home

Wednesday Open Thread

It already feels like Friday to me, this week has been so busy. I'm sure BTD, who is in depositions this week, feels the same way.

For those of you following the news, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Fahad Hashmi Pleads Guilty on Eve of Trial | When Whites Tell Latinos What To Think >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Cape Wind (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by CST on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:36:02 PM EST
    Looks like it's gonna happen after all.  Link

    "U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said today he was approving the nation's first offshore wind farm, the controversial Cape Wind project off of Cape Cod. "

    Glad this is finally happening.  Although it is incredibly massive.  It's gonna be quite the change.  But then again, so was the Eiffel tower.  That's called "progress".  At least this one doesn't come with a possible oil spill attached.

    Nice Start (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:48:34 PM EST
    Hope this winds up a model for the rest of our offshore energy plans...

    Parent
    From my experience seeing these (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Raskolnikov on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:57:40 PM EST
    Off the Eastern Coast of England, any complaints about them being an eye-sore are 100% wrong...they have a strange ethereal beauty to them, as if the hundreds of wind turbines are built into the sea itself.  This is good news, its nice to hear some.

    Parent
    Eye of the beholder I guess. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:12:24 PM EST
    I don't think anyone can be '100% wrong' or 100% right on subjective opinions about beauty. I think manmade objects severely detract from the beauty of natural environments. But I would still support some wind farms for environmental reasons.

    Parent
    hmmmm (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:19:40 PM EST
    I bet you are not a Christo fan.

    Parent
    No, I guess not. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:21:37 PM EST
    thought not (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:38:26 PM EST
    I am.  and when I drive through that huge wind farm outside LA that is exactly what it feels like.

    I think its stunningly beautiful.

    Parent

    Well, if it's LA, (none / 0) (#72)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:58:17 PM EST
    I guess I don't mind because there isn't much natural left there! What's difficult for me is the disturbance to pristine natural areas. To me, there is nothing more beautiful than the unaltered natural world. But I realize I'm in the weirdo minority on that one.

    Parent
    Dr M, (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:05:36 PM EST
    When he says "outside LA" he means many miles outside LA. In pristine countryside.

    Parent
    hmmmm (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:07:50 PM EST
    strip mine - wind farm

    strip mine - wind farm

    let me think . . .

    Parent

    hmmmm (none / 0) (#80)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:44:57 PM EST
    let me think . . .

    yes, that's why there are several comments reflecting that these are complicated, tough decisions.

    Parent

    yea (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:09:39 PM EST
    I think wind mills are beautiful too.  But it will certainly change the landscape drastically.  This project is massive in scale.  And it is off the coast of Nantucket - an Island where they won't even let you paint your house.

    I understand the complaints that it will change the landscape.  It will change, and it is currently a very beautiful landscape.  I just don't think that should trump the other much more important benefits.

    Parent

    yes, it's complicated (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:10:25 PM EST
    weighting the costs and benefits of these things. The Native Americans there object to it on spiritual grounds in reference to traditional hunting grounds. And it will drastically change the beauty of the area for many people. Tough decisions.

    Parent
    Mixed feelings about (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:39:33 PM EST
    this project, too.  

    Of course, I'm still wondering how it is that we're well into the 21st C and we've made enormous and wonderful "smaller, faster, cheaper" advances in electronics and communications with all the computer power -- truly 21st C stuff -- but then we turn around and look at the clunky, bulky, (visually) polluting way we power our civilization.

    There should be better ways by 2010 other than putting up a bunch of 40-storey wind machines, and that just to power a portion of one section of one state.  Long ago we should have begun fed funding a 21st C Project Apollo looking for revolutionary ways to deliver fairly cheap and nonpolluting energy.  But not much political courage in recent years from our side, and the other side insisted on starting two wars ...

    Parent

    75% of the power (none / 0) (#74)
    by CST on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:01:11 PM EST
    for Cape Cod.  True it's only "one section of one state", but it's not an insignificant amount.

    I do feel like if we really want to stop the expansion of drilling/mining than we have to be serious about making some sacrifices for alternatives.  And I would much rather visually pollute with towers than run the risk of more spills.

    Parent

    Right. That's why (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:16:48 PM EST
    I said I have mixed feelings about it.

    And, definitely, if it's still always a matter of comparing one type of polluting method vs another, it makes sense to go with the least destructive one.  If gigantic wind mills all over the place are not my ideal solution, even worse are the gigantic offshore oil derricks with their much greater potential for environmental damage.

    Parent

    Good points. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:04:16 PM EST
    Wind turbines and migratory birds (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:22:53 PM EST
    A couple of considerations:

    LINK: "Do Wind Turbines Kill Birds?". Yes, especially older models and if they're on a migration route like Altamont Pass in CA.

    LINK: "[New Model] Wind Turbine Has Switch To Move Clear Of Migrating Birds [and Bad Weather]".

    Parent

    It is (none / 0) (#64)
    by CST on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:30:06 PM EST
    and it is a very emotional issue for a lot of people (not just the N.A.) who have been in that area for a long time.  This is a massive project in an area that really doesn't have much development on land.  One of these windmills is going to be the tallest thing for miles in any direction, and there are going to be 130 of them.

    I don't see those concerns as invalid.  I just don't think they outweigh the benefits.

    Parent

    Let's rock (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:47:07 PM EST
    Regarding the AZ boycott (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:01:12 PM EST
    I was thinking about it, and really some municipalities and companies have no choice but to decline having their employees go there for meetings, conventions, etc., if for nothing else than practical reasons. Would you want to be the manager that gets the call in the middle of the night that your brown skinned employee is in jail in Scottsdale because he could not prove his citizenship?  

