home

Saturday Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 12:38:13 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Teresa and I are focused on one thing - the big hoops game between the Vols and the Gators tonight in Knoxville. The rest of you probably are concerned with other matters.

This is an Open Thread.

< What Is The Purpose Of The Buy America Provisions In The Stimulus Plan? | Unhappy Conservative Bloggers >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Saturday Open Thread | 169 comments (169 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Go Orange!! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 12:41:03 PM EST


    Ahem. Go ye Golden Eagles! (none / 0) (#118)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:08:25 PM EST
    My alma mater (okay, the winning one of my mane almae mater) already won a great game today.

    For those who do not recognize the team:  When a new name was put to alumni vote, I did not vote for this stupid one.  (Aka the Big Yellow Birds.)

    I voted for the name before the previous name.  Go ye Hilltoppers!

    (Still stumped?  Think politically incorrect team name "Warriors."  Think where they won today, at home in the new Al McGuire Arena. . . .)

    Parent

    Can only be (none / 0) (#123)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:11:58 PM EST
    Marquette. The clincher was Hilltoppers.  McGuire made it too obvious.

    Parent
    There are other hilltoppers.. (none / 0) (#126)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:18:44 PM EST


    Parent
    For me (none / 0) (#171)
    by cal1942 on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:26:19 AM EST
    Hilltoppers was the clincher because Michigan State had Marquette on its football schedule a few times in the 50s so I'm familiar with the name.

    Yes, I know, Marquette doesn't play football but they did in the past.

    Add that to the fact that Cream City resides in Wisconsin and that drastically narrows down this particular group of Hilltoppers.

    Al McGuire made it all too obvious because he is unforgettable and missed and won a national basketball championship at Marquette.

    Parent

    Uh, there was only one (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 06:29:33 PM EST
    Al McGuire.

    Parent
    Btw, know why they're the Hilltoppers? (none / 0) (#153)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 07:55:27 PM EST
    Marquette campus is sort of on a hill, still.  But really, a lot of the hill is gone.  Or at least moved . . . to a landfill.  It's a landfill better known as the lakefront in Milwaukee -- where there had been little land between the lake and the bluffs.  So now there is a drive, a beach, etc.

    That was good reason to give up the late, great name of Hilltoppers.  Gotta have a hill.  And Landfilltoppers just doesn't sound like a winner.

    Parent

    Brutal game (none / 0) (#134)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:41:32 PM EST
    The Hoyas are also sometimes known as the Hilltoppers.  But your Hilltoppers beat my Hilltoppers handily today. :-(

    Parent
    Hoya Saxa!!! (none / 0) (#136)
    by DFLer on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 06:10:37 PM EST


    Parent
    There is some new drama (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    surrounding Tom Daschle, the substance of which doesn't really interest me. My bottom line is that I don't like Daschle because he's been an utter failure at promoting Democratic policy.

    The problem (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by SOS on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:07:04 PM EST
    is character assassination has become one of America's favorite pastimes. Like we don't have enough problems to solve.

    I do agree though Politicians, especially Dems have become deplorably lazy and lackadaisical.

    Except when they are running for office.

    Parent

    Since people are discussing movies (none / 0) (#15)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:21:31 PM EST
    has anyone here ever seen David Lynch's Mulholland Drive? If so, could anyone be so kind as to maybe give me some pointers as to what that was (approximatly) about?

    Parent
    ahh Lynch (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by jedimom on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:38:57 PM EST
    Im still working on figuring out half the stuff I saw happen in Twin Peaks, lol

    Parent
    I still cant believe (none / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:46:27 PM EST
    that when they did that all-time-best-villians in, I think, Time or Newsweek, Dennis Hopper's character in Blue Velvet didnt even make the list.

    Parent
    I saw it (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 04:31:38 PM EST
    Can't help you.  When leaving the theater I over heard a woman who said "I could see that three times and I still wouldn't get it."

    Ditto.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#120)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:09:23 PM EST
    Dreams are sort of like that too. They are just a bit beyond ever getting them or being to nail them down. Lots of engaging possibilities, labyrinthine and never quite adding up.

    Personally I find that lack of closure is one of the most compelling aspects of art. For me great works of art are more about stimulating imagination and the invitation to dream and ponder than ever getting them.

    Parent

    I've seen it. Then went to wikipedia (none / 0) (#19)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:29:25 PM EST
    to find out what the heck was going on. There are a bunch of different theories, but the prevalent one seems to be that Naiomi Watts character is hallucinating/dreaming the bulk of the movie. In the hallucination, she is an innocent and manages to start a love affair with the vulnerable other character (can't think of her name). The film then switches back to reality where she is a spurned lover who seeks revenge for being wronged. The guilt from that revenge is what creates the hallucination/dream.

    Parent
    Makes sense (none / 0) (#33)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:43:17 PM EST
    Thanks.

    Certainly no one can ratchet up the wierdness quite like Lynch can.

    Parent

    2+2=5 (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 04:13:13 PM EST
    sort of.  Although I hear that if you are able to play it backwards at 3/4 speed it will answer all your questions.

    Great movie, imo.   Still love Eraserhead.

    Parent

    You mean something other than (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:19:11 PM EST
    his tax problems?

    It would be fine with me if he withdrew.  He's a wishy-washy Democrat.

    Parent

    this time its too much (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by jedimom on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:33:22 PM EST
    well not only did he not report the car and driver and try to deduct 15k in charitable deductions that werent eligible AND collect 200,000 from health care providers last year, who WILL be impacted by his decisions

    , but he ALSO didnt declare 80,000 in income for his work as a consultant

    this was LAST YEAR

    he had to pay over 100,000 in back taxes, he paid them 5 DAYS AGO??

    I call BS, get him out of there

    AND he hired another lobbyist for his chief of staff

    Parent

    disclaimer (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by jedimom on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:33:45 PM EST
    every tine I see him I grit my teeth,

    grrrrrrr

    Parent

    The undeclared 80,000 is the kicker here. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:37:56 PM EST
    How many idiots have we got on this cabinet?

    Parent
    One exception... (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 03:28:59 PM EST
    bringing out the state-of-the-art, high tech, electron microscope for Hillary.

    I'm sorry, I can't help myself; I'm just imagining what the scene would be like had Hillary won. Picturing her, "kicking a*s, from pillor to post," she's be a bit*h all right, but she'd be OUR bit*h.

    I'll be right back; right after I stop crying.

    Parent

    oops linkage herewith! (none / 0) (#31)
    by jedimom on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:42:00 PM EST
    sorry should have linked

    Tapper is all over it:

    On Jan. 2, President Obama's nominee to be secretary of the Department of Health and Human services, former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., filed amended tax returns to pay $140,167 in unpaid taxes. Read more about it HERE and HERE.

    it was a Friday Night News Dump

    if his fellow Senate colleagues pass him on this they seriously 'misunderestimate' the mood of the people right now...

