Thursday Open Thread

Run Lola Run is back in theaters Friday, on the 25th anniversary of its 1999 release. It has been restored and upgraded to 4k. If you still go to movie theaters, this is one to see there. As director/writer Tom Tykwer says during a recent interview in the linked article, the reaction of people watching the film has been a "sheer joy to watch". A very basic plot summary from the article:

In the film, Lola (Franka Potente) has 20 minutes to come up with enough money to get her boyfriend, Manni (Moritz Bliebtreu), out of debt with a gangster. The film portrays three attempts by Lola to find a solution on foot.

Every time she is unsuccessful, the film rewinds to the beginning and Lola tries again. The film's presentation of three different realities qualifies as an early depiction of the multiverse, where infinite universes exist simultaneously.


I saw the film in 1999 when it first came out at a movie theater in Greenwich Village. I had no idea what it was about before going into the theater. A lawyer friend of mine and I had just finished a late afternoon lunch, and as we were getting ready to leave, he checked his phone and said there was a new movie playing nearby he wanted to see. It was about to start, and he said if we ran, we might make it.

So we ran -- a few blocks at least -- and got in. Coming attractions were playing by the time we got seated, and we were so out of breath from running, he never did have a chance to tell me what the movie was about before it started playing.

I can still evoke the dazed feeling I had when it was over and we stepped onto Second (or maybe Third) Avenue. The street was teeming with people going about their lives, and it seemed like I was spinning, with people swirling around me everywhere. It took me a few moments to get my composure back.

No, I wasn't high. I just knew that I had seen something completely different, something that normally would not interest me at all (watching someone run the same route three times, for almost two hours, to the same techno-pop song, wearing the same outfit, in German no less).

In the article, both the Director and Potente explain how the movie was made, the "multi-verse" aspect to it, something that recent films have also explored, and the sources he drew on.

The movie isn't Lola running every single minute. The Director/writer says, "Of course, we have a proper plot in our film, but it's also pretty absurd. If you watch Lola for the plot, go elsewhere."

This casino segment is one of the parts where the plot surfaces, quite enjoyably. It also gives you a flavor of the film.

As for why people re-watch certain movies and TV shows and episodes over and over, these psychologists say it's a healthy practice and explain the various types of emotional fulfillment it brings.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Trump Outside Court: Trial Was Rigged, Judge Unfair | The Great Debate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Recorded yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 07, 2024 at 10:04:49 AM EST
    VETERAN: You're the savior of the people, you bring tears to my eyes.

    ZELENSKY: No no, you saved Europe.

    VETERAN: My hero.

    ZELENSKY: No, you are our hero.

    VETERAN: I pray for you.

    I tried it.., (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by desertswine on Fri Jun 07, 2024 at 02:28:48 PM EST
    When asked "Who won the 2020 US presidential election?" Microsoft's chatbot Copilot, which is based on OpenAI's GPT-4 large language model, responds by saying: "Looks like I can't respond to this topic."

    To be fair, it didn't know who won the 1932 election either.

    RIP Doug Ingle (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 07, 2024 at 04:36:42 PM EST
    If this doesn't make you smile (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 07, 2024 at 08:06:16 PM EST
    Looks like (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 08, 2024 at 03:36:29 PM EST
    he went to the same school of acting wrestlers and televangelists go to.

    I thought it (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 08, 2024 at 05:27:59 PM EST
    an odd gift to give your detractors

    That video will live forever


    I think he crossed that bridge (none / 0) (#8)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 08, 2024 at 06:03:16 PM EST
    a long time ago. There's another video where he talks about being stalked by green-skinned, pot-bellied goblins.

    The guy's mainstreamed psychotic ravings to an extent the fundamentalists never dreamed of.


    Oh well (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 08, 2024 at 06:21:09 PM EST
    All I can say is thank you Al, you made my day.

    I sent that to a friend of mine. (none / 0) (#10)
    by leap2 on Sat Jun 08, 2024 at 08:38:05 PM EST
    He said it was crock tears.

    I was thinking (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 10, 2024 at 05:27:18 PM EST
    At sentencing the judge might give Trump probation on the charges but give him some jail time for contempt.


    He really needs to be in jail. Even for little while. The nation needs it.