    It's just ridiculous on every level.

    on every level (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:05:16 PM EST
    The Dupnik rebellion: Pima's top cop says "no" to SB 1070

    TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) - Pima County's top lawman says he has no intention of enforcing Arizona's controversial crackdown on illegal immigration.  Sheriff Clarence Dupnik calls SB 1070 "racist," "disgusting," and "unnecessary."


    Parent
    Maybe he will be the test case (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:11:12 PM EST
    for the 'sue the cops for not enforcing' clause. I will contribute to the defense fund.

    Parent
    Ridiculous and deeply offensive (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Kimberley on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:20:01 PM EST
    But probable GOP-nominee Scott McInnis thinks it would be good to turn Colorado into a national pariah with it too, if he becomes governor:

    "I would do something very similar [to what Gov. Jan Brewer did in Arizona]. Finally some governor stood up and said 'We are stopping the retreat. No more retreat. Federal government if you are not going to do it, we are going to do it'... because [illegal immigration] has impacts to all the parties involved in the state of Arizona"

    Not that it would change my opinion of a blatantly racist and move like this one iota, but what legal leg does this genius think a non-border state has to stand on?

    I really loathe these people.

    Parent

    Colorado, Arizona, Alabama (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:26:25 PM EST
    I really want someone to ask Marco Rubio about it (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:35:32 PM EST
    here in FL.

    Parent
    Rubio's not down with this (none / 0) (#66)
    by Kimberley on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:35:12 PM EST
    According to the Palm Beach Post, Rubio's remarks:

    But, Rubio added, "I think that the law has potential unintended consequences and it's one of the reasons why I think immigration needs to be a federal issue, not a state one."

    More specifically, Rubio said, "Everyone is concerned with the prospect of the 'reasonable suspicion' provisions, where individuals can be pulled over because someone suspects that they may not be legal in this country. I think over time people will grow uncomfortable with that."

    On the prospect of suspects showing documentation to police to prove they are legal, Rubio said, "That's not really something that Americans are comfortable with, the notion of a police state."



    Parent
    He's only one of the candidates. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:02:55 PM EST
    Tim's dad was governor. Fob was the governor who stated that there was no way people came from monkees and then walked around the stage imitating a monkey turning into a human.

    Fob wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Neither is his son.

    Not that other candidates are any better.

    What is hilarious is that Alabama offers Spanish examinations because of lawsuits filed against the state. Those cases were settled more than 20 years ago. That won't change with a new governor.

    Parent

    Very short-sighted as well. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:43:33 PM EST
    Or perhaps Lawyer/Lobbiest/Liar Scooter McInnis forgot the size of the Latino voting block in Colorado.

    Parent
    I hope our Latino population (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Raskolnikov on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:02:06 PM EST
    Represents itself well in the census this year to truly show how idiotic this kind of legislation is.  Aren't projections something like 16-18%?

    Parent
    maybe higher (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:06:26 PM EST
    Mayor Bloomberg... (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:52:32 PM EST
    made a good point regarding tourism...would you go to AZ if leaving your passport at the hotel was a cageable offense?

    Then he said come to NY, we won't f*ck with ya because you're brown or have a funny accent:)

    Parent

    Perfect (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:49:39 PM EST
    Good for Bloomberg!

    Parent
    Imagine... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:12:57 PM EST
    ...going to a job interview and being asked if your Mother is a prostitute.

    I admire this young man's restraint in not reacting violently to such a chickesh*t question.

    Unreal... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:41:53 PM EST
    not the first time an NFL team has gone over the line in the interview process...they ask players all kinds of inappropriate sh*t.  This might be a new low though.

    I understand they invest big money and all...but common decency should still apply.

    Parent

    Helen Thomas Biased? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:53:37 PM EST
    Host Stuart Varney tried to trap Thomas by asking if she was "far left," a term that Bill O'Reilly often uses to imply some liberals are nuts. Without pause, Thomas proudly admitted that she was "as far as you can go" to the left.

    VARNEY: Some of the critics say that you are a liberal and you let your politics show, very very clearly, and that maybe you should not let your politics show when you're a White House correspondent.
    THOMAS: Why not? I'm a columnist; I'm an opinion columnist, and I have the right to show my opinion, and I am a liberal, indeed.
    VARNEY: Would you say you're on the far left?

    THOMAS: I would say I'm as far as you can go
    Varney went on to ask Thomas if she let her politics bled through during her time as a reporter for UPI. "I played it right down the middle. Nobody could accuse me of bias, but I didn't file out of the human race. I allowed myself to think, to care, to believe, as you do," said Thomas.

    rawstory

    What a great one she is...

    what a woman (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:03:15 PM EST
    at 5' or whatever she stands head and shoulders above the rest.  when she is gone who will take her place?

    what a brilliant answer.

    Parent

    Another great one (none / 0) (#45)
    by Spamlet on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:11:59 PM EST
    The late Sarah McClendon, with her wonderful newsletter.

    I recall seeing her on TV during the 1992 presidential campaign. I don't recall what the broadcast was (maybe Larry King?), or the exact quote, but what she said about George H. W. Bush and his minions was something like "These are bad people."

    Anybody else remember seeing that?