    Parent

    updates unreported income issue (none / 0) (#34)
    by jedimom on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:43:47 PM EST
    Tapper caught it again here

    Mr. Daschle also didn't report $83,333 in consulting income in 2007....With the unreported income from the use of a car service in the amounts of $73,031 in 2005, $89,129 in 2006 and $93,096 in 2007; the unreported consulting income of $83,333 in 2007; and the adjusted reductions in charitable contributions, Daschle adds a total of $353,552 in additional income and reduced donations, meaning an additional tax payment of $128,203, in addition to $11,964 in interest.

    On January 2 of this year, Daschle filed amended tax returns to pay the $140,167 in unpaid taxes.

    January 2nd he paid it off, BUZZ you FAIL the honesty test go home!!


    Parent

    overall (none / 0) (#38)
    by jedimom on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:46:52 PM EST
    so he earned 5 million and underestimated his income by 300,000 and had to pay back taxes of over 100,000 and just did it Jan 2nd

    that breaks the BS meter man...

    AND the 200,000 from health care providers story is front page on Politico now too..

    CHeck THIS conflict out, why stop at HIRING a lobbyist when he can be IN the cabinet!!:

    Daschle made nearly $5.3 million in the last two years, records released Friday show, including $220,000 he received for giving speeches, many of them to outfits that stand to gain or lose millions of dollars from the work he would do once confirmed as secretary of Health and Human Services.

    For instance, the Health Industry Distributors Association plunked down $14,000 to land the former Senate Democratic leader in March 2008. The association, which represents medical products distributors, boasts on its website that Daschle met with it after he was nominated to discuss "the impact an Obama administration will have on the industry."

    This week, the group began openly lobbying him, sending him a letter urging him to rescind a rule requiring competitive bidding of Medicare contracts.




    Parent
    clarify (none / 0) (#39)
    by jedimom on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:47:16 PM EST
    sorry he earned the 5 mill over a two year period...

    Parent
    hmmmm (none / 0) (#45)
    by blogname on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:56:49 PM EST
    I defended Geithner, but this one is much bigger. I usually take my cue from IRS -- tax problems are usually resolved without a prosecution.  But still, this one is pretty large.

    Parent
    Tim Geithner (none / 0) (#96)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 04:06:43 PM EST
    could not be permitted to withdraw, some claimed, because he was the only one around who knew what was going down with the TARP money--which is pretty scary in its own right.  However, it would be difficult to make the unique expertise case for Tom Daschle. Indeed, his greatest claim on the position appears to be his strategic political support.  While he may get caught on income taxes, his failed senate leadership should disqualify him from further government service, as exemplified by his great compromise to give Bush his Iraq war so that we could move on.  After all, the 2002 elections would hinge on the economy, stupid (being, of course, 10 years behind the curve).

    Parent
    Not quite (none / 0) (#113)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:01:41 PM EST
    Tim Geithner was said to be, and probably is, invaluable for the depth of his understanding and experience of the dynamics and minute details of the financial system.

    He was instrumental in designing the original TARP plan, but so was Paulson and Bernanke.  Bernanke is, of course, still Fed chairman and Paulson has almost literally knocked himself out starting from before the election to bring the Obama people (and McCain people until the election itself) into the Treasury Dept. to start functioning as part of the team so they would be fully up to speed as fast as possible.  So the idea that he's the only one who understands TARP is simply false.

    Tom Daschle, whom I rather loathe, has as his one redeeming quality that he's been, I understand, a pretty relentless advocate of major health care reform and is as knowledgeable on the subject as Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.

    So perhaps not unique, as Geithner fairly legitimately is, but very highly desirable as HHS secretary if health care reform is to be a major initiative from the Obama administration.  He's also widely respected and liked by Senate Republicans, as well as Democrats.

    He was largely ineffective as Senate majority leader from the point of view of progressives, (although he sure managed to roll Trent Lott when Lott was maj. leader pretty regularly), but he was adored for his willingness to listen to all points of view and for his mild-mannered unautocratic style.  That's not particularly a virtue, in my opinion, but it sure fits the Obama schtick.

    Parent

    5 day number (none / 0) (#40)
    by jedimom on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:48:59 PM EST
    oh he paid the back taxes on Jan 2nd, 5 days before his nomination was announced, I see

    the frakker

    Parent

    is this another anti-clinton person who might (none / 0) (#46)
    by blogname on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:58:36 PM EST
    implode?

    Parent
    the 5 days.. (none / 0) (#61)
    by jedimom on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:20:50 PM EST
    why ches, ches he is :0)

     but frankly his ingenius plan to have a govt board 'evaluate effective treatments' and then use that to decide what is covered under Medicare, scares me witless also, and his lobbyisng is wrong, and I came back to add that the 5 days is ACTUALLY

    I have been fighting for UHC since 93, I spent 20 yrs in health care and this idea will create a giant govt hmo to deny treatment the way the HMOs do now..I am opposed to that on every conceivable level, it will enrich some lobbyists and officials though ...

    AFTER he was nominated, it was FIVE DAYS BEFORE HIS HEARING, that he finally paid what he owed

    good Gawd!

    so Jan 2nd he paid, jan 5 was his hearing

    Parent

    man (none / 0) (#65)
    by jedimom on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:22:07 PM EST
    i just cant get it right can I?

    he paid Jan 2nd, his hearing was Jan 7th...


    Parent

    You noticed that too? (none / 0) (#84)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 03:20:50 PM EST
    I was just about to write that there seems to be a common thread among all the bland, Democratic rejects that Obama "reached out" to in filling Administration posts.

    We should make a list, like the Parlor game, "Seven Steps to Kevin Bacon," of all the back-stabbing, CDS infected quislings, who gladly, and oh, so quickly, traded in their self-respect & dignity for a shot at joining the Obama love-in.

    Watching the self-immolation is zeitgeist at its best.

    Was Bill Richardson the first, or was it Claire, "my children told me they wouldn't speak to me ever, ever, ever again if I didn't vote for Obama," McCaskill?

    Parent

    when is it enough? (none / 0) (#159)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:15:34 PM EST
    jedimom says that it is too much this time. Well.... My husband & I were talking at dinnter (geez, we talk too much politics) about "the line." How do we know when someone crosses the line? One answer, of course, is that it depends what the subject matter is. In the area of taxes, the Geithner case may make that line murkier. In law, you have such things as "the Rule in Shelley's Case."  Maybe--as an extension--we now have the rule in Geithner's Case. What is that? It may be something like: If you are an otherwise fairly decent guy and are (or could be) economically liberal, its ok to forget some taxes here and there.  Now, I'm a longtime liberal, and I like that possible interpretation.  But, seriously, my concern about the Geithner situation from the beginning has been the precedential impact. Heck. I don't know; and, I always liked Sen. Daschle (and, I believe that he would be quite good in the health care area.) Yet, it is important to think about the longterm readings and precedent.