    Most attorneys (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 10, 2024 at 06:09:25 PM EST
    seem to think he will get jail time for all of it and that he will get jail time for the felony charges because of his behavior during the court and the contempt probably a year or two but will be out on bail pending appeal. I guess he could sentence him to jail immediately for the contempt charges? But I thought that was already handled with fines.

    Yeah, I think GA6 is right. The contempts were (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 10, 2024 at 07:04:37 PM EST
    already adjudicated and sentenced (to fines). I do not expect jail or prison time, even though anyone else in these circumstances would likely get that sentence. If sentenced to jail (say, a couple of weekends), and he appeals, the judge may, but need not, continue his release on bail pending appeal. My friend who is a very experienced NY criminal defense lawyer, asked to outline the judge's non-prison options, responded: "The defendant could be sentenced to serve 3, 4 or 5 years' probation.  He could be made to pay restitution to the State or any other victim assuming the DA shows victim loss. ... He could be sentenced to a conditional discharge of three years; that is a revocable sentence if the conditions are violated.  He could be sentenced to an unconditional discharge. He could also get "intermittent imprisonment" such as weekends in jail. He could be sentenced to serve as long as six months jail plus the balance of 5 years on probation." My friend also wrote me, I believe (although I cannot find the message just now), that the defendant can ask for bail pending appeal either from the trial judge or from the appellate court, but only once: either way, the order on bail pending appeal is not appealable to another judge after that.

    Harry Litman offers a good overview (none / 0) (#15)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 09:43:09 AM EST
    of the immediate consequences of the NY conviction in a new Atlantic article. I have known Harry casually for some years (argued an appeal against him when he was a young prosecutor, soon after he clerked at the Supreme Court), and knew his remarkable mother pretty well before that and until her death.

    6 Months in Riker's Starting July 11 (none / 0) (#32)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 06:30:09 PM EST
    would be appropriate for this defendant, so until Jan. 10, 2025.  If he is elected President in November, he would have a few days to prepare for the inauguration.

    He has been contemptible, legally, (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 10, 2024 at 06:52:52 PM EST
    many times since the fines.  

    Hunter guilty on all counts (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 10:33:29 AM EST
    I was hoping for an acquittal to make their heads explode but a conviction makes their framing explode.  

    Which is probably even better.

    I feel bad for Hunter but he's a first time offender

    At least I think he is.

    Yes, too bad. For a number of (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 11:04:16 AM EST
    reasons, most of which I will not bother to mention. None of the individuals I have known (clients, neighbors, friends, family) who experienced addiction, either to alcohol or to drugs, "knew" that was so while in the active grip of that condition; they were all in denial. Sometimes to the moment of death. Not one would have been capable of answering "yes" to that question on a federal form, even knowing they were subject to the penalties of perjury. I was frankly anticipating a split verdict, perhaps guilty on one of three counts. The judge's pretrial rulings limiting the defense evidence that was directly relevant to his mens rea (required guilty mental state) give him strong grounds for appeal (following the sentencing), in my opinion.

    Andrew Weissman (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 12:32:13 PM EST
    and others have said the best hope for Hunter on appeal could ironically be that most right wingers, including probably some on the supreme court, think the stuff about not allowing ownership of a gun while on drugs is an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd amendment.

    That would be a helluva thing,


    Hard to blame him (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 12:56:47 PM EST
    "It is hard to blame him for wanting a gun, which he has a God-given right to have under the 2nd Amendment," Trump said in a statement.

    I'm not siding with the gun nuts here (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 01:05:49 PM EST
    but the law he supposedly violated is in my opinion laughably vague.

    And based on a laughable premise.  And in fact seems to me more like an opportunity for cops to rope people in on things like a random traffic stop when they smell pot and then find a gun.

    It's nonsense.


    A friend told me (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jun 12, 2024 at 07:00:38 AM EST
    that nobody has ever been convicted on any of these three charges against Hunter Biden.  I'm not sure if this is true.

    Absolutely not literally true. But not far (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 12, 2024 at 09:06:53 AM EST
    from true. That clause of the statute is very rarely prosecuted. Perhaps never before when the person was already in sustained recovery by the time the charges were brought, and the gun had not been used in the commission of any crime.