    Parent

    Spent the weekend at Univ Illinois (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:28:08 PM EST
    visiting my kid and hanging out with he and his friends. Such an incredibly wonderful time - boy, did I need that fix! Other than the fact that dorm rooms smell horrible, and that they are primarily noctural while I am primarily diurnal, it was so much fun. What wonderful and interesting kids. They took me to a million places and parties, and I am happily exhausted.

    Ruffian and CST - toured their engineering school and the labs the kids were working on. Engineering is really cool.

    Today is a full moon (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by ZtoA on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:41:16 PM EST
    In Scorpio no less. Lots of raw nerves - lots of people calling others names. Family feuds are intensified. Full moons affect hospitals and police stations, and evidently the internet too.

    Y'know, I never really was sure (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:13:42 PM EST
    about the scientific discussion that suggests that men may be prone to the tides, too.

    Today, based on what we see here, I became persuaded.  Prone-to-the-tides Male Syndrome?

    Parent

    well, men have (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by ZtoA on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:20:15 PM EST
    blood - the water element which the full moon supposedly influences. And men also participate in populating hospitals and police stations too.

    Yes! PMS for all !! Always helps to re-define to be more inclusive.  :)

    Parent

    Digby On Fire... (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:46:25 PM EST
    Peter Peterson and Robert Rubin are both enormously wealthy men. (They joked about dividing their lunch tab based on their net worth.) They are lecturing the country on the need to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits for retirees who have a tiny fraction of their wealth. Many of the victims of the cuts that they would push are people who are already struggling.

    These rich b@stards are telling people who work hard their whole lives that they have to "sacrifice" their meager public pension to refill the treasury that these same rich b@stards have looted --- and which they continue to refuse to help replenish, despite the fact they are still swallowing firehoses full of money. This, after the middle class in this country just suffered the biggest loss of wealth since the Great Depression as a result of these riverboat gamblers playing with the economy like it was their favorite Baccarat table in Monte Carlo. Chutzpah doesn't even begin to describe it. Sociopathy is more like it.
    If they can't do the right thing, the least they could do is slither off in to the the darkness to count their winnings. Instead, these arrogant jerks are out there lecturing everyone about "sacrifice" while they buy off every government official in town to make sure they aren't among those who have to heed that call.

    It's sick.

    digby


    guess (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:22:30 AM EST
    which party primary we are talking about here:

    Gregg Kravitz is a 29-year-old former stockbroker from Philadelphia, who is running for the Pennsylvania statehouse. He claims to be a bisexual.

    His opponent in the XXXXX primary, incumbent Babette Josephs, says Kravitz is lying about who he sleeps with in order to curry favor with gay voters. Josephs claims she met a woman at a fundraiser who identified herself as Kravitz's girlfriend. "I outed him as a straight person," Josephs announced.

    "I do have a girlfriend," Kravitz conceded in an interview with The Daily Caller, "but I am a bisexual man,



    I am guessing Dem (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:40:43 PM EST
    because he admits to being bi. Repubs just get married to socialites and hope it quells all the gossip.

    Parent
    Ah, A True Politician (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:05:45 PM EST
    F'ing everyone.

    Parent
    The press and Obama (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:13:39 PM EST
    Really don't get along.

    Really.   From Politico:

    "One of the enduring story lines of Barack Obama's presidency, dating back to the earliest days of his candidacy, is that the press loves him.

    "Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me," Obama joked last year at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner.

    But even then, only four months into his presidency, the joke fell flat. Now, a year later, with another correspondents' dinner Saturday night likely to generate the familiar criticism of the press's cozy relationship with power, the reality is even more at odds with the public perception.

    Obama and the media actually have a surprisingly hostile relationship -- as contentious on a day-to-day basis as any between press and president in the past decade, reporters who cover the White House say.

    Reporters say the White House is thin-skinned, controlling, eager to go over their heads and stingy with even basic information. All White Houses try to control the message. But this White House has pledged to be more open than its predecessors, and reporters feel it doesn't live up to that pledge in several key areas:

    -- Day-to-day interaction with Obama is almost nonexistent, and he talks to the press corps far less often than Bill Clinton or even George W. Bush did. Clinton took questions nearly every weekday, on average. Obama barely does it once a week.

    -- The ferocity of pushback is intense. A routine press query can draw a string of vitriolic e-mails. A negative story can draw a profane high-decibel phone call or worse. Some reporters feel like they've been frozen out after crossing the White House.

    -- Except toward a few reporters, press secretary Robert Gibbs can be distant and difficult to reach -- even though his job is to be one of the main conduits from president to press. "It's an odd White House where it's easier to get the White House chief of staff on the phone than the White House press secretary," one top reporter said.

    -- And at the very moment many reporters feel shut out, one paper -- The New York Times -- enjoys a favoritism from Obama and his staff that makes competitors fume, with gift-wrapped scoops and loads of presidential face time.

    "They seem to want to close the book on the highly secretive years of the Bush administration. However, in their relationship with the press, I think they're doing what they think succeeded in helping Obama get elected," said The New Yorker's George Packer."

    Isn't that an oxymoron? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:42:59 PM EST
    Really.   From Politico:

    May be perfectly true but a huge grain of salt is in order.

    Parent

    I like this part (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:51:37 PM EST
     
    Day-to-day interaction with Obama is almost nonexistent, and he talks to the press corps far less often than Bill Clinton or even George W. Bush did. Clinton took questions nearly every weekday, on average. Obama barely does it once a week.

    honest to god.  why on earth would he do that?
    why would he be even the slightest bit inclined to talk to the press corpse?