    Parent
    And he differs from other Dems how? (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by BernieO on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 06:27:14 PM EST
    None of them can hold a candle to the Republicans who have been able to sell policies that have repeatedly failed. Meanwhile Dems stand around while both their people and their policies get ridiculed both by the right and by the media.

    Parent
    Interesting fact, our new National Security (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:15:36 PM EST
    Advisor was on the Chevron Board. Just like Condoleeza rice. Is that some kind of prerequisite for the job now?

    chevron (none / 0) (#23)
    by jedimom on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:34:07 PM EST
    isnt Sam Nunn on that Board too?

    Parent
    Yup. That board must have more members (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:36:05 PM EST
    then the population of my town.

    Parent
    I hope someone else (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Fabian on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:34:09 PM EST
    caught the McLaughlin Group Friday night.

    I know that the panel has a conservative bias with one token liberal. (IMO)  Last night the conservatives were yowling like scalded cats.  OMG!  Pork barrel spending!  OMG!  Spending on social programs!  OMG!   Spending on family planning services!  (...which was cut, but they just had to mention it.)  OMG!  Not enough tax cuts!  OMG!  Tax and spend liberals!

    It was a recitation of every conservative fiscal policy talking point.  What they did not discuss was the dire straits that the economy was in or how it got there or the HUGE chunk o' change that the TARP is giving to Big Business.  Mostly it was just bad, bad, bad Obama and bad, bad, bad Democrats.

    I'm looking for a Republican strategy and so far it seems to be "Hope Obama fails. Blame him for everything that goes wrong.".  There's no claim that Republicans have superior policies and ideas.  There's just a desire to ignore the Bush years and hope that they can direct attention to what is happening now.  

    What can the Republicans do?  They have GWB, not Reagan.  They have two unwon wars.  They have a devastated economy.  They don't even have a bright, shiny, up and coming Republican - just the moldy old guard.  If they had a brain, they'd recruit some smiler like Huckabee to start a charm offensive.  Not sure what the narrative would be: "Republicans aren't bad, just misunderstood." ?  They could always try "Those weren't really eight years of Republican policies in action.  It's all Cheney's fault!".  (Can't blame GWB.  They supported him for two terms!)

    The Current Republican Mantra is... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by santarita on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:12:28 PM EST
    that the only way to stimulate the economy is through tax cuts.  The more "liberal" Republicans admit that some government spending might be ok along with the tax cuts.  The extremist wing (which includes all or almost all of the House Republicans) think that any increase in spending is anathema and that along with the tax cuts, we should be cutting programs (except, of course, military spending).

    There is a real philosophical divide between the two parties.  Obama has probably been influenced enough by his UC economic colleagues to believe that some tax cuts are appropriate.  So he is probably hedging his bets by doing tax cuts and spending.

    The House Dems put spending projects in their bill.   I'd bet that they knew that most wouldn't get past the more conservative Senate.  But why not try?  

    Parent

    The "Tax Cuts Solve All" theory (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Fabian on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 03:30:12 PM EST
    might be more plausible if we were coming off two Democratic terms (raising taxes) instead of two Republican terms (cutting taxes).

    That way you could argue that raising taxes got us into this economic fix and that cutting taxes could get us out.  But the Republicans have been cutting taxes (and regulation) for eight years - so how will cutting taxes make things better?  

    I have listened to discussions on the Ohio economy.  Governor Taft (R) got a number of tax cuts and they've been in place for years now.  When discussion of the state budget (serious deficit looming) comes around to raising taxes, the Tax Cut Republicans say "The cuts we have will work if we just give them more time!  Don't raise taxes.".

    Some things are predictable.  When the data isn't on your side, ignore it!

    Parent

    Never forget (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:05:40 PM EST
    the GOP goal is to destroy the effectiveness of government.  Best way to do that is to deprive it of money-- ie, tax cuts.  They're less for tax cuts out of principle than they are for handicapping government.

    Parent
    Gosh, I thought the GOP (none / 0) (#119)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:08:49 PM EST
    was the last bulwark against the total victoray of Karl Marx! Damn that 40 hour work week!!

    Parent
    Or make up your own data (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by BernieO on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 06:32:28 PM EST
    The latest lie is that the New Deal created absolutely no new jobs. This is based on data that counts only private sector jobs and omits the jobs created directly by the New Deal like the WPA and CCC. So I guess conservatives think the Golden Gate bridge is just a mirage

    Too bad there aren't a hundred Paul Krugmans. He seems to be the only one who bothers to counter right wing spin about the economy.

    Parent

    True Believers Can Always Find... (none / 0) (#106)
    by santarita on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 04:52:42 PM EST
    explanations for why their beliefs haven't shown the expected results.  It's part of the reason that we are where we are today.  In a perfect world, theories work well.  But we don't live in a perfect world.  

    Parent
    GO GATORS! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by blogname on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:45:21 PM EST
    And on political issues, has Obama really reformed federalism? Already?

    Sad irony (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 04:11:54 PM EST
    Michael Steele, the new RNC chairman, says bipartisanship is overrated and that he's enormously proud of republicans for standing up against the democrats on the stimulus bill.

    Will democrats every learn how to fight for their principles?

    Then again (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 06:30:59 PM EST
    Michael Steele is such a consummate politician exactly how many general elections has he ever won in his lifetime by people voting for him?

    Parent
    True, but nothing to do with my comment. (none / 0) (#147)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 07:01:01 PM EST


    Parent
    When pigs fly (none / 0) (#142)
    by BernieO on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 06:33:33 PM EST


    Parent
    GO VOLS!!!!!!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by tnjen on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 04:23:58 PM EST
    :D

    Not overly impressed by Slumdog Millionaire (none / 0) (#2)
    by magster on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 12:53:50 PM EST
    It's good, but not the best movie.  My wife was so disappointed by the shallowness of the portrayal of the female lead, she googled whether people complained about the movie's sexism.  She found some critic in Tucson that spoke for her.

    That critic (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by starsandstripes on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 04:58:36 PM EST
    really has no idea what he is talking about. The patronizing attitude toward the movie at the beginning of the review shows that he's never been to India and doesn't really understand how the poor live in the slums.

    I thought the movie depicted Bombay really well. I wasn't too fond of the girl's role, but I've seen so many women in Bombay play a vapid, personality-less character in real life that I totally see her as a legitimate portrayal of what many girls turn out to be. As for the ingenuity of their romance, having grown up in Bombay and lived in North America since my early twenties, my perception is that the way romances develop in the two places are completely different. I can see a romance such as theirs take place in Bombay, I can't see it happen in North America.