    Statement from President Biden (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 02:38:12 PM EST
    "As I said last week, I am the President, but I am also a Dad---I will accept the outcome of this case and will continue to respect the judicial process as Hunter considers an appeal. Jill and I will always be there for Hunter and the rest of our family with our love and support. Nothing will ever change that."

    Hunter was found guilty of something he attempted to plead guilty to last year, but the judge did not accept the plea.  At the time, there was loud displeasure about the plea by Senator Marsha Blackburn (R.TN) and other Republicans.

     Now, it seems some Republicans are disappointed that Hunter was convicted because it removes a talking point about how "unfair" and "rigged" that he got off and Trump was convicted.  Also, it would have been a handy means of falsely equating the two separate circumstances.  At a minimum, and literally, there is a difference in the volume of felonies: 34/3.  But, enough so that I will not be voting for either one of them, Hunter or Donald,  for President of the United States of America.


    At first I thought that whole thing (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 03:54:54 PM EST
    was a statement from Joe.  I wish it was.

    The authority (on dumb) has spoken.

    Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) called Hunter Biden's conviction on federal gun charges "kinda dumb."


    Orange Jesus has jumped the shark (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 04:39:09 PM EST
    in an electric boat

    Yeah, let's give this guy the nuclear codes

    This rant (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 07:30:01 PM EST
    was bizarro.  And, scary.  He seems to have jumped the shark. Big ly.

    jaws? (none / 0) (#56)
    by leap2 on Sat Jun 15, 2024 at 06:06:15 PM EST
    Justice Alito, in a (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 12, 2024 at 11:51:23 AM EST
    strange response about flying flags of insurrectionist symbolism over his home to Senators Durbin and Whitehouse, claimed his wife is fond of flags.  Unless, as it turns out, it is a gay flag.

    In audio-recordings, Martha Ann, Alito's wife, is heard fantasizing about flying a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag because she has to look across the lagoon at a Pride Flag for all of June. But, she told her husband she would not do it out of deference to his request not to do so, "but when you are free of this nonsense, I'm going to send them a message every day" she told informed her husband..."" maybe every week, I'll be changing flags. They'll be all kinds . I made a flag in my head. This is how I satisfy myself".  "It's white, it has yellow and orange flames around it, and in the middle is the word vergogna.  That is the Italian word for shame".

    Besides Mrs Alito's envisioned counter-flag program, it is curious as to just what she meant ---when he is free of this nonsense. Is that her view of his job as a SC Justice?  And, does it imply that he may be thinking of retiring from such nonsense?  And, hoping for a Trump victory and doing his part so he can leave the nonsense behind?  

    In fairness to Alito, he told the Senators he is not fond of flags. And, in that audio-recording was almost a regular, sane reactionary, simply agreeing with the questioner that the country needs to be restored to "a place of godliness".   Vergogna, indeed.

    As expected (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 09:30:01 AM EST
    Part of the good news (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 10:18:05 AM EST
    is that the Supreme Court seems to have re-discovered "standing".  The legal concept of  harm abandoned in Creative LLC v Elenis....the case where the plaintiff filed suit against Elenis, Director of Colorado's civil rights agency.  The plaintiff, a graphic designer, was just  "blue skying" the possibility of starting a website business but wondered about having to design for same sex marriages in keeping with the state's anti-discrimination  requirements.  The Court found in her favor although there  were no customers, no requests for designs by same sex couples, no complaints registered with the state, and no state action taken.

    Part of the bad news is that the finding was made on the basis of no standing, rather than on its merits.  The FDA has found during the drug's  long approval period to be safe and effective, including its prescribing modifications over time.

    Overall, a good decision for women's health and women's rights.  Besides, the SC and Trump do not need another justifiable political firestorm.


    It's being said (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 11:31:39 AM EST
    they have basically punted it to the states.

    I have serious doubts whether a state (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 12:24:52 PM EST
    can ban (or even regulate the distribution or dispensing of) a medication that is FDA approved, or try to regulate what can be mailed or delivered, under the Supreme Court's view of the Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and/or Tenth Amendment federalism. As the Supreme Court plurality recognized in the PPACA (Obamacare) case in 2010, the United States has a single interstate system of medical care that can be subject to legally-mandated federal controls.