    Parent

    Yes - look how much good (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:54:42 PM EST
    talking to the press did Bill Clinton!

    Maybe if the WH press corps left the briefing room once in a while and actually went looking for stories they would regain some respect.

    Parent

    More.. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:12:27 PM EST
    And this attitude, many believe, starts with the man at the top. Obama rarely lets a chance go by to make a critical or sarcastic comment about the press, its superficiality or its short-term mentality. He also hasn't done a full-blown news conference for 10 months.

    OMG Obama critical of the press....  Does that mean that he shares a view that most commenters at TL enjoy?  

    Considering that there is only one member of the press who asks tough questions, this all seems rather self serving drivel from Gerstein...

    Cooper was matter of fact when asked about her run-ins with the White House. "We cover the White House. Sometimes they like what we do. Sometimes they don't. That's just the way it is," she said, declining to elaborate.
    lol.... looks like Helene Cooper is not playing ball with Gerstein's WATB winging...

    lol

    Parent

    I'll have to read Daily Howler this week (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:09:02 PM EST
    I'm sure this will get him all spun up!

    Parent
    To bring it around full circle (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:15:33 PM EST
    Why do a press conference when you can get your message out without attribution through Politico?

    Parent
    Tradition? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:32:52 PM EST
    For people like me, otherwise prone to give the Obama admin the benefit of the doubt, who may agree with much of the admin's attitude about the MSM but who nevertheless want to see the prez out there doing battle a little more often.

    I miss those prime time pressers, and Obama did well in his first few, even if I thought he called on far too many of his media detractors.

    Parent

    Hey (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 08:10:51 AM EST
    BTD links to Politico occassionally.  What's the big deal?  I mean, they aren't any sleazier than when people link to Olbermann or Maddow or what Bill Maher says.

    Actually I found the article funny because I thought it wad a way for the press to say they were being tough on Obama because they have a contentious relationship.  We all know that isn't true - the press still wants to be with the Kool Kidz, even if they aren't so kool anymore.

    Parent

    More From Your Pal Gerstein (3.00 / 2) (#6)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:42:10 PM EST
    What if Bush had done that?

    When the Obama administration moved in recent weeks to isolate and disparage Fox News as a wing of the Republican Party, there were few immediate howls of outrage -- even from Fox's fellow journalists in the media.

    Press defenders and First Amendment advocates who jumped on the Bush administration for using military analysts to shape war coverage reacted with a yawn to the White House's announcement that it had deemed Fox to be not a "legitimate news organization."

    "Had I said about MSNBC what the Obama White House said about Fox, the media uproar would still be going on," said Ari Fleischer, who served as Bush's press secretary until 2003. "I instinctively would have known ... the media would have leapt to their feet to defend them. I'm shocked it's not happening now."

    One press veteran agreed. "If George Bush had taken on MSNBC, what would have happened?" said Phil Bronstein, editor-at-large of the San Francisco Chronicle. "That's one place you can point to a real difference in how I'd imagine Bush would be treated.

    "

    Gerstein is one heck of a BushCo apologist, imo.. Oh, right, like you he is just trying to be fair and balanced... lol

    Thanks for the predictable propaganda, (wetdream) from you, jbiindc...

    Parent

    LOL is Right (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:23:53 PM EST
    Certainly you are sneaky...  wonder what your other screen name is?

    Parent
    you know what they say (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:27:45 PM EST
    about imitation being the highest form of flattery.
    Im jealous.  I want a stalker.


    Parent
    Capt Morgan? (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:33:42 PM EST
    Capt Beefheart (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:39:33 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Are You A Fan Of His Artwork, Too? (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:45:13 PM EST
    that a great site (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:51:30 PM EST
    BTW

    Parent
    I am an fanboy (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:51:01 PM EST
    of HIM.  in his magnificent entirety.  have been since I first heard that amazing almost unearthly voice under the influence of some form of hallucinogen in the early 70s.

    Parent
    May Doc play his (none / 0) (#120)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 02:13:34 PM EST
    "opaque melodies" at the Radar Station forever..

    Big fan of his here, as well.

    And remember, a carrot is as close as a rabbit gets to a diamond..

    Parent

    excellent (none / 0) (#121)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 02:16:26 PM EST
    I am always surprised where Beefheart fans pop up.


    Parent
    Or when they pop (none / 0) (#122)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 02:37:42 PM EST
    up at all :)

    Coincidentally, I was just watching the video of his first appearance on Letterman the other night. What a character (for lack of a better word)

    I have to give Letterman props for those days when he used to take a chance on the odd off-beat quest or two. I think those days are pretty much over now.

    Parent

    you know (none / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 02:56:36 PM EST
    I am often surprised.  he seems to be getting more and more popular.  which makes total sense actually since he was literally years ahead of his time.

    I am forced by my coworkers to be exposed to lots of new music.  three of the four people in this pod are professional musicians.  I am constantly amazed how much is taken (stolen) from Zappa and Don and John Cage and on and on.  

    the other day at lunch one was going on about this amazing "new" technique some current band was doing that involved placing sticks and rocks and corks and whatever else in between piano strings the alter the sound.  
    when we got back to work I played some John Cage prepared piano from the 1938

    Parent

    Stolen? (none / 0) (#124)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 03:11:42 PM EST
     I am constantly amazed how much is taken (stolen) from Zappa and Don and John Cage and on and on.

    You can't steal music, imo. That is the fiction perpetuated by those with little talent, or those who are making a lot of money off of their or someone else's music.