    What is unbelievable is that a girl growing up in the slums with poor nutrition and not much shelter from the vagaries of nature should grow up with beautiful hair, perfect teeth and good skin. That I haven't seen happen. She looked like the product of a middle-class to upper middle-class family to me.

    Parent

    I watched an interesting movie (none / 0) (#4)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:01:45 PM EST
    on Netflix a couple days ago:" The Host", a Korean monster movie in the Godzilla vein.
    American chemical dumping in the Han River leads to a mutated giant fish. While the themes are similar to Godzilla, this has a very different flavor. The hero of the movie is a near-moron son of a shopkeeper who persists in trying to find his daughter against all obstacles.
    The monster is really interesting to look at as well. A Korean student of mine told me the movie is quite famous over there.

    Another movie I saw which was completely dreadful, despite being an indy prize winner, was Paranoia 1.0. Don't watch it!

    Parent

    I've never seen the host, but I know it's (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:14:15 PM EST
    also well regarded in horror/monster movie circles over here as well. When Cloverfield came out there were many comparisons made.

    Parent
    Last night I watched "the Walker" (none / 0) (#16)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:24:28 PM EST
    , where Woody Harrelson plays an older gay man who is  an escort to rich women in DC.
    Many people hated that movie, but I found it interesting, not least because his boyfriend, played by Moritz Bleibtreu, is HOT.
    I don't know if Harrelson's accent was authentic, but that annoyed many people. It was a slow-paced, mush mouthed style, somewhat akin to Barbara Walters Maryland accent.


    Parent
    I just looked that up in my movie guide (none / 0) (#13)
    by magster on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:16:01 PM EST
    Great review.  I will look for it.

    Parent
    THE HOST is great ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:50:29 PM EST
    yet another reason why S. Korea has been one of the places to watch for interesting cinema in the last decade.

    Parent
    I've been struck (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:10:50 PM EST
    lately myself about how prevalent this ongoing sexist undercurrent is.

    Even though I dont particlarly worry about the well being of prominent celebrities, these late night guys who feel compelled to every night use Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Kirstie Allie etc etc as no-hold-barred punching bags really makes me wonder how much progress we've made in the last couple of decades.

    Parent

    Jondee, (none / 0) (#72)
    by bocajeff on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:46:28 PM EST
    There is a difference between a woman being used as a punching bag and a punching bag being used. In other words, some female celebs are just apt to be made fun of. Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton fall into that category.

    Parent
    Yes, indeed. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:12:59 PM EST
    The female role was the weakest part of the movie.  Nevertheless, I think it's a film that charms by its goofy energy, darting camera angles, and great music.  Although there are some difficult scenes of cruelty and poverty, the rags-to-riches theme was made new again in its Indian locale.

    Is it the best film of the year?  I'd pick "Milk" above any others.

    Parent

    It's the 2008/09 zeitgeist, I think. (none / 0) (#17)
    by EL seattle on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:25:39 PM EST
    We're living in a time of gotcha scandals, boo/hiss villains, and easy feel-good emotions.  This doesn't seem a time of serious reflection and analysis.

    I was struck by the amount of gender/cultural issues that last year's Batman movie had.  But almost no one mentioned them.  As I remember it, that movie was pretty much a body count flick for females and minorites, but no one seemed to notice and/or care about that or what it meant culturally.  So it goes, I guess.

    Parent

    A central theme of The Dark Knight was (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:34:11 PM EST
    the dangers of escalation, the unintended consequences of vigilantism and the fragility of civilization/morality in the face of violence. I also remember only 2 women dying in the whole movie.

    Parent
    Wow, I didn't notice that. (none / 0) (#18)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:26:45 PM EST
    I thought the movie was horrendous, so I didn't really  care about nuances.

    Parent
    I saw it with a friend (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:42:07 PM EST
    who felt the same way about the female role - also pointed out that she was a slumdog orphan who just happens to grow up into a beautiful sexbomb with perfect teeth!


    Parent
    It's a ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:52:24 PM EST
    fable.

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:56:07 PM EST
    I thought it was fairly silly, but a cute fable/love story. It certainly didn't live up to the accolades I had heard though.

    My friend was really upset by it - in addition to the stereotypical shallow female role, she felt it was gratuitously brutal.

    My reaction was just kind of tepid.

    I thought Milk was outstanding.

    Parent

    I disagree that the brutality was gratuitous (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by BernieO on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 06:37:07 PM EST
    I think the depiction of what happens to children who grow up in that kind of situation - except for the main character whose storyline was a fairy tale.

    Parent
    Yeah, I disagreed as well (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 07:01:43 PM EST
    It was powerful actually - and extremely disturbing.

    Parent
    A fable -- or an indicator? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:18:00 PM EST
    Interestingly, I'm seeing data that college enrollments in women's/gender studies are dropping a lot in the last year.  (There are indicators of a larger decline due to demographics, the economy, etc. -- but women's/gender studies is dropping well ahead of that curve, according to the report.)

    Coincidental, after the campaign of the last year, the media (and others') sanctioning of backlash, etc.?  Dunno.  But it may be time to reread Faludi's Backlash about the last one, which came with the conservative ascendancy -- and had such an impact.  Thankfully, we finally have the Ledbetter law, but it will take a lot more from Dems to get back to where we were as a society after these devastating decades.

    Parent

    I was debating my friend yesterday about African (none / 0) (#67)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:36:50 PM EST
    American studies.  I initially took the devils advocate position that African American studies (and by extention women's studies, ethnic studies etc.) were not good majors for undergrad students because they taught information, instead of focusing on a discipline/ methodology to tackle problems.   I argued that they instead should be mastor's programs/ pH programs- where depth of knowledge is the goal after you have learned a methodology to analyze the information.  Unfortuantely for me, my friend arguements weren't good (or I was being very contrary) and I started believing my own B.S.  Why am I wrong?

    Parent
    Let me add (none / 0) (#69)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:38:06 PM EST
    I have a minor in African American studies from Oberlin College (great department) and loved every minute of it.

    Parent
    There is theory (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:50:20 PM EST
    distinctive to women's/gender studies -- and more methodology than in many fields, since this is an interdisclipinary field.  I.e., it uses methodology of history, political science, psychology, sociology, geography, you name it.

    I'm not as conversant in African American studies, ethnic studies, etc., but I know that the same is so.  It's also so that, even at an Oberlin, the undergraduate major might not delve into the discipline in this way but might be more about content.  It's at the grad level that more is taught about process in a discipline.

    All that said, the (employment) world being what it is, I recommend -- and most majors take -- these as double majors.  Then, they often can increase employment opportunities.  Also keep in mind that few courses in any field are entirely populated by majors; most students in these and other courses are minors or taking electives.