    Good (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 12:31:03 PM EST
    PBS (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 02:36:24 PM EST

    Access to the pills is restricted across large swaths of the country because of state laws that ban abortion (including medication abortion) outright or impose separate restrictions on the drug's use.

    How do state laws impact access to mifepristone?
    Access largely depends on the laws in the state where a patient lives and, in the case of states banning or restricting mifepristone, what steps they are willing to take to circumvent them.

    About half of U.S. states allows online prescribing and mail delivery of mifepristone, conforming to FDA's label for the drug.

    Currently, 14 states are enforcing bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Another dozen or so states have laws specifically limiting how mifepristone can be prescribed, such as requiring an in-person visit with a physician or separate counseling about the potential risks and downsides of the drug.

    Those steps are not supported by major medical societies, including the American Medical Association.

    More (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 02:41:59 PM EST

    What's next for legal challenges to mifepristone?
    Legal experts say other parties could bring new lawsuits.

    Idaho, Kansas and Missouri sought to join the case against the FDA and the Biden administration, which Supreme Court rejected -- though a conservative Texas judge who initially ruled against the FDA allowed them to join the case in his district. The three states, all led by Republican attorneys general, could try to revive the case at the lower court, arguing they have state interests in blocking mifepristone's use.

    "They are not physicians who have to show that they actually have some relationship to abortion care," Rebouche said. "They're claiming a state interest in the regulation of medicine, so I think that's the vehicle in which you could see a lawsuit come forward."

    They made it pretty clear the problem this time  was standing.  


    Much discussion (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 02:44:54 PM EST
    of "Easter eggs" and "poison pills" in the decision.  

    Florida man wants to name the ocean after Trump (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 14, 2024 at 04:56:41 PM EST

    Republicans now want to rename the oceans after Donald Trump

    I have a better idea. Rename the Yucca Mountain Waste Repository the Donald J Trump Memorial Toxic Waste Repository

    It's (none / 0) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jun 14, 2024 at 06:56:39 PM EST
    a cult, a bizarre absurdist cult.

    Very good ad (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 16, 2024 at 10:44:53 AM EST
    I am going to (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 16, 2024 at 11:22:09 AM EST
    try that line out on some Trumpers and see what happens. Personally I think this only works on persuadable voters but that is good enough I hope

    The target is (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 16, 2024 at 12:51:13 PM EST
    persuadable voters I assume.

    The voting public has checked out.  You and might find it odd but vast numbers of people, if you believe polls, know nothing.  About nothing.

    I've seen more that than a quarter don't even know Trump has been convicted.  And a third think Biden is responsible for the Dobbs decision.

    I think massive advertising will help change that.  And I think it's coming.


    I have (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 17, 2024 at 09:04:52 AM EST
    seen campaign professionals say that voters don't even pay attention until October. In a lot of ways I am not surprised to see voters don't know anything. We don't have the most intellectual electorate and there are many that just don't pay attention or think politics is not relatable to their lives.

    Traditionslly (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 17, 2024 at 09:13:16 AM EST
    after Labor Day

    2016 (none / 0) (#60)
    by BGinCA on Sun Jun 16, 2024 at 12:19:28 PM EST
    Didn't Hillary have a similiar ad?
    Some people  can't be shamed.

    The ad covers (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 16, 2024 at 12:42:26 PM EST
    things since 2016.   This year is nothing like 2016.

    He is the farthest thing imaginable from a change candidate


    I Think the Best Anti-Trump Strategy (none / 0) (#63)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jun 16, 2024 at 01:56:36 PM EST
    is to advertise his wacky policy proposals.  "Imagine what a blanket 60% tariff on Chinese imports (and 10% on those from the rest of the world) will do for inflation."  An overemphasis on how bad Trump is as a person didn't work so well in 2016.  The emphasis should be on how much better off you will be if Biden is reelected rather than let Trump try to keep his promises if he becomes president in 2025.

    I'm sure that will also be done (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 16, 2024 at 02:13:45 PM EST
    It's funny to me you think because talking about his character didn't seem to work in 2016 it still won't.  

    He was an unknown quantity in 2016.  A crazy entertaining empty suit.
    In 2016 he had not been convicted of 34 felonies.  He had not had multiple civil judgements against him including fraud and assault that the judge called rape.