    Beethoven, Zappa, and Cage would be honored musicians by "stealing" their music. Imagine being a lesser known composer and hearing your melody as a theme in a Beethoven sonata. What a compliment that would be...

    Music and art evolve, new ideas can radically influence whole generation of creative people.

    Parent

    I dont have a problem with new (none / 0) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 03:19:54 PM EST
    new musicians using old techniques.  but dont act like the are new just because your fans have no sense of music history.

    Cage is said to have gotten the technique from Satie and although I cant say for sure it was probably Cage who said that.  all music is stolen.  but if you are going to stand of someone like Cages shoulders at least for the sake of music history make some effort to let your fans know where it came from.


    Parent

    More "mystique" (none / 0) (#128)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 03:25:02 PM EST
    and more sales if you can get a buzz going that it's all completely "original".

    That's one aspect of it.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:25:35 PM EST
    So what..  many musicians do not even know that what they wrote, or improvised, was dependent on earlier musicians.

    Many of those, usually the more secure about their own ability to create, would love to know that what they are doing relates to so and so from such and such a date..

    some who are insecure, tend to be more defensive. Same goes for critics... lol

    Parent

    I actually think (none / 0) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:31:58 PM EST
    that

    many musicians do not even know that what they wrote, or improvised, was dependent on earlier musicians.

    is a little sad if true.  if nothing else.  


    Parent

    Why Sad? (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:47:13 PM EST
    I would rather listen to a player who is naturally gifted, yet naive, than the more common experience of a professor who bores me to tears.

    For some, history is in their DNA.

    What is sad is when you cannot leave, for whatever reason, and the music is bothering you.

    Historical knowledge is a fairly recent ideal, well recent depending what your timeline is.. It was not until the mid to late 19th century (post industrial revolution) that people started thinking that they had to preserve stuff.

    Musicians played, and that is who you knew. When they died, their music was lost.

    Mozart and Beethoven did not know of Bach until later in their lives, although their music depended on developments handed down from the baroque.

    Bach's complete works were not compiled in a definitive edition until 1850, 100 years after his death, largely due to Mendelssohn's efforts, which culminated in the forming of the Bach-Gesellschaft, a society focused on preserving Bach's legacy.

    Parent

    I loved Beefhearts idea (none / 0) (#125)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 03:18:29 PM EST
    of singing the lyrics through the phone into the studio on one of the songs on Trout Mask.

    And using absolutely ANYTHING that made the right sound: from cardboard boxes to seashells to garden hoses..Proving the most indispensible instrument is the imagination.

    Then there's the story Zappa used to tell about Don's perverted uncle, who used to leave the bathroom door half open when their girlfriends were over and "talk to" his equipage: "Mmm..mmm..just look at that thing..just like a baby beefheart.."

    Parent

    a man after my own heart (none / 0) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 03:24:24 PM EST
    ever hear of Harry Partch?

    you might like it. he combined music dance and theater into a whole new art form.  I was lucky enough to see the Partch troop perform a couple of times.  it was one of the most amazing thing I have ever seen.

    In 1930 Partch  broke with Western European tradition and forged a new music based on a more primal, corporeal integration of the elements of speech with music, using principles of natural acoustic resonance (just intonation) and expanded melodic and harmonic possibilities.   He began to first adapt guitars and violas to play his music, and then began to build new instruments in a new microtonal tuning system.   He built over 25 instruments, plus numerous small hand instruments, and became a brilliant spokesman for his ideas.   Largely ignored by the standard musical institutions during his lifetime, he criticized concert traditions, the roles of the performer and composer, the role of music in society, the 12-tone equal-temperament scale and the concept of "pure" or abstract music.  To explain his philosophical and intonational  ideas, he wrote a treatise, Genesis of a Music, which has served as a primary source of information and inspiration to many musicians for the last half century.


    Parent
    I had a friend (none / 0) (#130)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 03:28:46 PM EST
    who used to rave about him years ago, but I'd forgotten about it till now. Im going to give him a listen, for sure.

    Parent
    it can be (none / 0) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 03:35:29 PM EST
    an acquired taste.  it wont sound like anything you have ever heard guaranteed.

    this is one of my favorites

    Partch- Castor & Pollux

    Parent

    Sneaky's account has been zapped (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:30:35 PM EST
    it's another frequent TL commenter, I won't post the name, but I know who it is.

    You may only post under one name here. Thanks.

    Parent

    well, phooey. so much for jeffingeorga, (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:51:47 PM EST
    jeffinmicronesia, and jeffinwhatevertheheck-the-name-of-the-planet-was-in-Avatar.

    Parent
    Maybe it's sher (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:08:33 PM EST
    since she gave the attack on you a 5.

    Parent
    More likely (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Spamlet on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:14:35 PM EST
    that Sher thought she saw "squeaky" and reflexively gave the comment a 5 without even reading it.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:23:22 PM EST
    Many here seem to have "reflex" behavior here...  

    Parent
    RRBFS (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Spamlet on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:28:28 PM EST
    Restless radio-button-finger syndrome.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:44:04 PM EST
    Seems to me that the trained reflexes by many here go way beyond RRBFS.

    That is the most benign of all the reflexes encountered here, imo.

    I find it funny when some complain about "troll ratings" as if they mean anything other than they have been read, or at least noticed. A compliment, more than anything else.

    And, for whatever reason, no one seems to complain about "5" ratings that are RRBFS...  oh, well double standards are nothing new.