    Parent

    At least in history (none / 0) (#101)
    by kenosharick on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 04:25:08 PM EST
    (can't speak to others) you have it exactly backwards. Undergrad is more content oriented, while grad school is much more about the theory and methodology- how to actually be a historian.

    Parent
    Exactly. Most undergrads (none / 0) (#110)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 04:57:58 PM EST
    only want to learn how to do one sort of career.  Yet majors comprise about one-fourth of their courses.  So most courses have mostly students who are not interested in how to do what they're learning.  Makes for ye olde teaching challenge to get a lot of them really engaged in a topic.  

    Also, we really ought not waste trees.  So the first step in the methodology, in researching any topic is the one that we teach undergrads:  to learn what already has been done, i.e., the body of knowledge in the field, i.e., what is "known."  

    Then grad students' task is to find a new topic or a new approach to an already-done topic -- and, of course, to attempt to refute it to make olde historians hang their heads in shame and hang up their historical hats, slinking off to retirement.  

    Btw, kenosharick:  You stole my slogan, my bumper sticker for us:  Historians Do It Backwards. :-)

    Parent

    I love teachers :) (none / 0) (#116)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:06:21 PM EST
    Being a social studies academic is my dream and nightmare all wrapped together.

    Parent
    Ha. Grasshopper (none / 0) (#140)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 06:32:19 PM EST
    -- you are armed with the requisite knowledge (and fear?) to enter the classroom.

    Sigh, today on email, I'm still parsing the syllabus for students.  Even after I threatened an extra test -- on the syllabus.  To decipher difficult concepts such as "Read for this week," under Week 2.  So I have had several students wondering what to write about from Week 1.  Sigh.

    Parent

    I teach classes at a nature museum (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by BernieO on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 06:44:09 PM EST
    to kids from preschool through 4th grade. I taught a class on animal adaptation that was a required part of the 4th grade science curriculum for all our public schools for a full year. I thought that I would get flack since the class is basically about how evolution works but not once did anyone - kids, teachers or parents realize that. I even taught it a couple of times to groups of homeschooled kids with parents in attendance and they didn't object. In fact they loved the class. Clearly conservative Christians (and there are a lot here in the South) don't have a clue what evolutionary theory is.

    Parent
    Hey BernieO! (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 07:16:59 PM EST
    2009 - Darwin's 200th birthday!

    Public celebrations are all over - including great lecture series, etc.

    Parent

    You have to hand it to him (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by BernieO on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:10:45 PM EST
    How many people can still cause that much trouble 200 years after their birth?

    Parent
    I am not sure which one is more frightening (none / 0) (#170)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:45:31 AM EST
    Not knowing what evolution is or being against it.   Either way we see what happens when your information source is Rush.

    Parent
    One of my friends walked out because the torture (none / 0) (#73)
    by esmense on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:48:45 PM EST
    scenes, she thought, were gratuitous. She was offended by the use of torture for entertainment (in her view, it didn't make a point that could not have been made in another way, without the graphic exploitation).

    What did you think? I have to say that the more I hear the less I am inclined to run off and see the movie.

    Parent

    Those scenes weren't meant to be entertaining (none / 0) (#80)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 03:07:19 PM EST
    but, rather, brutal and instructive.  I do not feel that they were gratuitous.  Nevertheless, I could have done without some of them and I averted my eyes from time to time.    

    The maiming of children does, in fact, still occur in India, although I'm sure that vigorous attempts are made to stop it.    

    Parent

    Yes we are (none / 0) (#3)
    by SOS on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    concerned with other matters.

    Jon Number One. Restoring the proper function of government which is the creation/maintenance of civil society and the protection of the common man and his interests - public commons - from predators; the greedy, corporatists, aristocracy etc. (OSHA, FDA, EPA, FEMA etc etc)

    Without that we have nothing.

    I used to (none / 0) (#9)
    by SOS on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:13:33 PM EST
    be into sports. And I'm not anti-sports, but a point came though when I understood Sports Franchises aren't going to pay my bills.

    LOL

    I switched to following politics (none / 0) (#11)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:14:59 PM EST
    because politics is more competitive, and the stakes are higher too.

    Parent
    Front-row seat every day. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 03:37:08 PM EST


    Parent
    So true. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Fabian on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:44:05 PM EST
    I find politics much more interesting.   And cheaper.

    Parent
    Are Any Women Invited ... (none / 0) (#20)
    by santarita on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:30:32 PM EST
    to the White House Super Bowl Party?  Or is that stag bi-partisan event?

    I know of at least one (none / 0) (#26)
    by jedimom on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:34:59 PM EST
    Amy Klobuchar D MN is invited

    Parent
    Good... (none / 0) (#48)
    by santarita on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:02:14 PM EST
    I love sports and I may even watch the coin-flip tomorrow for the first time in 8 years.

    Parent
    She is the daughter of (none / 0) (#70)
    by DFLer on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:42:06 PM EST
    Jim Klobachar, long time columnist and sports (among other topics) writer for Mpls Trib.

    Parent
    Pentagon Budget Cuts.foreclosures (none / 0) (#28)
    by jedimom on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:37:16 PM EST
    well Word on the Street is Obama told Pentagon to cut 11% of the budget....

    still NADA specific on housing from Team Obama, but the GOP put forward a plan to insure 4% fixed morts..and as it gets worse now there are shootings as they try to foreclose on people (NM)

    warning both links go to Fox..

    There were (none / 0) (#105)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 04:50:54 PM EST
    incidents of violent resistance to foreclosures during the depression.

    Just an idle response.


    Parent

    There Were Threats of Violence and... (none / 0) (#108)
    by santarita on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 04:55:10 PM EST
    acts of violence in the 1980's in the midwestern farm country.

    Parent
    So it looks like Gregg will get Commerce. (none / 0) (#42)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:51:38 PM EST
    4 Republicans in the cabinet now. It's still better then when I though we would get Hagel at Defense and Lugar at State. But not by much.

    The U.S. Senate (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:59:54 PM EST
    is the biggest impediment to progress in America. Getting rid of Gregg and getting to 60 is worth the cost IMO. Even replacing him with an ancient, placeholder, liberal Republican would be fine with me. Hodes walks in as the frontrunner in '10.

    Parent
    But on most of major issues where 60 (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:05:07 PM EST
    is needed, you can bet Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Pryor etc. will act just as the 11 or so Blue Dogs who voted against the stimulus.

    Our magic number is likely cloer to 65 then 60.

    Parent

    65 would be better than 60 (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:11:59 PM EST
    but 60 is certainly meaningful. I think that with a popular President, getting the whole party (as represented in the Senate) on board shouldn't be too difficult.