    Trump will not be elected again.  I'll take bets on that for any interested.  They, including Trump, know he will lose.   That's why they are already talking about how we will steal it.

    When we get to the point of who is lying about the election Trump's character or lack of it will be as important as any loony fantasy policy he might make up.


    I wish I had your certitude Howdy. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Jun 20, 2024 at 06:11:51 PM EST
    Too many younger people don't know who the Orange Moron really is. They don't know what he says, what he represents. I get the feeling that too many of them just see him as another media personality. Like the Kardashians, Taylor Swift or some dumb "influencer." None of which I understand or comprehend. I use NO social media. To them, Biden is the old guy where Orange Moron is (or was) a TV star. Unfortunately that means more to them.

    Correct (none / 0) (#65)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 16, 2024 at 07:16:13 PM EST
    by in large, the electorate does not do policy.

    You want to talk about not paying attention, your average voter has a hard time connecting the dots between party and policy and any argument besides a simple propagandist sound bite sails over their head.



    EXACTLY what the GOP Wants (none / 0) (#66)
    by jmacWA on Mon Jun 17, 2024 at 05:17:43 AM EST
    your average voter has a hard time connecting the dots between party and policy and any argument besides a simple propagandist sound bite sails over their head.

    The GOP has spent the last 40+ years dumbing down Americans and they have been successful beyond their wildest dreams. I never thought it could be as bad as it is now


    One of the reasons (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 17, 2024 at 09:07:17 AM EST
    that the GOP is holding tight to the Trumptanic. They think they can lie and gaslight their way out of this.

    I'm sure some think that. (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 17, 2024 at 09:25:14 AM EST
    To the extent they think.
    I also think they are many, like McConnell, who have resigned themselves to the disaster they can not prevent and are, pardon the expression, giving Trump enough rope.  I noted Mitches response to the crazy performance on Capital Hill.

    "Well, we shook hands several times.". With evil grin.

    I can imagine them thinking, when this election where Republicans are going to get slaughtered, is over, Trump will effectively be over also.

    The cult will survive of course but Trump will be removed from the stage by the next election.  By the legal system or the grim reaper.

     I don't believe the autocratic cult will survive in a way that is a real threat to the country without Trump.  No one else can do what he does.  It's not transferable.  Many have tried.

    So, give him enough rope.


    I so hope (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 17, 2024 at 01:39:59 PM EST
    that you are right, Howdy. I really do.

    I think there will be (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 17, 2024 at 02:15:16 PM EST
    senate republicans voting for Biden.  And not just Romney

    Willie Mays dies (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by jmacWA on Wed Jun 19, 2024 at 05:05:52 AM EST
    My childhood hero, everything I ever had to be numbered was 24.  Saw him play in every stadium he played in in the majors.  Polo grounds, Seal Stadium, Candlestick, and lastly Shea.   Atteneded Willie Mays night in 73.  A solid 93 years old, he had a great run. America says good night to Willie Mays.

    My late father, who grew up in the Bronx (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 19, 2024 at 09:18:35 AM EST
    was a lifelong, diehard Yankees fan. He took me to Yankee Stadium a couple of times every year when I was a kid in the 1950s, living in the Northern New Jersey suburbs. But in 1956 or 1957 (I don't know exactly when), before the other New York teams moved to California, my dad took me one time each to the Polo Grounds, to see Willie Mays play with the New York Giants, and to Ebbets Field, to see Jackie Robinson with the great, late-50s Brooklyn Dodgers. Honestly, I don't remember Robinson. But to this day I can remember watching Willie Mays play center field.

    RIP the original Hawkeye Pierce (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Jun 20, 2024 at 06:05:42 PM EST
    Donald Sutherland died in Miami, FL at 88.

    Donald Sutherland came knocking on my door (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by fishcamp on Thu Jun 20, 2024 at 06:56:17 PM EST
    Years ago in Aspen asking if he could use the tennis court.  Needless to say I was quite stunned.  We built a tennis court on my land for our eleven person community.  Donald had rented a house for the summer down the road from me and we played tennis together for three months.  He was a good player and told fantastic stories.  What a great guy he was.