    Parent

    You Are Kidding, No? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:20:38 PM EST
    Obviously my new fan, has just registered with TL under the name sneaky...    

    My guess, going by sher's history of rating and comments here, is that sher fell for the mimic of my moniker, and believed s/he was rating one of my comments..

    Parent

    sher, are you now denying (3.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:01:46 PM EST
    -- with that 1 -- that you gave the comment a 5?

    You did.  For all to see.  Really, you are the most predictable (and boring) of all commenters here, but a real hoot in your own odd way.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#113)
    by daring grace on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 07:07:24 AM EST
    Sher's comments are usually pretty interesting--rare as they are.

    Perhaps that is so because she has artfully created a mystique among those who insist on periodically commenting on her ratings.

    I could see all the outraged expressions of angst about her ratings if ratings mattered here in a practical way (as in if ones made comments disappear).

    But since they're only meaningful as an expression of a rater's opinions of a comment, I find Sher's expanded position of importance around here kinda comic.

    Really. If no one commented on her ratings she would be this invisible opinionated phantom rather than this apparent source of so much influence, provoking as she does so much comment over the years.

    Parent

    Speaking only for myself, and knowing (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 09:50:55 AM EST
    that squeaky's nonsensical "you are a hypocrite" rejoinder is coming, I don't do much rating; it makes more sense to me to engage in an active way, via comments, so that there is no doubt what it is I disagree with or take issue with, or why I agree and support, the comments others are posting.  

    And that was my point to sher the other day: if you disagree so much that you are compelled to hand out the lowest rating possible - meant, as I understand it as a "troll" rating - why not engage?  Tell me why you are apparently offended at something I said about Obama - tell me why I was wrong to say it.  Give me some links, give me your perspective, some other way to look at it.  But just handing out the lowest ratings possible is the bloggy equivalent of sitting among a group of people engaged in conversation or debate and throwing a drink in the face of the person who says something you don't like - and never explaining why.  My focus is not really on what sher does with ratings, but why she does it and what she would say if only she would comment.

    Sher has given me more than a few 5's, generally on topics that aren't quite so political - and I appreciate that in doing so, I think she's saying that it isn't me she has issues with when she low-rates, it's what I'm writing.  Even with the "5" ratings, I would sometimes like to know what it was I said that resonated with her, what she could share of her own that would let me know her better, and perhaps give me some insight into why she takes issue via low ratings and not comments.  I feel this way about everyone who rates often but comments seldom.

    I get lurking; I know there are people who are more comfortable reading but not commenting, and I know that it can be intimidating to jump into a group and not know if you are going to be welcomed or jumped on.

    In the long run, ratings don't mean much, but there is meaning there that has more to do with what makes people tick - what ticks them off and what tickles them -  but I would rather get engagement than have to make assumptions about people that may be wrong.


    Parent

    how do you know (none / 0) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 09:14:42 AM EST
    its a she

    and I agree.  when comments are made they are clear and considered.   unlike my own.  which is probably why we have a good relationship.  I am like shers evil babbling twin who never rates and never shuts up.

    unfortunately today I have to work so the Professionally Offended will have to find another reason to exist today.

    "PO", thats not offensive is it.  god I hope not.

    Parent

    clearly (2.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:20:29 PM EST
    the group suffering from Primary Martyrdom Syndrome do not have a corner on the market for "ratings".

    despite all their best efforts.


    Parent

    Ah, yes, and I guess it's (5.00 / 7) (#54)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:57:21 PM EST
    just a coincidence that this imaginary syndrome you mention forms the acronym "PMS," huh?  Much more likely that you've been working on that one for a while now; that's sad, dude, even if it is revealing.

    Between the flaming-dog-poop that you throw into threads and call "comments" just to see if you can bait someone into reacting, and squeaky's petulant indignance that in the much bigger pond that is TL he is no longer the Big Fish, it's apparent that neither of you has enough to do.

    Pity that.

    Parent

    wow (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:00:00 PM EST
    what a coincidence.

    Parent
    btw (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:02:49 PM EST
    I love it when you wax philosophical in comments that are actually short enough to read.

    Parent
    BFS (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:22:13 PM EST
    Big Fish Syndrome?

    and squeaky's petulant indignance that in the much bigger pond that is TL he is no longer the Big Fish

    Well I guess that is some sort of compliment, because evidentially Anne emulates the "Big Fish", or something like that... and who knew, according to Anne, I was once the "Big Fish".

    Hilarious.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:39:49 PM EST
    you do have a stalker.  and I dont.  dammit.

    |-(

    Parent

    Well, you are the one who's always (none / 0) (#70)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:42:09 PM EST
    reminding us about your long tenure at TL, bemoaning the decline of TL since the refugees arrived, and whining just a little - more lately - about how things "used" to be in the good old days when there weren't all these cultists cluttering up the place.

    I have a feeling that TL's readership was considerably smaller before the run-up to the 2008 election, so it stands to reason that if you were here at the beginning, you were something of a big fish in a not-so-big pond.

    One thing...I'm sorry, it may be my and the world's ultimate loss, but I do not emulate you.

    Parent

    Oh, I See (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:50:33 PM EST
    Just speculating about BFS...

    In the "good old days" we had wingnuts to make fun of.

    And your silly Big Fish fantasy is touching...  

    I do not emulate you.
    But you do seem to have a thing for Big Fish, and since you think I was one, could be one, or may be one.... I think you must emulate me...

    lol

    Parent

    "PMS"? (4.33 / 6) (#73)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:00:22 PM EST
    "Primary Martyrdom Syndrome"?