    People may bellyache for their own programs and even vote against final passage, but they can be gotten to vote for cloture, which is the important vote.

    Parent

    And I would be thinking very seriously (none / 0) (#56)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:15:14 PM EST
    about trying to pack the Supreme Court. No, I'm not kidding.

    Parent
    You mean FDR style? (none / 0) (#57)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:16:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:17:48 PM EST
    The Supreme Court is everything.

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#60)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:19:35 PM EST
    backatcha.  Or almost everything.  But I don't see how the current negotiating ability of the Dems would suggest that this group can make a go of it, when FDR could not.  

    Parent
    Who is likely to retire soon? (none / 0) (#63)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:21:21 PM EST
    Stevens, I assume. Anyone else?

    Parent
    I think it's probably impossible (none / 0) (#64)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:22:00 PM EST
    But the slim chance that it might be possible is too tantalizing to pass up, especially giving the nature of Court's current membership.

    You can be sure that if the Republicans ever got to 60, they'd be thinking about it.

    Parent

    That didn't go over so well the first (none / 0) (#62)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:20:51 PM EST
    time. And if Obama could pull it off, so could a Repbulican down the line.

    Parent
    A risk worth taking IMO (none / 0) (#66)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:24:20 PM EST
    There's just too much at stake not to.

    Parent
    But there also is a stake (none / 0) (#75)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:53:21 PM EST
    in losing -- as it did for FDR, costing him some other programs.  You know that, of course.  And at least FDR did not attempt this, and have this setback, in his first term.  So are you thinking that this could be a good second-term try for Obama?  Or that it is worth the potential downside in a first term?

    And FDR's argument was that the Court then kept gutting his programs.  What is Obama's argument?

    Parent

    I would be discussing it (none / 0) (#77)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:58:01 PM EST
    with the Senate Democratic caucus.

    His justification: Unity Shtick ("this court is too partisan, we need to make it bigger so we can bring everyone together.")

    Parent

    It wouldn't work. If Congress tried to pass (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 03:07:05 PM EST
    a law creating a second co President because they aren't happy with Obama, the people would shoot it down. If Obama tried to get rid of 200 congress people because he felt "this many legislators creates gridlock" there would be blood in the streets. And if Obama tries to mess with the number of Justices on the court because he doesn't like their decisions, it would blow up in his face.

    Parent
    It would be risky and difficult, no question (none / 0) (#89)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 03:30:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Everything else aside, risky and difficult (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 03:32:52 PM EST
    are not things that Obama does. Safe and easy is more his speed.

    Parent
    Pretty slick transitioning to war (none / 0) (#122)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:11:39 PM EST
    with Afghanistan and maybe Pakistan, if you ask me. Obama's perfectly capable of moving quickly, in some areas.

    Parent
    I'm sorry (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:07:38 PM EST
    it's a perfectly ridiculous idea.  Can't imagine why you think it's even worth discussing.


    Parent
    Wouldn't have to be FDR style (none / 0) (#112)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:00:02 PM EST
    Remember he wanted an open number by appointing an additional justice any time a given justice reached age 70.

    Simply adding justices would do and that's not "packing" the court.

    The number nine is not sacred. At one point in the 19th century we had 10 justices.

    Adding two would do the trick.

    At the inaugural ceremony I thought Justice Stevens looked quite youthful and still has a strong steady voice.  A remarkable man.

    Parent

    Four? (none / 0) (#50)
    by daring grace on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:09:17 PM EST
    Gates, LaHood, and now Gregg...I'm missing one. Who's the fourth?

    Parent
    Shinseki. His National Security Advisor is (none / 0) (#54)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:14:30 PM EST
    also a Republican.

    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by daring grace on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:37:24 PM EST
    I can't believe I didn't remember him.

    His appointment was one I really liked:

    From the linked WaPo article:

    Shinseki was Army chief of staff when, during the run-up to the Iraq war, he publicly disputed the Bush administration's determination to invade with a relatively small force. To maintain the postwar peace in Iraq, Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2003, "something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" could be necessary. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reacted by telling reporters that the estimate "will prove to be high," and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz called it "way off the mark."

    When Shinseki retired that summer, neither Rumsfeld nor Wolfowitz attended his farewell ceremony.

    Three years later, Gen. John P. Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command and the main architect of U.S. military strategy in Iraq, told the same committee, "General Shinseki was right." And in January 2007, President Bush ordered tens of thousands of U.S. troops back into Iraq to stabilize and secure the country.

    Notably, Shinseki led the Army at the same time that Gen. James L. Jones, Obama's pick for national security adviser, commanded the Marines. Both questioned Wolfowitz's presumptions, before the war in Iraq commenced, about how the fighting would go, and they argued that the Pentagon was being too optimistic in its planning and should prepare thoroughly for worst-case scenarios.

    In a 12-page private letter he wrote to Rumsfeld in June 2003 just before stepping down as chief of staff, Shinseki said: "People are central to everything we do in the Army. Institutions don't transform, people do. Platforms and organizations don't defend the nation, people do. . . . Without people in the equation, readiness and transformation are little more than academic exercises." The letter was never publicly released; The Washington Post obtained a copy this August.

    Military leaders and veterans advocates hailed Obama's selection of Shinseki, describing the nominee as a soft-spoken, dynamic leader who is widely respected by rank-and-file service members past and present.

    Parent

    Yeh, I really liked it, too -- (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:55:37 PM EST
    after the shabby treatment that Shinseki got -- and that too many of our veterans are getting, and Shinseki has a record of having guts and speaking truths.  Good for the Obama administration on this one, and it would be interesting to know which of his staffers pushed this smart, good move.

    Parent
    When this first came up (none / 0) (#125)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:14:55 PM EST
    I remember reading that Obama has been a big Shinseki fan for quite a while and also actually spent some political energy on veterans' issues both in Illinois and in the U.S. Senate.  This one, I think, may actually be Obama's own idea.  Major points to him, as far as I'm concerned.


    Parent
    Could be. Shinseki's also Hawaiian (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:03:02 PM EST
    as I recall?

    Parent
    Shinseki only thinks he's a Republican (none / 0) (#124)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:13:02 PM EST
    And don't I remember reading that Gates actually isn't a Republican but has voted Democrat quite a bit?  He's a holdover from a Republican administration, but I think he's more of a non-ideological technocrat.

    At any rate, personally, I'm only counting actual Republican pols as Republicans.  I don't much care how appointees have voted in the privacy of the voting booth if they're eager to get with the program in a Democratic administration.

    I suspect we will find certified Demorats in this administration doing more things we dislike intensely (starting with Mr. O himself-- "faith-based initiative" my backside) as these household pet Republicans.


