him up on his whiny offer to stay!


    It was somewhat (none / 0) (#197)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 10:16:39 AM EST
    surprising that Mnuchin rreaized it would not be the best move in the world to be the first Secretary of the Treasury to storm out of a congressional hearing, unable to control his umbrage toward a powerful chair.

    I guess winter is literally coming (none / 0) (#186)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 07:33:24 AM EST
    For the west and plains states.

    Hang in there.  

    52,000 waiting (none / 0) (#187)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 07:38:23 AM EST
    and a couple thousand more every time you hit refresh

    the BLACK HOLE

    9 EST (none / 0) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 07:41:43 AM EST
    Just hit (none / 0) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 07:52:37 AM EST

    2 minute warning


    That was really truly awsum (none / 0) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 08:23:51 AM EST
    My first thought was (none / 0) (#201)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 10:54:37 AM EST
    A severe 100 million mile wide case of hemorrids.

    vml68 (none / 0) (#207)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 02:22:35 PM EST
    I like you and I really would rather not get into this... but there is a reason the last election was basically a vote for the person people least disliked.  And when your candidate loses that contest days after her opponent admitted, on tape, to sexually assaulting women...

    This BS that somehow it wasn't the candidates fault is nothing more than folks who picked the wrong horse trying to convince themselves they didn't make a fantastic error in judgement.  So they blame anyone and anything but the actual culprit.  Well she is a woman and this country hates women, and yet white women overwhelmingly choose Trump, that's like a serious mystery.  Oh it was Comey, it had nothing to do with her fumbling and mumbling over her emails and it certainly wasn't her fault she put them on a server at her house, no way Jose.  Nothing to do with her inability to contain a minor crisis.  Oh it was the right wing smear machine, because literally no one mentioned that the right wing smear machine would never let another Clinton get elected. People were ran out of town over that suggestion because it was so ludicrous, we were told that simply wasn't a valid reason to not vote for her.  No, no, it was voter suppression, it had nothing to do with her calling people deplorables or neglecting to go into those states on the run up to the election, nope, definitely not.  And Sanders, of course it was partially his fault, it was everyone's and everything's fault but the actual candidate.  But I am sure had she won, she would have gotten 130% of the credit, because as we all know, she walks on water around these parts.

    Yes, God Forbid, we find women like Clinton and Warren who have well thought out policies and years of experience, inspirational.
     Is your issue with the voting public or me for pointing out that they are, for the most part, not interested in anything past sound bites and bumper stickers ?  Yeah, if only the world was different...

    Trump is in Town Today... (none / 0) (#208)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 10, 2019 at 02:28:03 PM EST
    ...and by town I mean a little tiny place called Crosby, which is outside of Houston.  I don't know a thing about it.   LINK
    He is expected to announce executive orders intended to speed up energy projects and expand oil and natural gas production, according to previous reports in the Houston Chronicle.

    Trump: before: "We love (none / 0) (#213)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 11, 2019 at 12:52:58 PM EST
    Wikileaks."  Now:  "I know nothing about Wikileaks."  But, he does now know that Texas is a big state, bigger even than NYC where 5th Ave bisects with Park Ave.  

    vml68 (none / 0) (#214)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Apr 11, 2019 at 02:32:28 PM EST
    Backing down, that is what you think.  I don't want to have this conversation because even though she lost, her backers won't admit they were wrong.  Never mind the proof sitting in the White House, they forget how they ran people off with their never ending non-sense about how great Hillary is.  I may not have been right, but I know I wasn't wrong.  No one here wants to here this and I don't particularly like writing it for everyone to read.

    The second reason I don't particularly want to get into this is ScottW's Law.

    As any 2016 election discussion grows longer at Talk Left, the probability of of being called a misogynists approaches 1.

    You went to it quicker than I would have thought, and for implying it without actually committing to it, almost as if my misogyny is so deep that I might not even be aware of it.

    You might want to examine why you hold her to a standard that no one else is held to.
    Not really sure what the baseline is here, nor do I think you actually care that I was a John Edwards fanboy, but to say I was easy on the last D to lose a presidential race would be inaccurate.

    Why did Clinton swept the black female vote, but seriously failed with the white female vote.  I brought this up for a reason; it can't be so easily be written off as misogyny,  You have to think about why Clinton lost when you figure out why white women overwhelming went with an actual misogynist.  I really hope you don't land on 'Well, women can be misogynists too.'

    We can take this again in a new post and I will read if you reply, but I won't reply to this thread anymore.

    Netflix warning (none / 0) (#217)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 11, 2019 at 05:16:11 PM EST
    Netflix US
    As you make your way through
    , here are some moments animal lovers may want to skip:

    One Planet: 16:04 - 16:43
    Frozen World: 16:29 - 17:47, 32:50 - 33:45, 48:45 - 51:00
    Fresh Water: 26:10 - 27:09
    Deserts and Grasslands: 28:45-29:10
    High Seas: 37:42-37:52
    12:06 PM · Apr 10, 2019 · Twitter for iPhone

    Neil DeGrasse Tyson's... (none / 0) (#218)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 12, 2019 at 09:06:10 AM EST
    ... reputation has taken some hits, but no on can deny his ability to relate to his audience and explain very complex concepts in terms that most people can understand, and do it an enjoyable way.  I absolutely love his 13 part series Cosmos, which is an homage to Carl Sagan's Cosmos series.

    Professor Jim Al-Khalili is doing the same kind of work with physics & quantum mechanics.  I would rate his series Order & Disorder, The Amazing World Of Gravity, and The Secrets Of Quantum Physics as good as Cosmos.  I am really trying to soak up as much as I can, but the sad fact of the matter is I just don't have to brain power to truly comprehend a lot of these concepts.  But I still enjoy it immensely when they dumb it down for the public.  I cannot get enough of this guy.

    Changing subject, I really wish this wasn't behind a paywall.
    BREAKTHROUGH the First Picture of a Black Hole as it provide some context to the breakthrough.  Like the Dr. Bouman who most certainly does have that brain power mentioned above.  And how this was a world wide endeavor that used radio telescopes located all over Earth to capture the data to produce the image.