    Nice.

    My 7th grader would like that one.  Well, ...

    ... if she appreciated sexist humor.

    Parent

    dunno (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:10:48 PM EST
    I think it has sort of a nice ring to it.

    and you probably wouldnt believe me it I told I was totally unaware of the correlation of acronyms so I wont bother.

    and besides I could care less what you or she thinks.
     

    Parent

    You're right - I don't believe you, (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:02:37 PM EST
    and apparently, I'm not the only one.  And the reason we don't believe you is because you have a pattern of homing in on just that exact thing you know will get things cranked up - you know, kind of like telling someone who described what she experienced with her cancer treatment that she had made a pathetic and ignorant comment, or telling someone who said his wife had died of cancer that you wondered if that was a truthful comment.

    This is not the first time you have displayed your misogyny, so you can can the "what, me?" act; if your intention was as innocent as you claim, you would apologize for being so clueless.  

    As for your declaration that no one who reads your lame comments gets to decide whether they are sexist or not: sorry, they absolutely do.  If you want to say whatever nonsense rolls across your brain screen without being willing to be accountable for it, I suggest you start talking to yourself.

    It is quite obvious you have no interest in what other people think; there's a name for people like you, but comment rules prohibit me from writing it.  
     

    Parent

    Riiight (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:06:03 PM EST
    if your intention was as innocent as you claim, you would apologize for being so clueless.

    Just like you would ever apologize for hypocrisy when under attack. Never... lol

     

    Parent

    have you noticed (3.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:12:54 PM EST
    its always the same vultures circling?
    always the same group "offended" by one thing or another.

    Parent
    Well (3.00 / 2) (#97)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:21:49 PM EST
    The indignant spells on the fainting couch are rather predictable, and the hypocrisy constant...  

    But I do think that even when morons sometimes are able to point out something, even if it is only beancounting...

    As much as I like your characterization of the faction of commenters here, who once named themselves after a particular type of cat, the fact that the acronym winds up being PMS, makes it sexist. And I do believe that it was unintended on your part.

    And as POed as you may be, I cannot imagine that you would want to be party to perpetuating sexist stereotypes...

    Parent

    Oh noooooooooooo ..... (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:56:15 PM EST
    Of course you were "unaware of the correlation of acronyms" ... of course it was a completely honest, inadvertent mistake.  Of course you think it has a nice ring to it.

    (snicker)

    and besides I could care less what you or she thinks.

    Really?  How many responses have you posted on this issue already?

    Parent

    So you won't use it again right? (none / 0) (#81)
    by hookfan on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:20:29 PM EST
    pfft (none / 0) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:23:32 PM EST
    why on earth would you think that.

    I can make up a dozen different acronyms for those letters.


    Parent

    Then do so (none / 0) (#83)
    by hookfan on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:29:10 PM EST
    The other is clearly sexist and offensive. If not then we'll see if moderators tolerance extends to sexist and offensive comments. Nice to have things clarified and what the limits are to insensitivity.

    Parent
    fyi (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:35:50 PM EST
    just because you think something is sexist and offensive doesnt mean it really is.


    Parent
    Again (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by hookfan on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:40:04 PM EST
    use something else or we'll see if moderators tolerance extends to it.

    Parent
    and dont tell me what to do (1.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:36:16 PM EST
    ever

    Parent
    Again (1.00 / 1) (#87)
    by hookfan on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:41:10 PM EST
    use something else or we will see if moderators tolerance extends to it.

    Parent
    ummm (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:44:12 PM EST
    How do you get your head that one?

    You get to tell hookfan to never to tell you what to do... isn't that telling hookfan what to do...

    Seems to me that you cannot expect someone to agree not to do to you what you are doing to them, no?

    Parent

    hmmm (none / 0) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:51:11 PM EST
    telling someone not to give you imperious orders is giving imperious orders.  

    interesting take.

    I see it differently.  in any case "hookfan" can do whatever it wants and see how effective it is.


    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:02:14 PM EST
    Considering that pointing out PMS was via attack, when it could have been a friendly pointing out your label wound up resulting in an inadvertent sexist anacronym, I can see why this has gotten so heated.

    As far as hookfan goes... not the best approach.  too much WATB.. further fanning the flames, imo.

    Parent

    you know something (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:09:52 PM EST
    I have absolutely no intention of never using three words that begin with those three letters just to humor that or other nutcases.

    fwiw it was completely innocent on my part.  as far as "PMS" goes.   but I find it hilarious that it was seemed to be the very first thing they thought of.

    sort of like yesterday when the same crowd was throwing ridiculous accusations around about my insensitivity to cancer patients because the disapproved of the wording of a comment about one.

    that was BS and so it this.  and Im sick of it.

    Parent

    Crocodile tears (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by shoephone on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 01:26:19 AM EST
    I bet you know (1.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 01:46:17 PM EST
    where you can shove those

    dontcha

    Parent

    I think you're the one (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 03:25:28 PM EST
    shedding fake tears over the injustice of having your innocence questioned, and I kind of doubt shoephone has any interest in being quite that intimate with you.

    If the "nutcases" were gay, and had a pattern of making not-so-thinly-veiled anti-gay comments, I find it hard to believe you would not (1) see it for the anti-gay prejudice it is and (2) be offended by it.