    Parent

    Much like Eisenhower (none / 0) (#155)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:04:49 PM EST
    as it seems that the military, so often overseas for one thing, have a different sort of view of politics.  I can see that; it might have been nice, in a way, to watch last year's campaign from afar rather than up-close and all too personal.

    Parent
    MICHAEL STEELE (none / 0) (#51)
    by blogname on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:10:32 PM EST
    I am sure there aren't too many Republicans hanging out around here, but I think Steele is a relevant conversation for liberals.  I think he was the best choice they could have made. Politics is about 40 percent symbol, 40 percent narrative and 20 percent substance.  So Steele is almost 1/2 the way to remaking the Republican brand.  I actually believe in having strong MULTIPLE parties -- but I'll settle for two. I think it's actually in the interst of liberals to have a multiple party system.  If that means keeping the GOP viable, then so be it.... A Black Progressive Law Professor Responds to News That Michael Steele Will Lead the GOP

    Steele Was A Good Choice for... (none / 0) (#55)
    by santarita on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:15:02 PM EST
    the Republicans.  Now they've done at least one smart thing in the past 8 years.

    Parent
    Separated at birth (none / 0) (#71)
    by DFLer on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:45:19 PM EST
    Michael Steele and Humpty-Hump (Digital Underground)

    Parent
    Isn't Michael Steele the guy (none / 0) (#127)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:19:05 PM EST
    who ran ads or had bumper stickers or something that highlighted the word "Democrat" when he ran for the Senate so he wouldn't look like a Republican?  I honestly don't know what to think of him.

    At any rate, there was a clip on one of the cable stations of his speech after he won that cut to a shot of the crowd, and about 1/3 of the people were applauding and happy, and the other 2/3 looked really, really, really cheesed off-- no applause, stony-faced.

    He's going to have his hands full if he tries to "tame" this bunch.  It took SIX ballots to elect him.


    Parent

    I wanted to Kill my Beagle Yesterday (none / 0) (#78)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 03:03:43 PM EST
    Last night I get home and take the dogs for a walk. It is 0 degrees.  We are in the woods/ dense park (Bell Isle), and all at once the leash comes off my beagle and a rabbit jumps in our path and like that he is gone (rabbit is beagle crack cocaine)   3 hours later I finally hear his little chain and coax him back in with my "emergency" beagle chicken jerky I always carry.  If my wife didn't love that dog so much....  Of course my other dog, the joy of my life, he stayed with me the whole time (off the leash).
    Last week I was up at a local park. A couple (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 03:10:59 PM EST
    lost their little dog in much the same way. It's dusk, cold as heck and started to snow. Also, I've seen coyotes around. So I'm walking through drifts, falling all over the place looking for some white dog in the middle of a snow storm at night. Eventually I find out the little bast#$@ was picked up by someone an hour back and has been sitting in a nice warm home waiting for the owners to pick him up.

    Parent
    3 hours?! (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 03:15:19 PM EST
    Your beagle nearly killed you!

    (Love the bunnies-are-"beagle crack cocaine" line.)

    Parent

    I swear to you!!!! (none / 0) (#85)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 03:23:46 PM EST
    They are great dogs though.  Great dogs in the house.  Will cuddle with you all day long.  Really sweat.  

    Once you are outfitted to walk the dog in the snow you can get through most weather okay.  Silk long underway is gods gift to those of us in the cold weather country.  My fear was the dog going onto the iced river and breaking through (which happened last year in a shallow part- but in the spring).

    Parent

    I love beagles (none / 0) (#128)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:22:10 PM EST
    Once upon a time when I was a kid, a beagle I'd never seen before just walked into a game of "let's jump in piles of leaves" some neighbor kids and I were playing one fall and stayed and frolicked companionably with us all afternoon.  I totally fell in love with that dog, but then he left and I never saw him again.  But obviously, I've never forgotten him!

    Parent
    We had a beagle/German shepherd mix (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by BernieO on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 06:55:37 PM EST
    and he was great! More beagle in behavior but he definitely had a lot of shepherd in his looks. He once took off after a rabbit through tall grass. I could see him springing up high above the grass trying to see the rabbit. He looked like a dog in a cartoon. Luckily I had my whistle and he came back pretty quickly.

    He was extremely social, affectionate and protective. He hated water but once jumped into a pool to save my daughter because he thought she was in trouble (she was just horsing around with a friend). My husband always said the dog was the nicest member of our family - and no one ever disagreed. He is really missed around here.

    Parent

    What an adventure for the little guy :) (none / 0) (#86)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 03:28:43 PM EST
    Good friends of mine had an English Springer Spaniel that was about a year old and took her up to their cabin in Minnesota.  They got out of their truck one night, the dog saw a deer and took off after it.  She never came back, they called and called and walked the woods the next day.  They were heading back south the next day and figured that dog was gone forever.  The kids were in tears all the way home.

    About a week later they got a call from a guy in Canada who had found the dog.  She had made her way thirty miles north and then walked over the bridge through the border crossing into Canada (the guard remembered trying to catch her but failing) and was finally found by someone in the parking lot of the Boise Cascade plant.

    She was never let off a leash again.

    Parent

    That is amazing story (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 03:34:54 PM EST
    I am guessing it was only at about mile 28 that the dog realized there was something wrong.  Thank god he/ she didn't catch the deer.  I swift hoof to the head will end a dog quickly.  

    Parent
    You guys are really making me (none / 0) (#102)
    by Fabian on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 04:28:49 PM EST
    miss my dog.

    He was one smart dog.  Hated river ice - wouldn't go on it.  Would chase deer - my biggest fear was that he'd chase a deer right into the path of a car.  Always knew where home was.

    He got to be a right cunning hunter.  Knew how to stalk and rush.  Knew how to spring and pounce.  Could locate and kill rodents burrowing under the snow by scent and sound alone.  Knew how close he had to get to a squirrel to stand a chance of beating it to a tree.

    Good times, good times.

    Parent

    Pictures of my dogs (none / 0) (#109)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 04:56:45 PM EST
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/34923819@N05/


    Parent
    URL no worky, Sam (none / 0) (#129)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:23:38 PM EST
    Can you try it again?  I'd love to see the pix of your dogs.

    Parent
    Link to pictures that works (none / 0) (#132)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:29:25 PM EST
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/34923819@N05/

    I think this works

    Parent

    Woody is cute! (none / 0) (#135)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:46:17 PM EST
    Love the ears.  He looks rather alert.

    Parent
    Beautiful photos! (none / 0) (#163)
    by sallywally on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 10:15:01 PM EST
    and dogs! What camera do you use? I'm thinking of buying one of those megazoom digitals.

    Parent
    The camera cost 150 2 years ago (none / 0) (#167)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 07:33:57 AM EST
    If you are looking to take good click and shoot pictures and want a small picture you can pretty much get any 100 + camera.