    And even if we were to buy your claims of innocence, the fact that you would find it "hilarious" to unintentionally strike blood - to upset people - tells me what your real feelings are - and they are very anti-woman.  You found it hilarious to upset me (and others) because you don't like me.  Someone with even a marginal level of maturity would be able to separate personal animosity and bad chemistry from the bigger picture or making fun of an entire gender with a middle-school level insult having to do with a woman's menstrual cycle.

    What that means is that I would never take a cheap shot at your sexuality just because I didn't like you; your sexuality and my gender were not choices, and the struggles that gays and women continue to have just to be treated as equals are not helped when those kinds of cheap shots are taken.

    Had you any understanding of that big picture, you would not have lashed out at people for being offended, or resolved to continue to offend if you so chose.

    If it had been the first time, you would have gotten the benefit of the doubt, but it's not, so you don't.  


    Parent

    it's not what i want (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by hookfan on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:06:51 PM EST
    but clarification of what the moderators will tolerate. They may agree with you. I find it offensive. Of course you could in the interest of sensitivity agree not too because others find it offensive, not because I'm right or you're right.
     I doubt acronyms that many Gays would find offensive, or Latinos, or African American would be acceptable. So I doubt using acronyms referring to females as a basis for your personal attack specialties would be acceptable either. But we can see if you want to push it.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by hookfan on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 09:30:41 AM EST
    its not an imperative but declarative. It's no different than saying "use the red car, or you'll run out of gas". However I don't expect you to understand or accept that-- doesn't fit with your pretend victim role.

    Parent
    dont flatter yourself pal (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 09:43:40 AM EST
    I aint hardly your victim.  and save your inane "declarations" for someone who gives a sh!t

    Parent
    squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 08:48:34 PM EST
    this is the kind of line that will get comments deleted.

    "Thanks for the predictable propaganda, (wetdream) from you, jbiindc... "

    That part of your comment is a personal insult and attack.

    Parent

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 10:10:31 PM EST
    Thanks for pointing that out. I will work on responding only to comments and not commenters..  

    Ultimately it is clearly a more effective approach, imo..  

    Parent

    Oh, it's all getting too predictable (4.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    here.

    But it is interesting to go to the story.  What is above is just the lede.  It is backed up by solid evidence (and less solid evidence, but looking at just the backed-up evidence is sufficient).  No press conference for 10 months is -- maybe a record?

    Of course, the media tend to be a grumbly sort, but I can believe that a team with Emmanuel on it, plus Gibbs, would not be a group friendly to the media.  And the story gives several instances that make it worth a read.

    Not that it necessarily will matter.  The media brought this on themselves by rolling over in the campaign.  And they will do it again.

    Parent

    that depends on what you mean by (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:03:49 PM EST
    "media"
    its hardly monolithic and there is a large contingent who are only waiting to ask to see his birth certificate.  

    Parent
    It's not what I mean. Did you (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:02:36 PM EST
    read the story pre-comment?  The media in question are the media discussed in the story.  Sigh.

    Parent
    and I disagree BTW (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    I think its beginning to get a bit less "predictable".

    unhappy for some not for others.


    Parent

    My, but sher must be a fan (3.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:11:33 PM EST
    of Rahm Emmanuel?  Or of Gibbs?  Or of no press conferences for almost a year?

    One always is just left to wonder what the inscrutable, incommunicable commenter means. :-)

    Parent

    Brought it on themselves in other ways too (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:19:12 PM EST
    If they would close off other areas of communication to the WH, like unattributed speaking to Politico and others, the WH would have to play ball with press conferences and other for-attribution media contacts.

    It is really up to them.

    Parent

    Pole Dancing: Dance or Not Dance (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:18:02 PM EST
    The gyrations of a pole dancer may be difficult to execute, but that does not make them art, a New York state tax appeals board has concluded in rejecting an administrative law judge's finding that the exotic dancing qualifies for a sales tax exemption.

    The panel overturned the finding by Administrative Law Judge Catherine M. Bennett that a "dramatic arts" exception to Tax Law §1105(f)(1) should apply to Night Moves' liability for some $129,000 in state sales taxes on cover charges and money dancers turned back to the club for the individual dances they performed for patrons in private. The tax bill covered 2002-05.

    Bennett based her decision in large part on the testimony from a University of Maryland dance expert, Judith Lynne Hanna, who submitted DVDs of pole dancing performances and also described what dancers and former dancers at Nite Moves told her about their routines.....

    Attorney Andrew McCullough, who represented Nite Moves before both the appeals board and Bennett, said he would file a notice of his intention to appeal the ruling to the Appellate Division, 3rd Department....

    McCullough, who lives in Midvale, Utah, said he got to know Nite Moves' general manager Stephen Dick while patronizing the club. ....

    McCullough, the chairman of Utah's Libertarian Party said he is running for governor of Utah this year.

    New York Law Journal

    I am with University of Maryland dance expert, Judith Lynne Hanna who should know what is dance and what is not dance..

    Pretty hilarious, imo, trying to nail down what is art and what is not, particularly when commerce is involved seems pretty dicey, imo. I hope that they win on appeal.

    Did you say governor... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:39:47 PM EST
    of Utah?  McCullough is screwed...maybe he'll stick around and run for gov of NY...I like this guy.

    NY State looking to tax anything and everything, $30 scratch-offs, and still no legal reefer of any sort...we got issues.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#110)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:32:22 PM EST
    The only chance he has in Utah, where he lives, is if he is pro-bigamy. And I doubt that would include multiple husbands..

    Parent