    Parent
    Cats in snow (none / 0) (#130)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:25:33 PM EST
    One of my three goes just as nutty in fresh snow as dogs usually do-- romping and frolicking and jumping into and out of drifts, just racing around with his back humped and his tail waving wildly.  Oddly, he's the most timid of my cats, but something about snow makes him totally giddy.

    Anybody else have or ever heard of a cat who did this?

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#152)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 07:53:56 PM EST
    Beagles are loyal to their nose first, then snacks then their owner last.

    My best friend (now romping in the mountains of southern spain) is a 50/50 mix of beagle and rottweiler. What an amazing dog she is. The combo made her a sight dog (loyal to a degree) and a nose dog. She would always look at me to check and then back down nose to the ground and that was on the leash. Also hates water, the rain, but loves snow.

    She was the runt of the litter, very alpha and weighs about 38 lbs. Brown and black but with a beagle face and human big eyes. Super cute... Big snuggler, has to burrow under the covers at night, that is after her 30 minute howling/barking spree to warn everyone that she may be going to sleep but she still is on guard. Her big problem is separation anxiety. She freaks when alone. I have heard that some beagles have this as they are super pack dogs.

    If I had time, land and money I would create the breed Beguiler, Rotweagle or something like that. The mix takes the edge off the negatives of both Rotties and Beagles.

    Boy do I miss her. It is amazing how close you can get to a dog. I will visit her in a few weeks. I heard she has been pigging out a bit. Has the neighbors twirled around her paw.

    Parent

    On a lighter note (none / 0) (#93)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 03:38:18 PM EST
    has everyone seen the Barack Obama action figure?

    Good grief. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 04:04:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Eek. Those disembodied (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:04:02 PM EST
    and interchangeable hands are . . . freeky.  And that chin is so wrong; O does not have a square, John Wayne jaw.

    And for authenticity as well as posterity, that podium oughta have the campaign's presidential seal.  Vero Possumus!

    Parent

    My Thursday lunch buddies (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by sallywally on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 10:16:35 PM EST
    gave me one for my b-day. He can turn abound so his upper body is completely backwards! That's about as much action as he gets into.

    Parent
    And on a feathery-light note... (none / 0) (#161)
    by lobary on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:26:29 PM EST
    Here's the funniest thing I've seen this week. Why I hate facebook.

    So perfect.

    Parent

    He looks like saturday night (none / 0) (#168)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 07:36:29 AM EST
    Skit.  Of some white guy in black face (or the unfunny version of a minstrel show)

    Parent
    Is Gregg being chosen because... (none / 0) (#94)
    by EL seattle on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 03:50:42 PM EST
    ... he's the best choice for the position, or just because it will gain another dem senate seat?  Would he still be considered a republican, or will he change his party affiliation as part of the deal?

    Just wondering...  

    And would there be (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 04:07:48 PM EST
    an entertaining fight over the replacement choice of the governor?

    I can't take much more of this.

    And I quit smoking yesterday.  Again.

    Grrrrrr...

    Parent

    No guarentee that (none / 0) (#103)
    by kenosharick on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 04:29:53 PM EST
    the moderate Gov. of NH will pick a Dem.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#131)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:27:33 PM EST
    I read somewhere he had said that if he was called on to appoint a replacement, he'd be likely to be "fair" and appoint a Republican.  My guess is he'd split the diff and appoint a nice elderly nonpartisan place-holder-- unfortunately, that's the type most likely to vote agains cloture.


    Parent
    BTD, no worries for you. My Vols are (none / 0) (#107)
    by Teresa on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 04:53:16 PM EST
    falling apart. The freshman have forgotten how to shoot. Well, they can shoot, the ball just doesn't go in. Ever.

    Sympathies (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:09:49 PM EST
    Frustrating when nothing will fall.

    Parent
    Well we should be used to it (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by tnjen on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 06:48:50 PM EST
    ...with the men but Coach Pearl gave us so much dang hope and success! I hope Pearl's not having a 'midlife just got divorced and am going through the crises!' year. Pearl's a lot of fun and a great coach but I could definitely see him getting distracted if he's not careful.

    Parent
    Uh, take it from a campus (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 10:08:30 PM EST
    where Pearl used to be, you don't need that kind of "fun."  Has he married the student half his age -- his "stats girl" -- from the former campus yet?

    Parent
    Don't know about his stats (none / 0) (#165)
    by tnjen on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 11:21:56 PM EST
    ...girl. However, his divorce has been both public and messy here and the girl he's seeing now is about half his age. Is this the stats girl? He showed her and his new ginormous home off in the paper! His ex-wife has taken her revenge by opening a nail salon called Alimony's and is giving free manicures to those who are on alimony. lol.

    Hopefully, this side of Coach Pearl calms down or at the very least stays in check. We're not used to flamboyant off-court coaches here.


    Parent

    No, not the stats girl. This lady is (none / 0) (#166)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 01:16:26 AM EST
    37 and a widow. I think she has two or three kids.

    This is what I've read anyway.

    Parent

    Oh ok (none / 0) (#169)
    by tnjen on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:02:49 AM EST
    I'd never heard of the stats girl before. The new gf looked even younger than 37 in the photos KNS showed. I can't she's had three kids -- she looks tiny!

    Parent
    I was looking at a chart the national debt (none / 0) (#149)
    by BernieO on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 07:04:42 PM EST
    as a percentage of GDP from 1940 through the fifties. (I forget where or I would post a link.) The upward spike during the war was incredibly steep, but so was the decline after the war. Why does no one discuss how it was that we could have driven debt up so much during the thirties and forties yet had so much prosperity in the very next decade that we were able to embark on building the interstate highway system and spend money sending GI's to college?

    Having no unbombed competition helped. (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 07:29:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Pent-up demand helped, too (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:10:53 PM EST
    as after a decade and a half of little housing construction, little auto construction, little of just about anything but war production, during which time military and workers could save and save -- they were ready to spend and needed (as well as wanted) stuff.

    So all we have to do to replicate that now is have the economy and manufacturing sector entirely collapse until 2020, and then see what we have now that will be worn out then -- but then we will have to go to war for almost five years to have the money to buy stuff after 2025.  Or 2028, as WWII demobilization and adjustment of the economy took about three years -- so it actually had been almost 20 years by then of Depression and war and readjustment.

    I would rather that the Dems come up with Plan B.

    Parent

    Yes, I heard (none / 0) (#158)
    by JThomas on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:11:09 PM EST
    an economist on Charlie Rose last nite cite our debt to GDP ratio as about the only positive stat our there right now and opine that gives us  a little margin for moving that debt up...

    Parent
    counter-cyclical policies FTW (none / 0) (#160)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:24:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Saturday Open Thread | 169 comments (169 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment